3 ms·

Care to elaborate on why you think it's optimal to have a non-zero amount of fake data supporting scientific claims?

tptacek 3y ago
Because the only way to get zero misconduct is to drastically reduce the amount of science that is done, probably by orders of magnitude. This is an old saw when talking about government waste: the optimal amount of waste isn't zero, because there are diminishing returns to pursuing waste, and at some point the losses you avoid by eliminating waste are swamped by the costs of eliminating it. It doesn't follow that waste and misconduct are good, only that when we talk about policy responses to scandals, we should consider the costs involved in avoiding those scandals, and whether it's rational to pay those costs. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
- Brusco_RF 3y ago
  I am somewhat mind-blown by that government waste adage. While I supposed that in some technical sense it could be true, I would like to have a blunt conversation with anyone who believes government waste is anywhere near parity with the costs of trying to eliminate government waste
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The logic of the statement, which is pretty hard to dispute, doesn't establish that the current amount of waste in any given program is or isn't optimal, only that the optimal level isn't zero.
  - pgodzin 3y ago
    No one is saying the current level of government waste is optimal and not worth the cost to eliminate. Just that if you have eliminated 99%, the extra 1% may not be worth it.
    - Brusco_RF 3y ago
      I'd like to cross that bridge when we get there :)
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    Completely agreed. The best solution to eliminate government waste is to eliminate the part of the government creating the waste.
taeric 3y ago
The usual framing is that the optimal amount of X is the point where it is just below the cost of preventing X. So, if it costs millions of dollars to pursue fraud, you would still be better with allowing thousands of dollars to go.

Because the only way to get zero misconduct is to drastically reduce the amount of science that is done, probably by orders of magnitude. This is an old saw when talking about government waste: the optimal amount of waste isn't zero, because there are diminishing returns to pursuing waste, and at some point the losses you avoid by eliminating waste are swamped by the costs of eliminating it. It doesn't follow that waste and misconduct are good, only that when we talk about policy responses to scandals, we should consider the costs involved in avoiding those scandals, and whether it's rational to pay those costs. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Brusco_RF 3y ago
I am somewhat mind-blown by that government waste adage. While I supposed that in some technical sense it could be true, I would like to have a blunt conversation with anyone who believes government waste is anywhere near parity with the costs of trying to eliminate government waste
- tptacek 3y ago
  The logic of the statement, which is pretty hard to dispute, doesn't establish that the current amount of waste in any given program is or isn't optimal, only that the optimal level isn't zero.
- pgodzin 3y ago
  No one is saying the current level of government waste is optimal and not worth the cost to eliminate. Just that if you have eliminated 99%, the extra 1% may not be worth it.
  - Brusco_RF 3y ago
    I'd like to cross that bridge when we get there :)
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Completely agreed. The best solution to eliminate government waste is to eliminate the part of the government creating the waste.

taeric 3y ago

The usual framing is that the optimal amount of X is the point where it is just below the cost of preventing X. So, if it costs millions of dollars to pursue fraud, you would still be better with allowing thousands of dollars to go.