5 ms·

To be fair to people, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to cope with the fact that a plurality or even most papers that come out may be found to be completely un-repro

To be fair to people, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to cope with the fact that a plurality or even most papers that come out may be found to be completely un-reproducible. For low stakes things like getting rid of a plastic spatula or cutting board, there is a sub-$20 cost to get rid of them and believe it is right (even if it ends up being wrong), while the cost of not believing and the paper being right is a massively increased chance of cancer. Science will likely never have its reckoning with reality, people will just believe in it less and less until it becomes background noise like everything else.

marcosdumay 2y ago
> there is a sub-$20 cost Plus the risk of the alternative you pick being much worse than the original option.
- svachalek 2y ago
  For some things maybe, but usually there's an option where the risk is pretty negligible. I feel pretty confident we're not going to declare wooden spatulas to be a massive health concern.
  - gjhan 2y ago
    Why?
  - gav 2y ago
    There's a risk for wooden ones that are glued, specifically bamboo, or finished with something toxic. You should probably stick to ones made from a single piece of hardwood and are unfinished. There's also a risk that any cracks will fill with bacteria.
    - 6510 2y ago
      I think you've unknowingly debunked non-stick layers. Should make it from RVS.
    - ansonhoyt 2y ago
      The latest issue of Fine Woodworking agrees and explains why this is true: * "The Best Food-Safe Finish May Be None at All", https://www.finewoodworking.com/2024/10/10/the-best-food-safe-finish-may-be-none-at-all https://www.finewoodworking.com/2024/10/10/the-best-food-saf... TLDR; unfinished wood that is rinsed and dried on all sides will naturally trap and kill bacteria as it dries. Any finish interferes with this process.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Wooden cooking tools can harbour bacteria.
Der_Einzige 2y ago
This is so true. Trying to explain to lay people how garbage peer review is (I show them my accepted NeurIPS paper reviews as evidence of how bad it is) tough. Most people imagine that (especially at the highest levels) that folks are independently reproducing results or at least doing something more than running ChatGPT on the paper. It's exactly the opposite - peer review is a joke. The number one thing that made me mistrust scientists/science was doing it myself. I realized that they are not the arbiters of truth that Plato/Aristotle tried to make them out to be. The allegory of the cave/allegory of the divided line were fake/complete lies - and most of western philosophy implicitly acts as "footnotes" on these wrongful ideas. As the secret of science-as-slightly-better-than-chance gets out to more and more, existing anti-intellectualism is supercharged. It's not just attacks of "cultural/postmodern neo-marxism" against your comparative literature department - it's claims of systemic academic fraud of your whole STEM field laboratories because it became known to the public that everyone cut corners so that they could be one step ahead in the academic careerist rat race.
- mkesper 2y ago
  I don't get what the cave allegory has to do with false incentives (creating papers for creating papers).
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    The idea that those who engage is a "dialectical" fashion of academic style education are more "correct" or "see reality for how it is" compared to others. I am firmly an Epistemology Anarchist - that is I agree with almost everything Paul feyerband ever wrote. I don't believe that knowledge/truth is influenced by the method for which it is found. Real, reproducible truth is found all the time outside of traditional academic or scientific norms/methods. The medium is firmly not the message and Marshall McLuhan is a quack. Basically, when Plato says "the farmer should not rule" I respond with "neither should the philosopher or the so called philosopher king"
haccount 2y ago
It's actually very easy to cope. Imagine that all your biases and intuitions are more correct than any given study, but why imagine it when it's already true. Trillions invested, decades wasted by global institutions and here my Ego outdoes them all in factual accuracy with an offhand 30 second post. What's there to not like?

marcosdumay 2y ago

> there is a sub-$20 cost Plus the risk of the alternative you pick being much worse than the original option.

svachalek 2y ago
For some things maybe, but usually there's an option where the risk is pretty negligible. I feel pretty confident we're not going to declare wooden spatulas to be a massive health concern.
- gjhan 2y ago
  Why?
- gav 2y ago
  There's a risk for wooden ones that are glued, specifically bamboo, or finished with something toxic. You should probably stick to ones made from a single piece of hardwood and are unfinished. There's also a risk that any cracks will fill with bacteria.
  - 6510 2y ago
    I think you've unknowingly debunked non-stick layers. Should make it from RVS.
  - ansonhoyt 2y ago
    The latest issue of Fine Woodworking agrees and explains why this is true: * "The Best Food-Safe Finish May Be None at All", https://www.finewoodworking.com/2024/10/10/the-best-food-safe-finish-may-be-none-at-all https://www.finewoodworking.com/2024/10/10/the-best-food-saf... TLDR; unfinished wood that is rinsed and dried on all sides will naturally trap and kill bacteria as it dries. Any finish interferes with this process.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Wooden cooking tools can harbour bacteria.

Der_Einzige 2y ago

This is so true. Trying to explain to lay people how garbage peer review is (I show them my accepted NeurIPS paper reviews as evidence of how bad it is) tough. Most people imagine that (especially at the highest levels) that folks are independently reproducing results or at least doing something more than running ChatGPT on the paper. It's exactly the opposite - peer review is a joke. The number one thing that made me mistrust scientists/science was doing it myself. I realized that they are not the arbiters of truth that Plato/Aristotle tried to make them out to be. The allegory of the cave/allegory of the divided line were fake/complete lies - and most of western philosophy implicitly acts as "footnotes" on these wrongful ideas. As the secret of science-as-slightly-better-than-chance gets out to more and more, existing anti-intellectualism is supercharged. It's not just attacks of "cultural/postmodern neo-marxism" against your comparative literature department - it's claims of systemic academic fraud of your whole STEM field laboratories because it became known to the public that everyone cut corners so that they could be one step ahead in the academic careerist rat race.

mkesper 2y ago
I don't get what the cave allegory has to do with false incentives (creating papers for creating papers).
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  The idea that those who engage is a "dialectical" fashion of academic style education are more "correct" or "see reality for how it is" compared to others. I am firmly an Epistemology Anarchist - that is I agree with almost everything Paul feyerband ever wrote. I don't believe that knowledge/truth is influenced by the method for which it is found. Real, reproducible truth is found all the time outside of traditional academic or scientific norms/methods. The medium is firmly not the message and Marshall McLuhan is a quack. Basically, when Plato says "the farmer should not rule" I respond with "neither should the philosopher or the so called philosopher king"

haccount 2y ago

It's actually very easy to cope. Imagine that all your biases and intuitions are more correct than any given study, but why imagine it when it's already true. Trillions invested, decades wasted by global institutions and here my Ego outdoes them all in factual accuracy with an offhand 30 second post. What's there to not like?