6 ms·

On the bright side: when people say “believe in the science,” this is exactly what they should be thinking: challenge. This whole process has been super health

On the bright side: when people say “believe in the science,” this is exactly what they should be thinking: challenge. This whole process has been super healthy and similar challenges are important and needed for everything published, not just this particular research area. I might be out in left field, but I read so often that researchers are running out of ideas. What’s wrong with getting a PhD for challenging something already published? It is incredibly valuable to society.

93po 3y ago
Does this extend to climate change science too?
- salty_biscuits 3y ago
  Yes.
- belthesar 3y ago
  Sure, but there's a level of entry to the "challenge" call to action. When folks are saying "believe in the science", it also means to believe in the scientific method, which does include challenging observations and independently validating conclusions. A proper challenge requires coming up to the plate, proposing a challenging hypothesis to a given conclusion, and then going through the work required to test your hypothesis, documenting the inputs, the variables, and showcasing your outputs. What this doesn't mean is the average human who does not like the conclusion producing a statement saying "I don't think that's real", or even going so far as to cite data which could appear to refute the conclusion, are producing a challenge to the conclusion. They're just stating an opinion. This isn't designed to be exclusionary, but to ensure that challengers are going through the effort that the producer of the conclusion did. If one is not willing to learn the problem space enough to reasonably challenge the effort, then that challenge is moot.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  Not too long ago, a creationist would have sarcastically asked "Does this extend to biology too?", and gone away thinking they had made an actual argument.
  - 93po 3y ago
    Try challenging climate science, even in a valid way, and see how popular it is on reddit or HN or twitter. Even my above comment now has a negative score which sort of proves my point. note: i don't deny climate science but like any science there are ways to challenge it
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      > Even my above comment now has a negative score which sort of proves my point. Tone matters and your tone matches up really well with someone trying to “gotcha” the people around them, which is obnoxious. > i don't deny climate science but like any science there are ways to challenge it Not successfully.
      - parineum 3y ago
        > Not successfully. Never?
    - hackerlight 3y ago
      Again, this sounds an awful lot like the creationist rhetoric a few decades ago. > "Try challenging evolutionary biology, even in a valid way, and see how popular it is". All crackpots think they're under siege and that their ideas are unfairly dismissed. Their ideas are "valid" (because they say so), so why are those ideas being dismissed without due consideration? You hear the same rhetoric from anti-vaxxers, creationists and climate change doubters. The problem is a lack of perspective. Crackpots of all stripes don't know that they're crackpots. To them, their distorted thought patterns aren't distorted.
      - zmgsabst 3y ago
        Calling groups “crazy” to dismiss their arguments is a classic ad hominem.
        kibwen 3y ago
        At the same time, it's a common mistake to believe that any argument that anyone is capable of making is automatically as valid as any other argument. Some arguments are simply more valid than others; there's no use in humoring people just because they think their unfounded opinion is as valid as any other. Or maybe I should just defer to how Isaac Asimov put it: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
- jschveibinz 3y ago
  I would say yes, but not for political reasons, which I pay zero attention to. I just believe that there is a tremendous amount of pressure (financial and otherwise) to publish, there is academic pressure to toe the line on popular theories, and humans are fallible. This is most likely the same for climate science as it is for medical research or any scientific field.
imiric 3y ago
> This whole process has been super healthy Has it, though? The South Korean paper claimed to have found "The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor". It took a month for researchers around the world to essentially debunk this. Science works by peer review, yes, but that should have never been a claim to begin with. They were blinded by excitement of the results and eager to publish the paper, instead of being conservative and making sure they got everything right. Now it's clear that they missed several key aspects that seem trivial in retrospect. It's just sloppy science. Sure, this caused much excitement in science nerds everywhere, and the media got more ad impressions, but overall I wouldn't qualify this particular event as "super healthy". Coincidentally, or not, this[1] is currently on the front page. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37137405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37137405
- jschveibinz 3y ago
  I believe it is the pressure to publish. The number of papers published has grown exponentially and it is reported that the quality of research has decreased. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333487946_Over-optimization_of_academic_publishing_metrics_Observing_Goodhart's_Law_in_action https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333487946_Over-opti... https://www.nature.com/articles/533147a https://www.nature.com/articles/533147a
- mike_d 3y ago
  > The South Korean paper claimed As I understand it the paper was a leaked preprint. Which means they didn't "claim" anything, but were distributing it to get peer review and feedback before publishing.
  - imiric 3y ago
    Whether it was a leaked preprint or not, they clearly claimed to have synthesized a SC[1]. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

93po 3y ago

Does this extend to climate change science too?

salty_biscuits 3y ago
Yes.
belthesar 3y ago
Sure, but there's a level of entry to the "challenge" call to action. When folks are saying "believe in the science", it also means to believe in the scientific method, which does include challenging observations and independently validating conclusions. A proper challenge requires coming up to the plate, proposing a challenging hypothesis to a given conclusion, and then going through the work required to test your hypothesis, documenting the inputs, the variables, and showcasing your outputs. What this doesn't mean is the average human who does not like the conclusion producing a statement saying "I don't think that's real", or even going so far as to cite data which could appear to refute the conclusion, are producing a challenge to the conclusion. They're just stating an opinion. This isn't designed to be exclusionary, but to ensure that challengers are going through the effort that the producer of the conclusion did. If one is not willing to learn the problem space enough to reasonably challenge the effort, then that challenge is moot.
hackerlight 3y ago
Not too long ago, a creationist would have sarcastically asked "Does this extend to biology too?", and gone away thinking they had made an actual argument.
- 93po 3y ago
  Try challenging climate science, even in a valid way, and see how popular it is on reddit or HN or twitter. Even my above comment now has a negative score which sort of proves my point. note: i don't deny climate science but like any science there are ways to challenge it
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    > Even my above comment now has a negative score which sort of proves my point. Tone matters and your tone matches up really well with someone trying to “gotcha” the people around them, which is obnoxious. > i don't deny climate science but like any science there are ways to challenge it Not successfully.
    - parineum 3y ago
      > Not successfully. Never?
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    Again, this sounds an awful lot like the creationist rhetoric a few decades ago. > "Try challenging evolutionary biology, even in a valid way, and see how popular it is". All crackpots think they're under siege and that their ideas are unfairly dismissed. Their ideas are "valid" (because they say so), so why are those ideas being dismissed without due consideration? You hear the same rhetoric from anti-vaxxers, creationists and climate change doubters. The problem is a lack of perspective. Crackpots of all stripes don't know that they're crackpots. To them, their distorted thought patterns aren't distorted.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      Calling groups “crazy” to dismiss their arguments is a classic ad hominem.
      - kibwen 3y ago
        At the same time, it's a common mistake to believe that any argument that anyone is capable of making is automatically as valid as any other argument. Some arguments are simply more valid than others; there's no use in humoring people just because they think their unfounded opinion is as valid as any other. Or maybe I should just defer to how Isaac Asimov put it: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
jschveibinz 3y ago
I would say yes, but not for political reasons, which I pay zero attention to. I just believe that there is a tremendous amount of pressure (financial and otherwise) to publish, there is academic pressure to toe the line on popular theories, and humans are fallible. This is most likely the same for climate science as it is for medical research or any scientific field.

imiric 3y ago

> This whole process has been super healthy Has it, though? The South Korean paper claimed to have found "The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor". It took a month for researchers around the world to essentially debunk this. Science works by peer review, yes, but that should have never been a claim to begin with. They were blinded by excitement of the results and eager to publish the paper, instead of being conservative and making sure they got everything right. Now it's clear that they missed several key aspects that seem trivial in retrospect. It's just sloppy science. Sure, this caused much excitement in science nerds everywhere, and the media got more ad impressions, but overall I wouldn't qualify this particular event as "super healthy". Coincidentally, or not, this[1] is currently on the front page. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37137405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37137405

jschveibinz 3y ago
I believe it is the pressure to publish. The number of papers published has grown exponentially and it is reported that the quality of research has decreased. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333487946_Over-optimization_of_academic_publishing_metrics_Observing_Goodhart's_Law_in_action https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333487946_Over-opti... https://www.nature.com/articles/533147a https://www.nature.com/articles/533147a
mike_d 3y ago
> The South Korean paper claimed As I understand it the paper was a leaked preprint. Which means they didn't "claim" anything, but were distributing it to get peer review and feedback before publishing.
- imiric 3y ago
  Whether it was a leaked preprint or not, they clearly claimed to have synthesized a SC[1]. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008