7 ms·

Very common for anyone who has ever spent time in academia. When I was still in grad school I noticed a trend in some major mathematical and CS journals where a

Very common for anyone who has ever spent time in academia. When I was still in grad school I noticed a trend in some major mathematical and CS journals where a lot of time it would be the same N people writing articles. This was driven home when my advisor told me "without such and such's name this paper has no chance of making it past review". Non-sense. However, for all the people that say "trust the science" this is the science you're working with. It's politics all the way down just like everything else. For example, if Knuth decided to post some utter garbage chances are it would accepted based on his name alone.

themitigating 4y ago
You trust science because it has the highest probability of being accurate. What's the alternative? Most people aren't capable of analysis scietific research to see if it's correct. What makes something political? If new research shows that X product is dangerous and republicans, who that company donates to, come out and disagree with the research they just made it political. Now, someone like you, can just say "This research is political" You've created a way to dismiss scientific research simply by disagreeing with it
- colordrops 4y ago
  You are completely misinterpreting the meaning of GP's comment. First, they are not talking about government politics, but rather interpersonal politics. Second, they are defending science, and saying that it shouldn't be dismissed for political reasons, rather than the opposite.
- mattwilsonn888 4y ago
  Jesus Christ, the point of science is to REMOVE trust - not be the least worst option. Science that cannot exist without trust is faith.
  - fsflover 4y ago
    https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts/ https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-t...
  - themitigating 4y ago
    You are confusing trust and faith. Science is perfect that's why it's the least worst option
    - mattwilsonn888 4y ago
      > Science is perfect Science is a process and it is never complete. You are confusing a process with the results of the process, which are by definition imperfect. What makes Science good is that it's results are fundamentally imperfect and tainted, and that it respects that. When you go around saying 'science is perfect' you disrespect its core principles.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  There's a lot of middle ground between blindly trusting all 'science' and blatantly disregarding everything that rubs you the wrong way. It's possible to both have a generally high amount of faith in 'the science' while still remaining critical of its flaws, or rather, the flaws of the system in which its conducted.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    How? If I'm critical of something what do I do? If there's a vaccine and the majority of people in that field say it's safe but you want me to be critical what do I do?
  - Test0129 4y ago
    I don't think this is the case. The point of science as one commenter pointed out is a lack of trust (or faith). Hence the need for pages and pages of sources, concerted efforts on reproducibility, etc. In certain fields reproducibility is extremely important and a single scientific article should be taken with extreme skepticism until it's reproduced several times. I think this is the thing that's often skipped. A single article being published in a journal is not a sign of changing times. If there's no attempts to reproduce it we have an idea of something, but no idea if it works (really). Often times this lack of reproducibility is associated with so-called corporate "science" (Phillip Morris, from another example I posted). I hesitate to use the word faith at all, even when describing the scientific process itself. Having faith in the process leads to (for lack of a better phrase) a failure to trust, but verify. IMO, it is one thing to approach scientific literature with a trusting demeanor and still walk through the proper processes to verify the results, and another thing entirely to literally take the author's word. Often times especially when big names are attached we aren't trusting-and-verifying we are simply taking their word. That's a problem that weakens the credibility of science. I don't want to come off as someone who disregards everything he doesn't like. However, I do approach science with great pessimism and have since graduate school. Not because I hate it, or something is wrong with the scientific method, but because approaching it pessimistically allowed me to write better work by forcing me to actually perform the method instead of p-hacking my way to a result.
    - 4y ago
raister 4y ago
First of all, Knuth would never publish something "garbage" because his reputation would be on the line for everyone to read (forever).
- Test0129 4y ago
  I mean it was an example I chose because the name recognition in HN. I would doubt Knuth would publish garbage. Then again, how would you know? If you've never been in academia it's understandable to think that way. But if you have, you realize the immense pressure, self-doubt, and scrutiny you'd have even making a bold, well researched, attempt to prove someone like knuth wrong even if it was obvious he was. I recall several instances in mathematics where this happened and it bordered on starting a war between mathematicians.
  - manholio 4y ago
    > I would doubt Knuth would publish garbage Rather, Knuth could publish some mediocre paper that would be instantly accepted by all the top journals, widely read, discussed and cited instead of more salient works on similar topics. That's the problem really, excellence is rare while mediocrity is aplenty and academia is a numbers game. The mediocres with prodigious output will get the cites, tenure, TAs, lab assistants and budgets to do research and perhaps stumble onto some other mediocre result, reinforcing the cycle.
- ptmcc 4y ago
  Your response perfectly illustrates the point OP was making
- oreally 4y ago
  Or he would never publish something "garbage" because people are convinced by his reputation that it will not be garbage. Emperor's new clothes, while the rest need to be whiter than white and all that. These things happen because people are blinded by titles in a complex world with complex people.
  - deleted 4y ago
KennyBlanken 4y ago
> For example, if Knuth decided to post some utter garbage chances are it would accepted based on his name alone. You mean like Elon Musk? When he came up with that giant box to extract kids from a cave with passages so narrow rescuers couldn't wear their air tanks on them, they had to push them ahead of themselves, reddit and HN and twitter were full of people defending him. There were even people defending him when he accused the rescue leader of being a pedo - simply because he was british and living in thailand. Or how about the CEO of Brave, who apparently is an expert in public health, viruses, vaccines, epidemiology, etc? Endlessly defended here on HN any time his name comes up.
- scifibestfi 4y ago
  How about Bill Gates, who apparently is an expert in public health, viruses, vaccines, epidemiology, etc? Smart people like Bill, Elon and the CEO of Brave are polymaths and can cross domains quite easily.
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    They can't. Musk is just a guy getting rich via insider trading. Gates is most likely using his foundation to push his interests.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    Apparently you haven't seen the news coverage of Elon's texts to CEOs and investors
mikk14 4y ago
"Trust the science" is a silly slogan and should be dismissed. But you should also remember that "science" doesn't guarantee that _every_ paper is good. No one can. "90% of everything is crap" is a law of the universe as solid as the second principle of thermodynamics. Science is a _process_ that is able to weed out the crap more efficiently than anything else we tried. Any big name can put out crap, true, but as soon as they do, there is an eager army of people who jumps at the opportunity of "proving X wrong". If the original paper was crap, that would be a pretty easy thing to do. Note that I said "more efficiently", not "efficiently" in general. There will always be an army of people "trusting the science" (the authority, really) and so it might take time for the crap to be weeded out. But it will eventually, because science is like evolution: if nothing can be built on top of the crap, it will be progressively abandoned, because it can't reproduce (pun intended).
- Test0129 4y ago
  > But you should also remember that "science" doesn't guarantee that _every_ paper is good. That's correct and I agree. Actual Science doesn't require trust. As you aptly pointed out it's excellent at weeding out crap most of the time. The issue is the academic politics involved in it make it harder to determine if the process is weakened. The problem of course comes when a major result was not reviewed appropriately and it becomes the standard until someone is brave enough to write another paper failing to reproduce it. That's the scary thing - even if someone is brave enough to write a paper saying its non-reproducible they still have to get through the review committee to have their voice heard. Sure, they could post to Arxiv or a blog if all else fails...but none of that will ever get picked up where it is needed most. > There will always be an army of people "trusting the science" (the authority, really) This is really the crux of it. It's appeal to authority. Even higher order thinking people (that is, those outside pop-sci nonsense) fall victim to this because it's human nature. The authority is also how mediocre work gets past reviewers by attaching a name to it.

themitigating 4y ago

You trust science because it has the highest probability of being accurate. What's the alternative? Most people aren't capable of analysis scietific research to see if it's correct. What makes something political? If new research shows that X product is dangerous and republicans, who that company donates to, come out and disagree with the research they just made it political. Now, someone like you, can just say "This research is political" You've created a way to dismiss scientific research simply by disagreeing with it

colordrops 4y ago
You are completely misinterpreting the meaning of GP's comment. First, they are not talking about government politics, but rather interpersonal politics. Second, they are defending science, and saying that it shouldn't be dismissed for political reasons, rather than the opposite.
mattwilsonn888 4y ago
Jesus Christ, the point of science is to REMOVE trust - not be the least worst option. Science that cannot exist without trust is faith.
- fsflover 4y ago
  https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts/ https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-t...
- themitigating 4y ago
  You are confusing trust and faith. Science is perfect that's why it's the least worst option
  - mattwilsonn888 4y ago
    > Science is perfect Science is a process and it is never complete. You are confusing a process with the results of the process, which are by definition imperfect. What makes Science good is that it's results are fundamentally imperfect and tainted, and that it respects that. When you go around saying 'science is perfect' you disrespect its core principles.
CodeSgt 4y ago
There's a lot of middle ground between blindly trusting all 'science' and blatantly disregarding everything that rubs you the wrong way. It's possible to both have a generally high amount of faith in 'the science' while still remaining critical of its flaws, or rather, the flaws of the system in which its conducted.
- themitigating 4y ago
  How? If I'm critical of something what do I do? If there's a vaccine and the majority of people in that field say it's safe but you want me to be critical what do I do?
- Test0129 4y ago
  I don't think this is the case. The point of science as one commenter pointed out is a lack of trust (or faith). Hence the need for pages and pages of sources, concerted efforts on reproducibility, etc. In certain fields reproducibility is extremely important and a single scientific article should be taken with extreme skepticism until it's reproduced several times. I think this is the thing that's often skipped. A single article being published in a journal is not a sign of changing times. If there's no attempts to reproduce it we have an idea of something, but no idea if it works (really). Often times this lack of reproducibility is associated with so-called corporate "science" (Phillip Morris, from another example I posted). I hesitate to use the word faith at all, even when describing the scientific process itself. Having faith in the process leads to (for lack of a better phrase) a failure to trust, but verify. IMO, it is one thing to approach scientific literature with a trusting demeanor and still walk through the proper processes to verify the results, and another thing entirely to literally take the author's word. Often times especially when big names are attached we aren't trusting-and-verifying we are simply taking their word. That's a problem that weakens the credibility of science. I don't want to come off as someone who disregards everything he doesn't like. However, I do approach science with great pessimism and have since graduate school. Not because I hate it, or something is wrong with the scientific method, but because approaching it pessimistically allowed me to write better work by forcing me to actually perform the method instead of p-hacking my way to a result.
  - 4y ago

raister 4y ago

First of all, Knuth would never publish something "garbage" because his reputation would be on the line for everyone to read (forever).

Test0129 4y ago
I mean it was an example I chose because the name recognition in HN. I would doubt Knuth would publish garbage. Then again, how would you know? If you've never been in academia it's understandable to think that way. But if you have, you realize the immense pressure, self-doubt, and scrutiny you'd have even making a bold, well researched, attempt to prove someone like knuth wrong even if it was obvious he was. I recall several instances in mathematics where this happened and it bordered on starting a war between mathematicians.
- manholio 4y ago
  > I would doubt Knuth would publish garbage Rather, Knuth could publish some mediocre paper that would be instantly accepted by all the top journals, widely read, discussed and cited instead of more salient works on similar topics. That's the problem really, excellence is rare while mediocrity is aplenty and academia is a numbers game. The mediocres with prodigious output will get the cites, tenure, TAs, lab assistants and budgets to do research and perhaps stumble onto some other mediocre result, reinforcing the cycle.
ptmcc 4y ago
Your response perfectly illustrates the point OP was making
oreally 4y ago
Or he would never publish something "garbage" because people are convinced by his reputation that it will not be garbage. Emperor's new clothes, while the rest need to be whiter than white and all that. These things happen because people are blinded by titles in a complex world with complex people.
- deleted 4y ago

KennyBlanken 4y ago

> For example, if Knuth decided to post some utter garbage chances are it would accepted based on his name alone. You mean like Elon Musk? When he came up with that giant box to extract kids from a cave with passages so narrow rescuers couldn't wear their air tanks on them, they had to push them ahead of themselves, reddit and HN and twitter were full of people defending him. There were even people defending him when he accused the rescue leader of being a pedo - simply because he was british and living in thailand. Or how about the CEO of Brave, who apparently is an expert in public health, viruses, vaccines, epidemiology, etc? Endlessly defended here on HN any time his name comes up.

scifibestfi 4y ago
How about Bill Gates, who apparently is an expert in public health, viruses, vaccines, epidemiology, etc? Smart people like Bill, Elon and the CEO of Brave are polymaths and can cross domains quite easily.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  They can't. Musk is just a guy getting rich via insider trading. Gates is most likely using his foundation to push his interests.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Apparently you haven't seen the news coverage of Elon's texts to CEOs and investors

mikk14 4y ago

"Trust the science" is a silly slogan and should be dismissed. But you should also remember that "science" doesn't guarantee that _every_ paper is good. No one can. "90% of everything is crap" is a law of the universe as solid as the second principle of thermodynamics. Science is a _process_ that is able to weed out the crap more efficiently than anything else we tried. Any big name can put out crap, true, but as soon as they do, there is an eager army of people who jumps at the opportunity of "proving X wrong". If the original paper was crap, that would be a pretty easy thing to do. Note that I said "more efficiently", not "efficiently" in general. There will always be an army of people "trusting the science" (the authority, really) and so it might take time for the crap to be weeded out. But it will eventually, because science is like evolution: if nothing can be built on top of the crap, it will be progressively abandoned, because it can't reproduce (pun intended).

Test0129 4y ago
> But you should also remember that "science" doesn't guarantee that _every_ paper is good. That's correct and I agree. Actual Science doesn't require trust. As you aptly pointed out it's excellent at weeding out crap most of the time. The issue is the academic politics involved in it make it harder to determine if the process is weakened. The problem of course comes when a major result was not reviewed appropriately and it becomes the standard until someone is brave enough to write another paper failing to reproduce it. That's the scary thing - even if someone is brave enough to write a paper saying its non-reproducible they still have to get through the review committee to have their voice heard. Sure, they could post to Arxiv or a blog if all else fails...but none of that will ever get picked up where it is needed most. > There will always be an army of people "trusting the science" (the authority, really) This is really the crux of it. It's appeal to authority. Even higher order thinking people (that is, those outside pop-sci nonsense) fall victim to this because it's human nature. The authority is also how mediocre work gets past reviewers by attaching a name to it.