3 ms·

The problem is that it's replacing (or attempting to, at least) an era of policy already led by ideology and cynicism, and all it's really adding is the contrar

The problem is that it's replacing (or attempting to, at least) an era of policy already led by ideology and cynicism, and all it's really adding is the contrarianism. Too many papers published in peer reviewed journals have turned out to be utter bilge, accepted only because they fit the preconceptions of the reviewers. This would be fine if we hadn't elevated the epistemological standing of "published in a peer reviewed journal" so far that it's treated as nearly the same as "true" instead of a more accurate "something that somebody claims." It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research, and always considered the possibility that even the consensus view might be wrong. (Look how many "consensus views" of the 1700-1800s are now seen as bunk.) I'm all for evidence based policy, but for that to work we need a robust mechanism for evidence that contradicts the prevailing narrative to be heard, evaluated, and fairly assessed.

graemep 2y ago
> Look how many "consensus views" of the 1700-1800s are now seen as bunk. Even more recently than that. I am not sure whether aether theory (of electromagnetic waves) made it into 1900s but it was a consensus view late into the 1800s, the idea that some races were intrinsically inferior was a consensus view well into the 1900s, and the idea that homosexuality was a a treatable disease even more recently. > It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research I think that the general public and politicians do not understand this. I have read claims that the British government was confused by getting conflicting scientific advice during the pandemic. It would come as no surprise to anyone who understood the implications of people using complex models of something novel.

graemep 2y ago

> Look how many "consensus views" of the 1700-1800s are now seen as bunk. Even more recently than that. I am not sure whether aether theory (of electromagnetic waves) made it into 1900s but it was a consensus view late into the 1800s, the idea that some races were intrinsically inferior was a consensus view well into the 1900s, and the idea that homosexuality was a a treatable disease even more recently. > It would also be fine if we never based public policy on unreplicated or cherry picked research I think that the general public and politicians do not understand this. I have read claims that the British government was confused by getting conflicting scientific advice during the pandemic. It would come as no surprise to anyone who understood the implications of people using complex models of something novel.