4 ms·

“I keep thinking we’re on the verge of figuring this out,” says John Vidale, a seismologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. “But I’m no

“I keep thinking we’re on the verge of figuring this out,” says John Vidale, a seismologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. “But I’m not sure.” I wish we saw a lot more of this and less of the "science tells us" stuff that seems to dominate reporting now

munchler 4y ago
> less of the "science tells us" stuff Such as? Seems to me that good science does tell us stuff, and also admits when it doesn't know.
- XorNot 4y ago
  The OP is complaining about mainstream science reporting, in comments on an article being posted by Nature - which is literally the absolute top of peer-reviewed journals. Which is to say, it suffers from the same fallacy as when people complain about Hacker News' collective opinion as though a collective anything with voluntary participation is going to be in anyway consistent.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    Nature the journal and nature science news articles are pretty different things though.
  - petschge 4y ago
    At least in my field the running joke is "it was published in Nature but it still might be right". Because Nature above all wants to be high impact. And you get that by publishing the controversial or unexpected findings. In other words the ones that are most likely to be wrong.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >Which is to say, it suffers from the same fallacy as when people complain about Hacker News' collective opinion as though a collective anything with voluntary participation is going to be in anyway consistent. It might not be consistent but even Ray Charles can tell you where the bell curve roughly centers for any given topic.
    - porkbeer 4y ago
      Yes, but we are a very selective audience, and often brilliantly forget we do not represent the views of the majority.
- Alupis 4y ago
  "Scientists say eating one or more eggs per day causes X, Y and Z" sometime later... "Scientists say eating one or more eggs per day cures X, Y and Z" sometime later... "Scientists say people who eat one or more eggs per day are more likely to exhibit A, B or C" What frequently occurs is one person or a group of people say or publish something, and then all the media broadcasts it like everyone is in complete agreement. In real science, there is very little complete agreement. Even things most of us assume are 100% true, do not always have unanimous consensus within the scientific community. Laymen might think that's a bad thing. But it's not... it's exactly how science is supposed to work. The problem is, people need to be told an absolute, but science can't do that for the most part. What even is a scientist? Is it anyone that works for a lab? What about people who graduated with "Science" in their degree title? Does that mean Computer Scientists are the fabled "Scientists"? How do we know? The word "Science" has become a sort of pseudo-religion these days. Nobody can disagree with "The Science". Which is quite an oxymoron in itself.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    I think there is a large distinction between an un-replicated statistical meta-analysis and 1st,2nd and 3rd laws thermodynamics for example. I'm not sure it makes sense to call the first one "science". I think, given how much we have benefited from actual science, we should hold the term in higher esteem. Let's not not allow it to become a magic word intended to convince others to believe everything one says.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      I agree with everything you said - with the minor nitpick that even well established scientific laws can be challenged, lose consensus, and be replaced or amended (Newtonian understandings of Gravity, for instance). That is pure science - accept something until better data comes along and changes the way we think about the topic. We lose people there though, unfortunately. People like to "know" something absolute, and the media does a horrible job of communicating disagreements or opposing data.
      - 4y ago
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  > Such as? Almost every news article that uses Betteridge's law of headlines. Usually, it's not the scientists fault and the linked articles are very clear of their reach and limits.
- kybernetyk 4y ago
  The problem is that normal people don't understand "science tells us" as "science currently tells us X but this could change any moment as more research is done". To them it's more like "science tells us X so X is true for now and forever". If it were up to me popular science reporting always would include that disclaimer.
kerpotgh 4y ago
[dead]

munchler 4y ago

> less of the "science tells us" stuff Such as? Seems to me that good science does tell us stuff, and also admits when it doesn't know.

XorNot 4y ago
The OP is complaining about mainstream science reporting, in comments on an article being posted by Nature - which is literally the absolute top of peer-reviewed journals. Which is to say, it suffers from the same fallacy as when people complain about Hacker News' collective opinion as though a collective anything with voluntary participation is going to be in anyway consistent.
- bawolff 4y ago
  Nature the journal and nature science news articles are pretty different things though.
- petschge 4y ago
  At least in my field the running joke is "it was published in Nature but it still might be right". Because Nature above all wants to be high impact. And you get that by publishing the controversial or unexpected findings. In other words the ones that are most likely to be wrong.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >Which is to say, it suffers from the same fallacy as when people complain about Hacker News' collective opinion as though a collective anything with voluntary participation is going to be in anyway consistent. It might not be consistent but even Ray Charles can tell you where the bell curve roughly centers for any given topic.
  - porkbeer 4y ago
    Yes, but we are a very selective audience, and often brilliantly forget we do not represent the views of the majority.
Alupis 4y ago
"Scientists say eating one or more eggs per day causes X, Y and Z" sometime later... "Scientists say eating one or more eggs per day cures X, Y and Z" sometime later... "Scientists say people who eat one or more eggs per day are more likely to exhibit A, B or C" What frequently occurs is one person or a group of people say or publish something, and then all the media broadcasts it like everyone is in complete agreement. In real science, there is very little complete agreement. Even things most of us assume are 100% true, do not always have unanimous consensus within the scientific community. Laymen might think that's a bad thing. But it's not... it's exactly how science is supposed to work. The problem is, people need to be told an absolute, but science can't do that for the most part. What even is a scientist? Is it anyone that works for a lab? What about people who graduated with "Science" in their degree title? Does that mean Computer Scientists are the fabled "Scientists"? How do we know? The word "Science" has become a sort of pseudo-religion these days. Nobody can disagree with "The Science". Which is quite an oxymoron in itself.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  I think there is a large distinction between an un-replicated statistical meta-analysis and 1st,2nd and 3rd laws thermodynamics for example. I'm not sure it makes sense to call the first one "science". I think, given how much we have benefited from actual science, we should hold the term in higher esteem. Let's not not allow it to become a magic word intended to convince others to believe everything one says.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    I agree with everything you said - with the minor nitpick that even well established scientific laws can be challenged, lose consensus, and be replaced or amended (Newtonian understandings of Gravity, for instance). That is pure science - accept something until better data comes along and changes the way we think about the topic. We lose people there though, unfortunately. People like to "know" something absolute, and the media does a horrible job of communicating disagreements or opposing data.
    - 4y ago
Karawebnetwork 4y ago
> Such as? Almost every news article that uses Betteridge's law of headlines. Usually, it's not the scientists fault and the linked articles are very clear of their reach and limits.
kybernetyk 4y ago
The problem is that normal people don't understand "science tells us" as "science currently tells us X but this could change any moment as more research is done". To them it's more like "science tells us X so X is true for now and forever". If it were up to me popular science reporting always would include that disclaimer.

kerpotgh 4y ago

[dead]