6 ms·

Ok, I partially agree. Favourable studies getting to publication, and unfavourable ones getting left in the desk drawer is a thing. But the same thing can happ

Ok, I partially agree. Favourable studies getting to publication, and unfavourable ones getting left in the desk drawer is a thing. But the same thing can happen with surprising results vs boring results. It is why some argue for preregistration of studies [0]. There is more than one government in the world, and corporations are in competition with each other. I'm not convinced that they amount to a single funding source. That's not to say that there is a perfect plurality. Academics are also in competition with each other, and can make their name by demolishing a false consensus. They are also often motivated by things other than money, otherwise they would be quants or something. So there are balancing forces to those that would distort the truth. At this point we're both just describing, without much evidence, how we think the world works. I agree there is plenty of shady shit and bullshit science going on, it just doesn't make sense to me that all the bad actors would be super-competent and pulling in the same direction on everything. At least not to the extent that it amounts to something akin to mind control. Consider, there has been a hell of a lot of oil money poured into science funding, but the consensus has settled on "fossil fuels are heating up the planet". There examples where a powerful lobby has held back the tide for years (tobacco, for example), but we know about them because the truth reasserted itself. I'm not particularly familiar with HN moderation. I have expressed some reasonably controversial opinions in a calm and reasonable tone, and not been moderated. But perhaps my opinions are not among those you believe to be surpressed. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science)

verisimi 3y ago
I would argue for pre-registration of studies. Good call. And I would also argue for free access to all studies. > corporations are in competition with each other I don't think there's as much competition as you might think! Are Apple and Google competitors? Have you seen who their shareholders are? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) - 8.33% Blackrock Inc. - 6.58% State Street Corporation - 3.66% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/holders/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/holders/ Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) - 7.14% Blackrock Inc. - 6.23% State Street Corporation - 3.27% Meta? Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) - 8.18% Blackrock Inc. - 6.91% State Street Corporation - 3.93% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/holders https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/holders erm.. Amazon? Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) - 7.05% Blackrock Inc. - 5.92% State Street Corporation - 3.23% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders > Consider, there has been a hell of a lot of oil money poured into science funding, but the consensus has settled on "fossil fuels are heating up the planet". Ok - have you personally noticed anything at all? I have not. For example, I have been to the same beaches for years and there has been no change. Can you forests be mis-managed with the result that there are huge fires? Yes - this is a man-made crisis though. Can you remove trees and build in flood plains to make floods more severe? Yes, and again - man-made. Can the media make it seem that the world is burning up? Yes again - but this is just perception management - using alarming graphics and allocating large slots to whatever. On the other hand, I do see the control value of climate change. Everyone will willingly move to smart metering of water, electricity, etc though. This allows for the governance structure to exercise fine grained control over individuals.
- anonymous_sorry 3y ago
  > Ok - have you personally noticed anything at all? As it happens, yes I have. Summers where I am seem way hotter than when I was a kid 30 years ago. But to be honest, what an unreliable way to judge! Better to measure and analyse the data methodologically. Tracking sucks, but do you really think people need global heating to convince them to put data-sniffing smart devices in their homes? And what about the trillions in the oil industry? We've fought wars over the stuff, but now the oil lobby has been defeated or paid off because enough powerful people want to know when I make a coffee? It would be strangely comforting if our chaotic world could be explained by a grand conspiracy. It's too easy an explanation for me. It feels like religion. By the way, not sure if you're aware that Vanguard operates index funds. Those shares are owned by very many different investors, many of them with small holdings. I only know this because I'm one of them, so this may be the case for some of the other big hitters in those lists too. As far as I know they don't get actively involved in corporate strategy. They are passive funds with very low management fees.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > Better to measure and analyse the data methodologically. Have you? Or do you mean you trust the data provided? Do you recollect the climategate email, where historical data was "updated"? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/?sh=5e24854f27ba https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climateg... “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” > Tracking sucks, but do you really think people need global heating to convince them to put data-sniffing smart devices in their homes? Yes - to accept pervasive monitoring and control, you need a good reason. > Those shares are owned by very many different investors, many of them with small holdings. I only know this because I'm one of them, so this may be the case for some of the other big hitters in those lists too. AFAIK, you don't get to choose where and how they invest. And these funds are somewhat larger than the corporate strategy level. They would be more at international legislation level, no?
    - 3y ago

verisimi 3y ago

I would argue for pre-registration of studies. Good call. And I would also argue for free access to all studies. > corporations are in competition with each other I don't think there's as much competition as you might think! Are Apple and Google competitors? Have you seen who their shareholders are? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) - 8.33% Blackrock Inc. - 6.58% State Street Corporation - 3.66% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/holders/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/holders/ Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) - 7.14% Blackrock Inc. - 6.23% State Street Corporation - 3.27% Meta? Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) - 8.18% Blackrock Inc. - 6.91% State Street Corporation - 3.93% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/holders https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/holders erm.. Amazon? Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) - 7.05% Blackrock Inc. - 5.92% State Street Corporation - 3.23% https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders > Consider, there has been a hell of a lot of oil money poured into science funding, but the consensus has settled on "fossil fuels are heating up the planet". Ok - have you personally noticed anything at all? I have not. For example, I have been to the same beaches for years and there has been no change. Can you forests be mis-managed with the result that there are huge fires? Yes - this is a man-made crisis though. Can you remove trees and build in flood plains to make floods more severe? Yes, and again - man-made. Can the media make it seem that the world is burning up? Yes again - but this is just perception management - using alarming graphics and allocating large slots to whatever. On the other hand, I do see the control value of climate change. Everyone will willingly move to smart metering of water, electricity, etc though. This allows for the governance structure to exercise fine grained control over individuals.

anonymous_sorry 3y ago
> Ok - have you personally noticed anything at all? As it happens, yes I have. Summers where I am seem way hotter than when I was a kid 30 years ago. But to be honest, what an unreliable way to judge! Better to measure and analyse the data methodologically. Tracking sucks, but do you really think people need global heating to convince them to put data-sniffing smart devices in their homes? And what about the trillions in the oil industry? We've fought wars over the stuff, but now the oil lobby has been defeated or paid off because enough powerful people want to know when I make a coffee? It would be strangely comforting if our chaotic world could be explained by a grand conspiracy. It's too easy an explanation for me. It feels like religion. By the way, not sure if you're aware that Vanguard operates index funds. Those shares are owned by very many different investors, many of them with small holdings. I only know this because I'm one of them, so this may be the case for some of the other big hitters in those lists too. As far as I know they don't get actively involved in corporate strategy. They are passive funds with very low management fees.
- verisimi 3y ago
  > Better to measure and analyse the data methodologically. Have you? Or do you mean you trust the data provided? Do you recollect the climategate email, where historical data was "updated"? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/?sh=5e24854f27ba https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climateg... “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” > Tracking sucks, but do you really think people need global heating to convince them to put data-sniffing smart devices in their homes? Yes - to accept pervasive monitoring and control, you need a good reason. > Those shares are owned by very many different investors, many of them with small holdings. I only know this because I'm one of them, so this may be the case for some of the other big hitters in those lists too. AFAIK, you don't get to choose where and how they invest. And these funds are somewhat larger than the corporate strategy level. They would be more at international legislation level, no?
  - 3y ago