3 ms·

>more general answer is that everyone doing science is working incredibly hard to find the answers to hard questions. I think this is too romantic of a view. Y

by bumby 2y ago

>more general answer is that everyone doing science is working incredibly hard to find the answers to hard questions. I think this is too romantic of a view. Yes, some (or even many) are working hard to answer hard questions. Others are seeking money, status and/or prestige as their top priority, just like practically any other field. It’s no different than saying financiers are working incredibly hard to create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It makes for a lofty narrative, but it’s also ignoring much of human nature. And if you think that question is impossible to answer, it should at the very least give you pause to think about the confidence you have in your conclusion. Otherwise it reads as “I can’t prove it, but I know it’s true.” That’s dogma, not science.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
In this conversation we’ve traveled trom “scientific fraud is rampant” to “you must somehow prove to me that all science is good” to “maybe scientists are human beings”. I think the first claim is made without evidence and I called the poster on it; the second is a bizarre goalpost-shift that I don’t think we have the resources to ever answer. But the third question is easy for me to answer: sure, scientists are human beings, with all their flaws. But so what? What’s most interesting about the conversation we’re having is that even as folks make and fall back from specific arguments, the directional nature of the discussion doesn’t shift. All this tells me is that you don’t like scientists and are eager to land a punch against them, even if the punch is as weak as “they’re human.” This kind of conversation doesn’t have much value to me, since I can’t learn anything from it except that you have some strong emotions. But maybe it could be valuable to you?
- bumby 2y ago
  >All this tells me is that you don’t like scientists I think you’re extrapolating too much. Again, you’re making a strong claim based on limited evidence which is the hallmark of bad reasoning. I work in research and publish/referee articles regularly. I have no qualms with scientists, but I’m also acutely aware of how the system is flawed. >I think the first claim is made without evidence I get the impression you’re too riled to actually see my point so I’ll be explicit. We have lots of evidence that bad science is pretty widespread, especially in certain disciplines. We also have anecdotal examples of fraud. The latter is a subset of the former, with the remainder being good work. How big of a subset is it? Your claim is that it's small; my claim is we don't know. There’s no goalpost shifting. All of the points made are related to the issue of fraud. Asking for evidence of your claim is not goalpost shifting, nor is understanding that fraud is a consequence of human incentives for status that exist in practically every domain. I simply made the point that we know there’s a problem, but likely don’t know the extent of it. Meanwhile, you made the claim that academic fraud is rare. And yet you also claim it’s impossible to prove that it’s not rare. It’s pretty clear that you’re not making a reasoned argument, which is the irony of someone defending the current state of science.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    > Again, you’re making a strong claim based on limited evidence which is the hallmark of bad reasoning I read back through my posts to find the claim I made that you’re talking about and I can’t find it. Please let me know what you’re talking about, maybe quote it. I’m gathering this has mostly become a troll at this point, and I’m sorry I kept responding.
    - bumby 2y ago
      From your comment that I originally responded to: >examples tend to illustrate how relatively rare it is Given the fraud and replicability issues that have been shown to exist even within the most reputable institutions and journals, I think this claim needs some substance to back it up. >this has mostly become a troll at this point Please review the HN guidelines. They specifically reference assuming good faith and avoiding shallow dismissals. I’ve tried giving that to you by asking questions and giving you multiple opportunities to give evidence to your position.
      - matthewdgreen 2y ago
        I see. So to summarize: 1. The initial post made a strong claim about high levels of fraud. 2. I asked for evidence to support this. The evidence given was arguably very sparse. The quote you shared is from my response to point (2). Arguably in a world of infinite pedantry it could have been phrased differently. For example: “given how relatively rate cases of fraud supported by actual evidence are” might have been clearer. However given the context I assumed that claims of scientific fraud would involve evidence. This seemed a good place to end the conversation. Yet: 3. You came in and “judo flipped” the conversation to “aha; but what about the fraud that could theoretically exist but that somehow had produced no evidence of its existence. Perhaps these levels are very high!” 4. I said that evidence of absence would be enormously difficult to prove, given that it would require resources beyond those we currently spend on science to identify this. 5. And moreover I pointed out that we have never had the means to detect this evidence-non-producing fraud and yet science has managed to produce massive and visible benefits that we experience on a daily basis. And thus this leaves us at an impasse. All science may be full of fraud and bad results that we cannot detect. Perhaps it always had been! And yet this has not prevented science from producing results that are enormously valuable. I am left with some questions: 1. What strategy would you pursue to answer your extremely difficult question, given that real-world resources are extremely finite. Please do not say “well, we just need to replicate every result” becayse this simply misunderstands the point about resources. 2. If we cannot devise a feasible policy to test your “perhaps science is full of fraud” question, what should we do instead? Is there an actionable policy you’d pursue? My view is that strong answers to both questions are not so much interesting to me, but interesting in terms of whether your world-view has value. Surprise me!

by bumby 2y ago

matthewdgreen 2y ago

In this conversation we’ve traveled trom “scientific fraud is rampant” to “you must somehow prove to me that all science is good” to “maybe scientists are human beings”. I think the first claim is made without evidence and I called the poster on it; the second is a bizarre goalpost-shift that I don’t think we have the resources to ever answer. But the third question is easy for me to answer: sure, scientists are human beings, with all their flaws. But so what? What’s most interesting about the conversation we’re having is that even as folks make and fall back from specific arguments, the directional nature of the discussion doesn’t shift. All this tells me is that you don’t like scientists and are eager to land a punch against them, even if the punch is as weak as “they’re human.” This kind of conversation doesn’t have much value to me, since I can’t learn anything from it except that you have some strong emotions. But maybe it could be valuable to you?

bumby 2y ago
>All this tells me is that you don’t like scientists I think you’re extrapolating too much. Again, you’re making a strong claim based on limited evidence which is the hallmark of bad reasoning. I work in research and publish/referee articles regularly. I have no qualms with scientists, but I’m also acutely aware of how the system is flawed. >I think the first claim is made without evidence I get the impression you’re too riled to actually see my point so I’ll be explicit. We have lots of evidence that bad science is pretty widespread, especially in certain disciplines. We also have anecdotal examples of fraud. The latter is a subset of the former, with the remainder being good work. How big of a subset is it? Your claim is that it's small; my claim is we don't know. There’s no goalpost shifting. All of the points made are related to the issue of fraud. Asking for evidence of your claim is not goalpost shifting, nor is understanding that fraud is a consequence of human incentives for status that exist in practically every domain. I simply made the point that we know there’s a problem, but likely don’t know the extent of it. Meanwhile, you made the claim that academic fraud is rare. And yet you also claim it’s impossible to prove that it’s not rare. It’s pretty clear that you’re not making a reasoned argument, which is the irony of someone defending the current state of science.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  > Again, you’re making a strong claim based on limited evidence which is the hallmark of bad reasoning I read back through my posts to find the claim I made that you’re talking about and I can’t find it. Please let me know what you’re talking about, maybe quote it. I’m gathering this has mostly become a troll at this point, and I’m sorry I kept responding.
  - bumby 2y ago
    From your comment that I originally responded to: >examples tend to illustrate how relatively rare it is Given the fraud and replicability issues that have been shown to exist even within the most reputable institutions and journals, I think this claim needs some substance to back it up. >this has mostly become a troll at this point Please review the HN guidelines. They specifically reference assuming good faith and avoiding shallow dismissals. I’ve tried giving that to you by asking questions and giving you multiple opportunities to give evidence to your position.
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      I see. So to summarize: 1. The initial post made a strong claim about high levels of fraud. 2. I asked for evidence to support this. The evidence given was arguably very sparse. The quote you shared is from my response to point (2). Arguably in a world of infinite pedantry it could have been phrased differently. For example: “given how relatively rate cases of fraud supported by actual evidence are” might have been clearer. However given the context I assumed that claims of scientific fraud would involve evidence. This seemed a good place to end the conversation. Yet: 3. You came in and “judo flipped” the conversation to “aha; but what about the fraud that could theoretically exist but that somehow had produced no evidence of its existence. Perhaps these levels are very high!” 4. I said that evidence of absence would be enormously difficult to prove, given that it would require resources beyond those we currently spend on science to identify this. 5. And moreover I pointed out that we have never had the means to detect this evidence-non-producing fraud and yet science has managed to produce massive and visible benefits that we experience on a daily basis. And thus this leaves us at an impasse. All science may be full of fraud and bad results that we cannot detect. Perhaps it always had been! And yet this has not prevented science from producing results that are enormously valuable. I am left with some questions: 1. What strategy would you pursue to answer your extremely difficult question, given that real-world resources are extremely finite. Please do not say “well, we just need to replicate every result” becayse this simply misunderstands the point about resources. 2. If we cannot devise a feasible policy to test your “perhaps science is full of fraud” question, what should we do instead? Is there an actionable policy you’d pursue? My view is that strong answers to both questions are not so much interesting to me, but interesting in terms of whether your world-view has value. Surprise me!