5 ms·

I find it ironic that we have a reproducibility problem in many scientific disciplines, that we find that many notable scientists have been less than 100% hones

by efitz 3y ago

I find it ironic that we have a reproducibility problem in many scientific disciplines, that we find that many notable scientists have been less than 100% honest in their research, that peer review fails to catch many of these errors, and still there are many people running around saying stupid bumper sticker slogans like “trust the science” and “I believe in science” and “95% of scientists agree…” What we’ve learned is that scientists are human and they have all the human weaknesses and venality as any other group. The practice of science in the modern day (publish or perish, beg for grants, non-blind peer review, financial conflicts of interest, politically charged university atmosphere) is rife with incentives to predetermine desired outcomes rather than let the chips fall as they may. Individual scientists of course will fall all across the distribution of integrity. I think the scientific method is one of, if not the greatest gifts the minds of the Renaissance gave us. BUT I refuse to be browbeaten by priests in lab coats or their acolytes. If you cite scientific papers in front of me trying to make a political case for a course of action, I will use my own judgment, informed by he paper as well as other factors like motivations and so forth.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nerdponx 3y ago
It's not ironic. It's a reflection of the fact that "scientists" are not an homogeneous group, and we are currently living through a slow-moving revolution in which some scientists are, broadly, taking a stand against fraud and attempting to dismantle the power/incentive structures that make it possible to perpetuate. The system is imperfect, and the work is in progress. "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work therein, are part of this or that conspiracy to reduce your freedoms, mislead the public, etc. Or the related conspiracy theory that science broadly is bullshit and that the primary motivation of any scientific study is the continued justification of funding, rather than pursuit of knowledge. The fact that scientists can be wrong, some studies are faked or their results are overstated, etc. has little or nothing to do with it. > I refuse to be browbeaten by priests in lab coats or their acolytes. If you cite scientific papers in front of me trying to make a political case for a course of action, I will use my own judgment, informed by he paper as well as other factors like motivations and so forth. And this is exactly the kind of attitude that I described above. It's the ACAB approach applied to scientists, where it makes no sense if you look at what scientists actually do and care about. A huge number of scientists are persistently and actively fighting against the "priest in lab coat" archetype.
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  Do you work in science? Because since I have, I agree with some of the "conspiracy theories". I didn't before but as someone who'd always been fascinated with knowledge, research and human progress from a young age, I was thoroughly disappointed when I discovered the reality of it isn't as I had imagined in my almost religious belief in science. The reality was I found people who worked in it like a regular job. They were not driven by by a desire to further truth and expand human knowledge, but rather just like most other people they care about their salaries, funding, promotions, intrigues/political games, etc. The mistake is thinking there must be a conspiracy to make it true. In reality it's just human nature and group behavior. One might think some of the most critical thinkers work in science, and it can be true in some cases, but more often than not those are actually the ones that get filtered out. Ironically, you must not question too much if you're a researcher who wants to receive funding. The safest thing to do is research one of the latest hypes and have findings similar to what other groups find. Don't go against the current, that gets you in trouble.
- isaacremuant 3y ago
  > "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work therein, are part of this or that conspiracy to reduce your freedoms, mislead the public, etc. Or the related conspiracy theory that science broadly is bullshit and that the primary motivation of any scientific study is the continued justification of funding, rather than pursuit of knowledge Actually no. It's a purely anti science/authoritarian approach to avoid any dissent when politically convenient. Covid policies were the perfect example and labeling/censoring instead of debating (even other scientists like those on the great Barrington declaration) shows that it's not really about science but about control. Corruption is not a grand conspiracy but a natural thing that occurs in bureocratic institutions and, nonetheless, accusing and exposing corruption and inconsistency was a big no in anything related covid (lockdowns, mandates, censorship, etc). Freedoms WERE limited unconstitutionally and selectively but people would be telling you "my fredumbs, grandmakiller, conspiracy theorist" because they couldn't really argue except via way of appeals to authority and slogans such as trust the science. The science wasn't one and wasn't uniform, but you couldn't even compare "sciences". You only had to take it. Those of us who engage in science are not afraid to expose our results and hypothesis and don't need censorship.
jonhohle 3y ago
9x% of scientists agree has always struck me as profoundly stupid. Are these scientists in the same field? Has there been a Galilean discovery that is not widely accepted yet? Who surveyed a statistically significant portion of “scientists”? What credentials does one need to be considered in that population? Does a master of computer science have authority on biology, physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, or any other number of fields?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I've found that a good rule of thumb is to ignore anybody who is self-describing as "a scientist". If they self-describe as some specific kind of scientist then I'm more than willing to listen. If somebody says "as a biologist" or "as a geologist" or "as a whateverologist", that's fine. If they identify themselves in an even narrower way, that's even better. But if somebody says "as a scientist", just generic 'scientist', then they're trying to imply a very broad sort of expertise that almost certainly is not justified. They're basically saying "as an expert in everything..." Such people are usually safe to ignore.
  - dewey 3y ago
    Sounds like something that's usually based on context. To someone who's not a scientist "I'm a scientist" is most likely more helpful than "I'm a particle physicist". Same as you might say "I'm an engineer" to a non-technical person vs. "I'm a Go backend engineer" on a tech meetup.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      No, because the general public is comfortable with the words like 'physicist', 'chemist', 'biologist', 'geologist', etc. If a particle physicist is opining on particle physics to the general public, they'll self describe "as a particle physicist" or at the very least "as a physicist". They'll use the most precise term that is likely to be understood by the audience. Only if that person isn't a physicist at all will 'scientist' be the most precise expertise they can claim. The general public is comfortable with the word physicist, so there's no reason for a physicist to avoid identifying as such when discussing physics with the general public. On the other hand, a marine biologist who is opining on particle physics may self describe "as a scientist", because that's the most precise level of expertise they can claim without lying. Saying "as a biologist" when discussing particle physics wouldn't confer the desired credibility, so a less precise term is used. Conspicuous lack of precision is the tell: If people are discussing basketball and somebody says "as an athlete", it's safe to conclude they aren't a basketball player. They would have said "as a basketball player" if they were. If people are discussing motherhood and somebody says "as a parent", it's fairly safe to conclude they aren't a mother. If they were a mother, they'd say "as a mother" because that more precisely relates to the topic of motherhood. If somebody is opining on firefighting practices and says "as an emergency responder", they aren't a firefighter. They might be an EMT or a cop, but a firefighter would say "as a firefighter" when discussing firefighting. And finally, if a Go backend engineer claims his expertise to be "programmer" to a general audience, that's fine. But if he's saying "as an engineer" or "as a scientist" then he should probably be ignored. Yes, I've known people to do this, programmers calling themselves "scientist" because they have a CS degree, opining on bullshit unrelated to anything they ever studied.
isaacremuant 3y ago
> and still there are many people running around saying stupid bumper sticker slogans like “trust the science” and “I believe in science” and “95% of scientists agree That has all to do with authoritarianism and how in partisan politics and during the covid draconian policies push (in many different countries) any dissent or non agreement was treated as a terrible sin that HAD to be punished. Even nowadays, in HN, you'll get people repeating the mantra, downvoting and acting super obfuscated that someone dare point out that just because govs/tech/pharma/media sayd so, doesn't mean it's true, specially when we there's money and politics involved and that security or hygiene theater is nothing new.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Reminder that "peer review" is part of the scientific journal system, not part of the scientific process itself. Journals have it done to serve their own interests, to save on paper/printing expenses and maintain their prestige. Peer reviewer isn't replication (which is actually important to the scientific process.) Google n-grams for "peer review" and you'll see that nobody was talking about it before the 1960s.
linuxftw 3y ago
Peer review can't catch lies. It reviews your methodology and whether your findings are supported by your own data. If you outright falsify your data, peer review won't catch that. Replication catches lies. Many studies, even those relied on for medical products, don't get replicated by independent entities. It's safe to assume, any non-replicated study is an outright fabrication at this point.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  These frauds weren't caught by lack of replication, they were caught because statistical analysis of the reported data showed it to be implausible.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    It wasn't the data that the study produced, it was the data the study consumed (odometer readings from insurance companies). Obviously, that is independently verifiable. Also, this was only discovered AFTER numerous failed replication attempts.
  - pg_1234 3y ago
    Perhaps an earlier warning sign could have been the the author of: “Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules in Work and Life” [1] might just, you know ... break the rules in work ... [1] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/political-science/events/2021/may/careers-week-rebel-talent-why-it-pays-break-rules-work-and-life https://www.ucl.ac.uk/political-science/events/2021/may/care...
rcpt 3y ago
Yes, despite difficulty reproducing results in some fields, it still generally makes sense to trust scientific results. The scientific method is the best thing humanity has for establishing knowledge from empirical data. Now if you'd prefer to put your faith in religion, or some demagogue, that's fine. And you're free to go eat all the horse paste you want. But overall dismissal of science as "stupid" is just a flat out ridiculous take.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  "horse paste" -- too bad. You were doing so well up to there.
TheRealPomax 3y ago
One paper is no paper. Until it's been replicated, your study hasn't concluded yet.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Those who say "trust the science" in the typical way it seems to be meant are rarely people who understand what science is. They're merely virtue signalling fan boys and groupies trying to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime. Because that's why they say it. If the regime said "don't trust the science", they'd say that, but scientism happens to be the state religion.
beepbooptheory 3y ago
I firmly believe that guys like Dawkins/Harris/Tyson have done substantial harm to a certain kind of person's perception of the world. One can quite easily see the worldview they espouse, in the broadest sense, is compatible with the worst of human tendencies and ideologies. I find people can gain utterly monstrous views about fellow human beings through the superiority they earn for simply "believing in Science."
- vkou 3y ago
  > One can quite easily see the worldview they espouse, in the broadest sense, is compatible with the worst of human tendencies and ideologies. Could you name one or more major orthodox worldviews or institutions that are not, in practice, compatible with amplifying and perpetuating the worst of human tendencies and ideologies?
  - beepbooptheory 3y ago
    'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here.. and with it I am inclined to say 'no'. But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. But even if I concede to maybe a more charitable reading of your question, that any conceivable worldview could be compatible with facism or whatever, it doesn't mean that some can't be worse than others! And, IMO, this one is definitely on the more compatible side of the spectrum. But totally respect your opinion if you want argue about degrees here, because either way any given ideology is substantially determined and sustained from material conditions, social relations, etc, anyway; its always more a symptom than a problem itself.
    - vkou 3y ago
      > 'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here It's a necessary qualifier, because we're not talking about some niche five-person ideology or group that hasn't actually been tested by time. We need to talk about one that I've heard of, and can plausibly evaluate! > But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. No, it's a comment that most structures of thought and reasoning are not actually a guardrail that will protect you against poor behaviour, and that in itself, without specifics, it's a poor criticism to level against a type of thinking, or an idea. You can criticize the specifics of the problems of Dawkins, but it's a cheap, parting shot to just say 'Well, Dawkins is compatible with horrible things', without elaborating further. Almost everything is compatible with horrible things! It's a low-information criticism!
vkou 3y ago
There's a lot of wrong with your argument, but let's go down the list. 1. The optimal rate of fraud is not 0%, just like the optimal rate of shoplifting in a store is not 0%, and the optimal amount of crime in a society is not zero. Science, just like the grocery, and the street, has to operate on some degree of trust, and not non-stop big-brother gestapo police state surveillance. Just like a zero-crime society, a zero-scientific fraud society would have a lot of negative externalities that aren't accounted for by 'bring fraud down to zero' paperclip-maximizaiton. That's why it makes sense to talk about what can be done to reduce fraud, but makes no sense to throw yourself off a roof when an instance of it actually happens. It's a statistical inevitability. Look at the blast radius, pick up the pieces, have a conversation about what, if anything, could be done better next time. 2. If even one bit of dishonesty is enough to distrust a system, you shouldn't trust anything. But nobody actually thinks or operates in that kind of insane solipsism. You wouldn't get anything done. 3. What actually happens is that people from low-integrity fields (Politics, sponsored media, lobbying, organizational PR, internal corporate politics) are trying their fucking hardest to use that argument to bring public perception of everyone else down to their level. If they are blatantly lying half the time, and someone working in science blatantly lies, say, 0.5% of the time, and is blatantly wrong 5% of the time, and is mostly-right, but subtly wrong[0] the rest of it, that solipsist from #2 would look at it and conclude 'well, there's no difference'. He couldn't be more wrong, and I would like to gamble on loaded-dice games with anyone who disagrees with me on this point. 4. You shouldn't use a single paper, or two papers, or even fifteen papers as an arbiter of expert consensus. Papers disagree. Expert consensus is reached by looking at the whole body of a field. This requires extensive understanding of a field, which you're not going to get from clicking a few links over an afternoon. 5. You shouldn't use expert consensus as a definitive arbiter of truth. 6. But you sure as hell should defer to an expert, over your own judgement, about non-trivial technical matters. I don't care how smart you are and how many papers you read last week[1], I have serious doubts that you're going to be any good at performing, say, an open-heart surgery. There's a reason we leave it to the experts, even if what they know is wrong. [2] [3] [0] Almost all of our understanding of the world is at least subtly wrong. That's fine, though, many bits of that understanding are, while subtly wrong, useful. [1] It's a different story if you read ten years worth of papers. And not just the ones that support your biases. And also spent five to ten years working with, and for experts in the field, making a lot of mistakes along the way. You don't get mastery of a subject by reading, you do it by doing, making mistakes, and correcting them. [2] What experts know is almost certainly, objectively wrong. But it's often useful, and better than blind stumbling. [3] If we treated the low-integrity fields with an iota of the scrutiny you want to apply to the lab-coated tech-priests, half the world wouldn't have a job.
manvillej 3y ago
I agree with you that papers shouldn't be treated like some holy text. That would go against the core of scientific method. We should inspect the core research. That said, there are many who would use the fact that "humans are flawed" to throw out scientific research and distrust it. Scientific research will still be more reliable and dependable than the spew of others because there is rigor to it. but the fact that this research is public and available is why frauds like Gino can be caught. This is the scientific method working. Media tends to amplify the hell out of the fantastical, fraudulent or not. But this IS the system working. We may step in the wrong direction here and there, but we will inevitably push towards truth.

by efitz 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nerdponx 3y ago

It's not ironic. It's a reflection of the fact that "scientists" are not an homogeneous group, and we are currently living through a slow-moving revolution in which some scientists are, broadly, taking a stand against fraud and attempting to dismantle the power/incentive structures that make it possible to perpetuate. The system is imperfect, and the work is in progress. "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work therein, are part of this or that conspiracy to reduce your freedoms, mislead the public, etc. Or the related conspiracy theory that science broadly is bullshit and that the primary motivation of any scientific study is the continued justification of funding, rather than pursuit of knowledge. The fact that scientists can be wrong, some studies are faked or their results are overstated, etc. has little or nothing to do with it. > I refuse to be browbeaten by priests in lab coats or their acolytes. If you cite scientific papers in front of me trying to make a political case for a course of action, I will use my own judgment, informed by he paper as well as other factors like motivations and so forth. And this is exactly the kind of attitude that I described above. It's the ACAB approach applied to scientists, where it makes no sense if you look at what scientists actually do and care about. A huge number of scientists are persistently and actively fighting against the "priest in lab coat" archetype.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Do you work in science? Because since I have, I agree with some of the "conspiracy theories". I didn't before but as someone who'd always been fascinated with knowledge, research and human progress from a young age, I was thoroughly disappointed when I discovered the reality of it isn't as I had imagined in my almost religious belief in science. The reality was I found people who worked in it like a regular job. They were not driven by by a desire to further truth and expand human knowledge, but rather just like most other people they care about their salaries, funding, promotions, intrigues/political games, etc. The mistake is thinking there must be a conspiracy to make it true. In reality it's just human nature and group behavior. One might think some of the most critical thinkers work in science, and it can be true in some cases, but more often than not those are actually the ones that get filtered out. Ironically, you must not question too much if you're a researcher who wants to receive funding. The safest thing to do is research one of the latest hypes and have findings similar to what other groups find. Don't go against the current, that gets you in trouble.
isaacremuant 3y ago
> "Trust the science" is a poorly-phrased attempt to counter the persistent conspiracy theories that various science disciplines, and the scientists that work therein, are part of this or that conspiracy to reduce your freedoms, mislead the public, etc. Or the related conspiracy theory that science broadly is bullshit and that the primary motivation of any scientific study is the continued justification of funding, rather than pursuit of knowledge Actually no. It's a purely anti science/authoritarian approach to avoid any dissent when politically convenient. Covid policies were the perfect example and labeling/censoring instead of debating (even other scientists like those on the great Barrington declaration) shows that it's not really about science but about control. Corruption is not a grand conspiracy but a natural thing that occurs in bureocratic institutions and, nonetheless, accusing and exposing corruption and inconsistency was a big no in anything related covid (lockdowns, mandates, censorship, etc). Freedoms WERE limited unconstitutionally and selectively but people would be telling you "my fredumbs, grandmakiller, conspiracy theorist" because they couldn't really argue except via way of appeals to authority and slogans such as trust the science. The science wasn't one and wasn't uniform, but you couldn't even compare "sciences". You only had to take it. Those of us who engage in science are not afraid to expose our results and hypothesis and don't need censorship.

jonhohle 3y ago

9x% of scientists agree has always struck me as profoundly stupid. Are these scientists in the same field? Has there been a Galilean discovery that is not widely accepted yet? Who surveyed a statistically significant portion of “scientists”? What credentials does one need to be considered in that population? Does a master of computer science have authority on biology, physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, or any other number of fields?

mcpackieh 3y ago
I've found that a good rule of thumb is to ignore anybody who is self-describing as "a scientist". If they self-describe as some specific kind of scientist then I'm more than willing to listen. If somebody says "as a biologist" or "as a geologist" or "as a whateverologist", that's fine. If they identify themselves in an even narrower way, that's even better. But if somebody says "as a scientist", just generic 'scientist', then they're trying to imply a very broad sort of expertise that almost certainly is not justified. They're basically saying "as an expert in everything..." Such people are usually safe to ignore.
- dewey 3y ago
  Sounds like something that's usually based on context. To someone who's not a scientist "I'm a scientist" is most likely more helpful than "I'm a particle physicist". Same as you might say "I'm an engineer" to a non-technical person vs. "I'm a Go backend engineer" on a tech meetup.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    No, because the general public is comfortable with the words like 'physicist', 'chemist', 'biologist', 'geologist', etc. If a particle physicist is opining on particle physics to the general public, they'll self describe "as a particle physicist" or at the very least "as a physicist". They'll use the most precise term that is likely to be understood by the audience. Only if that person isn't a physicist at all will 'scientist' be the most precise expertise they can claim. The general public is comfortable with the word physicist, so there's no reason for a physicist to avoid identifying as such when discussing physics with the general public. On the other hand, a marine biologist who is opining on particle physics may self describe "as a scientist", because that's the most precise level of expertise they can claim without lying. Saying "as a biologist" when discussing particle physics wouldn't confer the desired credibility, so a less precise term is used. Conspicuous lack of precision is the tell: If people are discussing basketball and somebody says "as an athlete", it's safe to conclude they aren't a basketball player. They would have said "as a basketball player" if they were. If people are discussing motherhood and somebody says "as a parent", it's fairly safe to conclude they aren't a mother. If they were a mother, they'd say "as a mother" because that more precisely relates to the topic of motherhood. If somebody is opining on firefighting practices and says "as an emergency responder", they aren't a firefighter. They might be an EMT or a cop, but a firefighter would say "as a firefighter" when discussing firefighting. And finally, if a Go backend engineer claims his expertise to be "programmer" to a general audience, that's fine. But if he's saying "as an engineer" or "as a scientist" then he should probably be ignored. Yes, I've known people to do this, programmers calling themselves "scientist" because they have a CS degree, opining on bullshit unrelated to anything they ever studied.

isaacremuant 3y ago

> and still there are many people running around saying stupid bumper sticker slogans like “trust the science” and “I believe in science” and “95% of scientists agree That has all to do with authoritarianism and how in partisan politics and during the covid draconian policies push (in many different countries) any dissent or non agreement was treated as a terrible sin that HAD to be punished. Even nowadays, in HN, you'll get people repeating the mantra, downvoting and acting super obfuscated that someone dare point out that just because govs/tech/pharma/media sayd so, doesn't mean it's true, specially when we there's money and politics involved and that security or hygiene theater is nothing new.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Reminder that "peer review" is part of the scientific journal system, not part of the scientific process itself. Journals have it done to serve their own interests, to save on paper/printing expenses and maintain their prestige. Peer reviewer isn't replication (which is actually important to the scientific process.) Google n-grams for "peer review" and you'll see that nobody was talking about it before the 1960s.

linuxftw 3y ago

Peer review can't catch lies. It reviews your methodology and whether your findings are supported by your own data. If you outright falsify your data, peer review won't catch that. Replication catches lies. Many studies, even those relied on for medical products, don't get replicated by independent entities. It's safe to assume, any non-replicated study is an outright fabrication at this point.

Georgelemental 3y ago
These frauds weren't caught by lack of replication, they were caught because statistical analysis of the reported data showed it to be implausible.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  It wasn't the data that the study produced, it was the data the study consumed (odometer readings from insurance companies). Obviously, that is independently verifiable. Also, this was only discovered AFTER numerous failed replication attempts.
- pg_1234 3y ago
  Perhaps an earlier warning sign could have been the the author of: “Rebel Talent: Why it Pays to Break the Rules in Work and Life” [1] might just, you know ... break the rules in work ... [1] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/political-science/events/2021/may/careers-week-rebel-talent-why-it-pays-break-rules-work-and-life https://www.ucl.ac.uk/political-science/events/2021/may/care...

rcpt 3y ago

Yes, despite difficulty reproducing results in some fields, it still generally makes sense to trust scientific results. The scientific method is the best thing humanity has for establishing knowledge from empirical data. Now if you'd prefer to put your faith in religion, or some demagogue, that's fine. And you're free to go eat all the horse paste you want. But overall dismissal of science as "stupid" is just a flat out ridiculous take.

AlbertCory 3y ago
"horse paste" -- too bad. You were doing so well up to there.

TheRealPomax 3y ago

One paper is no paper. Until it's been replicated, your study hasn't concluded yet.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

Those who say "trust the science" in the typical way it seems to be meant are rarely people who understand what science is. They're merely virtue signalling fan boys and groupies trying to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime. Because that's why they say it. If the regime said "don't trust the science", they'd say that, but scientism happens to be the state religion.

beepbooptheory 3y ago

I firmly believe that guys like Dawkins/Harris/Tyson have done substantial harm to a certain kind of person's perception of the world. One can quite easily see the worldview they espouse, in the broadest sense, is compatible with the worst of human tendencies and ideologies. I find people can gain utterly monstrous views about fellow human beings through the superiority they earn for simply "believing in Science."

vkou 3y ago
> One can quite easily see the worldview they espouse, in the broadest sense, is compatible with the worst of human tendencies and ideologies. Could you name one or more major orthodox worldviews or institutions that are not, in practice, compatible with amplifying and perpetuating the worst of human tendencies and ideologies?
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here.. and with it I am inclined to say 'no'. But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. But even if I concede to maybe a more charitable reading of your question, that any conceivable worldview could be compatible with facism or whatever, it doesn't mean that some can't be worse than others! And, IMO, this one is definitely on the more compatible side of the spectrum. But totally respect your opinion if you want argue about degrees here, because either way any given ideology is substantially determined and sustained from material conditions, social relations, etc, anyway; its always more a symptom than a problem itself.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > 'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here It's a necessary qualifier, because we're not talking about some niche five-person ideology or group that hasn't actually been tested by time. We need to talk about one that I've heard of, and can plausibly evaluate! > But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. No, it's a comment that most structures of thought and reasoning are not actually a guardrail that will protect you against poor behaviour, and that in itself, without specifics, it's a poor criticism to level against a type of thinking, or an idea. You can criticize the specifics of the problems of Dawkins, but it's a cheap, parting shot to just say 'Well, Dawkins is compatible with horrible things', without elaborating further. Almost everything is compatible with horrible things! It's a low-information criticism!

vkou 3y ago

There's a lot of wrong with your argument, but let's go down the list. 1. The optimal rate of fraud is not 0%, just like the optimal rate of shoplifting in a store is not 0%, and the optimal amount of crime in a society is not zero. Science, just like the grocery, and the street, has to operate on some degree of trust, and not non-stop big-brother gestapo police state surveillance. Just like a zero-crime society, a zero-scientific fraud society would have a lot of negative externalities that aren't accounted for by 'bring fraud down to zero' paperclip-maximizaiton. That's why it makes sense to talk about what can be done to reduce fraud, but makes no sense to throw yourself off a roof when an instance of it actually happens. It's a statistical inevitability. Look at the blast radius, pick up the pieces, have a conversation about what, if anything, could be done better next time. 2. If even one bit of dishonesty is enough to distrust a system, you shouldn't trust anything. But nobody actually thinks or operates in that kind of insane solipsism. You wouldn't get anything done. 3. What actually happens is that people from low-integrity fields (Politics, sponsored media, lobbying, organizational PR, internal corporate politics) are trying their fucking hardest to use that argument to bring public perception of everyone else down to their level. If they are blatantly lying half the time, and someone working in science blatantly lies, say, 0.5% of the time, and is blatantly wrong 5% of the time, and is mostly-right, but subtly wrong[0] the rest of it, that solipsist from #2 would look at it and conclude 'well, there's no difference'. He couldn't be more wrong, and I would like to gamble on loaded-dice games with anyone who disagrees with me on this point. 4. You shouldn't use a single paper, or two papers, or even fifteen papers as an arbiter of expert consensus. Papers disagree. Expert consensus is reached by looking at the whole body of a field. This requires extensive understanding of a field, which you're not going to get from clicking a few links over an afternoon. 5. You shouldn't use expert consensus as a definitive arbiter of truth. 6. But you sure as hell should defer to an expert, over your own judgement, about non-trivial technical matters. I don't care how smart you are and how many papers you read last week[1], I have serious doubts that you're going to be any good at performing, say, an open-heart surgery. There's a reason we leave it to the experts, even if what they know is wrong. [2] [3] [0] Almost all of our understanding of the world is at least subtly wrong. That's fine, though, many bits of that understanding are, while subtly wrong, useful. [1] It's a different story if you read ten years worth of papers. And not just the ones that support your biases. And also spent five to ten years working with, and for experts in the field, making a lot of mistakes along the way. You don't get mastery of a subject by reading, you do it by doing, making mistakes, and correcting them. [2] What experts know is almost certainly, objectively wrong. But it's often useful, and better than blind stumbling. [3] If we treated the low-integrity fields with an iota of the scrutiny you want to apply to the lab-coated tech-priests, half the world wouldn't have a job.

manvillej 3y ago

I agree with you that papers shouldn't be treated like some holy text. That would go against the core of scientific method. We should inspect the core research. That said, there are many who would use the fact that "humans are flawed" to throw out scientific research and distrust it. Scientific research will still be more reliable and dependable than the spew of others because there is rigor to it. but the fact that this research is public and available is why frauds like Gino can be caught. This is the scientific method working. Media tends to amplify the hell out of the fantastical, fraudulent or not. But this IS the system working. We may step in the wrong direction here and there, but we will inevitably push towards truth.