5 ms·

Their corrections may be correct, but it's still always nicer when the magnitude of the signal is larger than that of the corrections to the data.

Nevermark 3y ago
What is nice is vetting and correcting data for reliability and consistency. Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn't worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction. Our brains constantly make up distracting narratives, if we let them. If the correction had been the other way, some people would say scientists have been downplaying data and probably still are.
- foofie 3y ago
  > Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn't worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction. I don't think you fully grasp the implications of arbitrarily correcting old measures. In the end, and accepting at face value these corrections, you're still manipulating old data to use the result of said manipulation as the whole basis of your hypothesis. This approach automatically leads to questions on whether you draw your conclusions from the data, or you change the data to fit your conclusions. Do you understand the risk that this poses in any discussion on a politically sensitive topic? Think of the hit to the credibility of any claim supported by this data manipulation if later your method is deemed untrustworthy because it needs further updates, and how it would look if you had to correct it to move the dial either way (i.e., "they were lying from the start and are now covering their ass" vs "they felt their lie wasn't fooling anyone and decided to double down.")
  - lolc 3y ago
    > arbitrarily correcting old measures. Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction?
    - foofie 3y ago
      > Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Because it follows a method picked and chosen by the corrector. > Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction? It doesn't really matter if these corrections sway one way or the other. What matters is that someone decided that the original values weren't good, and proceeded to pick a way to come up with other values by changing the original ones.
      - lolc 3y ago
        I still don't understand your choice of words. It feels like you jumped into epistemology at the deep end and don't know how to swim in it. One article that pops up frequently around here is "Reality has a surprising amount of detail" http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-amount-of-detail http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-... I think you could profit from reading it. And I found "The Golem" a pretty good read too, if you want to go down that path: https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/general-science/history-science/golem-what-you-should-know-about-science-2nd-edition-1?format=PB&isbn=9781107604650 https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/genera...
  - a_wild_dandan 3y ago
    Tough shit. Nature doesn't care about political inconvenience. You must work with your most accurate representation of the data.
    - a_gnostic 3y ago
      I wonder how these comments measure on the Henderson Scale of plot-derailment.
      - Nevermark 3y ago
        > It really feels like they cajoled the data to fit their conclusion. (Emphasis mine.) That Guy!
  - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
    To add to the "not arbitrary corection" comments. Correction is also not lying. Anyone who states that is not grasping something about a totally political topic/method.
    - brookst 3y ago
      It’s just reductionism: if changing data is bad, changing data is always bad. Same nonsense gets you how terrible surgeons are (if cutting people with knives is bad, cutting people with knives is always bad). It’s a good rhetorical technique because if you remove enough context you can pretty much always find something “exactly the same” to prove a point.
      - foofie 3y ago
        > It’s just reductionism: if changing data is bad, changing data is always bad. It's not reductionism, and you're missing the point. The whole point is that changing the original data to be able to support/reject hypothesis naturally raises the question of whether there is foul play. If original measurements don't support your claim and suddenly by changing data you get it to fit your belief, any rational analysis would quickly flag the risk of data manipulation and scientific malpractice. If instead you're dealing with a politically charged topic that attracts denialists and contrarians then you're making yourself vulnerable to accusations of fraud that will certainly be used to poison the well. Do you understand why this is a problem?
        lamontcg 3y ago
        > The whole point is that changing the original data to be able to support/reject hypothesis naturally raises the question of whether there is foul play. People are applying a stronger point here where changing the original data is hard evidence of foul play and sufficient to completely discount any changes. We'd be grappling with the reality of faster than light neutrinos now, though, if that was correct logic.
        foofie 3y ago
  - eecc 3y ago
    The point was that the corrections aren’t arbitrary.
    - foofie 3y ago
      > The point was that the corrections aren’t arbitrary. But they are, aren't they? It matters nothing if you apply a precise rule to change values. What matters is that you picked a rule.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Propelloni 3y ago
    I could be wrong but I read your post as saying "politics can't deal with progress in scientific insight into the observable universe, thus scientists better be careful what they say." That's medieval. We are better than that... or at least we used to be. Otherwise the sun would still rotate around the earth.

Nevermark 3y ago

What is nice is vetting and correcting data for reliability and consistency. Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn't worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction. Our brains constantly make up distracting narratives, if we let them. If the correction had been the other way, some people would say scientists have been downplaying data and probably still are.

foofie 3y ago
> Part of aiming for objectivity, and better understanding, isn't worrying about which direction a correction takes. At all. Only that it is a good correction. I don't think you fully grasp the implications of arbitrarily correcting old measures. In the end, and accepting at face value these corrections, you're still manipulating old data to use the result of said manipulation as the whole basis of your hypothesis. This approach automatically leads to questions on whether you draw your conclusions from the data, or you change the data to fit your conclusions. Do you understand the risk that this poses in any discussion on a politically sensitive topic? Think of the hit to the credibility of any claim supported by this data manipulation if later your method is deemed untrustworthy because it needs further updates, and how it would look if you had to correct it to move the dial either way (i.e., "they were lying from the start and are now covering their ass" vs "they felt their lie wasn't fooling anyone and decided to double down.")
- lolc 3y ago
  > arbitrarily correcting old measures. Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction?
  - foofie 3y ago
    > Why do you say the correction is arbitrary? Because it follows a method picked and chosen by the corrector. > Are there papers arguing for corrections in the other direction? It doesn't really matter if these corrections sway one way or the other. What matters is that someone decided that the original values weren't good, and proceeded to pick a way to come up with other values by changing the original ones.
    - lolc 3y ago
      I still don't understand your choice of words. It feels like you jumped into epistemology at the deep end and don't know how to swim in it. One article that pops up frequently around here is "Reality has a surprising amount of detail" http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-amount-of-detail http://johnsalvatier.org/blog/2017/reality-has-a-surprising-... I think you could profit from reading it. And I found "The Golem" a pretty good read too, if you want to go down that path: https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/general-science/history-science/golem-what-you-should-know-about-science-2nd-edition-1?format=PB&isbn=9781107604650 https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/genera...
- a_wild_dandan 3y ago
  Tough shit. Nature doesn't care about political inconvenience. You must work with your most accurate representation of the data.
  - a_gnostic 3y ago
    I wonder how these comments measure on the Henderson Scale of plot-derailment.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      > It really feels like they cajoled the data to fit their conclusion. (Emphasis mine.) That Guy!
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago
  To add to the "not arbitrary corection" comments. Correction is also not lying. Anyone who states that is not grasping something about a totally political topic/method.
  - brookst 3y ago
    It’s just reductionism: if changing data is bad, changing data is always bad. Same nonsense gets you how terrible surgeons are (if cutting people with knives is bad, cutting people with knives is always bad). It’s a good rhetorical technique because if you remove enough context you can pretty much always find something “exactly the same” to prove a point.
    - foofie 3y ago
      > It’s just reductionism: if changing data is bad, changing data is always bad. It's not reductionism, and you're missing the point. The whole point is that changing the original data to be able to support/reject hypothesis naturally raises the question of whether there is foul play. If original measurements don't support your claim and suddenly by changing data you get it to fit your belief, any rational analysis would quickly flag the risk of data manipulation and scientific malpractice. If instead you're dealing with a politically charged topic that attracts denialists and contrarians then you're making yourself vulnerable to accusations of fraud that will certainly be used to poison the well. Do you understand why this is a problem?
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        > The whole point is that changing the original data to be able to support/reject hypothesis naturally raises the question of whether there is foul play. People are applying a stronger point here where changing the original data is hard evidence of foul play and sufficient to completely discount any changes. We'd be grappling with the reality of faster than light neutrinos now, though, if that was correct logic.
        foofie 3y ago
- eecc 3y ago
  The point was that the corrections aren’t arbitrary.
  - foofie 3y ago
    > The point was that the corrections aren’t arbitrary. But they are, aren't they? It matters nothing if you apply a precise rule to change values. What matters is that you picked a rule.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Propelloni 3y ago
  I could be wrong but I read your post as saying "politics can't deal with progress in scientific insight into the observable universe, thus scientists better be careful what they say." That's medieval. We are better than that... or at least we used to be. Otherwise the sun would still rotate around the earth.