4 ms·

You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem, which is annoying because I'm addressing the main thrust of the original article. Staff/editors/leadership

by 23B1 2y ago

You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem, which is annoying because I'm addressing the main thrust of the original article. Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas. This is a real problem when we're looking to science to guide sociopolitical decision making, e.g. during a pandemic, or in childcare, or with the environment.

Supermancho 2y ago
> You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem, > Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas. This is a real problem when we're looking to science to guide sociopolitical decision making, ...or you know, you could have stated what you meant instead of asking questions you didn't care about for your own reasons. None of what you say applies to a publication any more than other forms of communication. There is a lot of philosophical rambling in these threads.
- 23B1 2y ago
  I do care about my questions which are germane to the point of the article. I'm not being philosophical or obtuse; "who watches the watchers" is a common consideration in dealing with accountability and truth, and is indeed a core value of the scientific method. Scientific publications don't get to free themselves from that obligation if they want to be regarded as either.
ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas This can be boiled down to "nobody can be trusted to do anything", which is technically true. The question is, is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior? Having a nonzero motive to misbehave isn't the same as that.
- 23B1 2y ago
  It can be boiled down to incentive alignment - though a lot of people (falsely) believe that incentives can (or should) be tuned for social good. > is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior? Yes. Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > It can be boiled down to incentive alignment Sure, if "it" here means your opinion of what's important. Incentive alignment and misalignment isn't evidence of wrongdoing, though. > Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails. Interesting opinion. I thank you for it and respectfully disagree.
    - 23B1 2y ago
      Having reliable sources for scientific news and a high standard for truth therein is obviously important, moral, and good. Your opinion is wrong.
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        > Having reliable sources for scientific news and a high standard for truth therein is obviously important, moral, and good. I'm glad we could find shared ground here. I wholeheartedly agree, even if I respectfully disagree with your totally unrelated very strong opinion that "Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails"
        23B1 2y ago
        It is vitally important that scientists put their duty above their burning desire to have a 'hot take', especially in medicine and public health. This shouldn't be controversial.

by 23B1 2y ago

Supermancho 2y ago

> You're not thinking deeply enough about the problem, > Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas. This is a real problem when we're looking to science to guide sociopolitical decision making, ...or you know, you could have stated what you meant instead of asking questions you didn't care about for your own reasons. None of what you say applies to a publication any more than other forms of communication. There is a lot of philosophical rambling in these threads.

23B1 2y ago
I do care about my questions which are germane to the point of the article. I'm not being philosophical or obtuse; "who watches the watchers" is a common consideration in dealing with accountability and truth, and is indeed a core value of the scientific method. Scientific publications don't get to free themselves from that obligation if they want to be regarded as either.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago

> Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas This can be boiled down to "nobody can be trusted to do anything", which is technically true. The question is, is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior? Having a nonzero motive to misbehave isn't the same as that.

23B1 2y ago
It can be boiled down to incentive alignment - though a lot of people (falsely) believe that incentives can (or should) be tuned for social good. > is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior? Yes. Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > It can be boiled down to incentive alignment Sure, if "it" here means your opinion of what's important. Incentive alignment and misalignment isn't evidence of wrongdoing, though. > Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails. Interesting opinion. I thank you for it and respectfully disagree.
  - 23B1 2y ago
    Having reliable sources for scientific news and a high standard for truth therein is obviously important, moral, and good. Your opinion is wrong.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      > Having reliable sources for scientific news and a high standard for truth therein is obviously important, moral, and good. I'm glad we could find shared ground here. I wholeheartedly agree, even if I respectfully disagree with your totally unrelated very strong opinion that "Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails"
      - 23B1 2y ago
        It is vitally important that scientists put their duty above their burning desire to have a 'hot take', especially in medicine and public health. This shouldn't be controversial.