3 ms·

any reason hanlons razor doesnt apply here? honest question, im just a regular 4 year degree off to work guy

the__alchemist 2y ago
There are perverse incentives in scientific publishing, and there are not many alternative explanations.
Lammy 2y ago
So sick of Hanlon's Razor. It's just a gift to the actually-malicious. If the outcome is the same then intentions don't matter.
- marxisttemp 2y ago
  IMO it’s only applicable to humans. Hierarchies attract malicious actors.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > So sick of Hanlon's Razor. It's just a gift to the actually-malicious. If the outcome is the same then intentions don't matter. I think that's only true for a single incident. If someone does injury to me, I'm just as injured whether they were malicious or incompetent, but mitigation strategies for future interactions are different.
- dec0dedab0de 2y ago
  I consider it a reminder to stop and think before getting swept up in outrage. Sure, bad actors will maintain plausible deniability, but I would rather let some people slide than get worked up over mistakes or misunderstandings.
  - Lammy 2y ago
    Letting the people slide is not the same thing as letting the action/outcome slide. I do think it's reasonable to let intent inform one's feelings toward the person, but if it's easy to accidentally do fraudulent science then the system should still be criticized and the systemic problem should still be addressed.
readthenotes1 2y ago
Here's how the razor applies: There is no real malice behind all the fraud in science publications. The authors aren't usually out to specifically harm others. However, in the long run it is stupid because of two and a half reasons: - it reduces people's trust in science because it is obvious we cannot trust the scientists which in the long run will reduce public funding for The grift - it causes misallocation of funds by people misled by the grift and this may lead you actual harm (e.g., what if you catch Alzheimer's but there is no cure because you lied about the causes 20 years ago?) 1/2- there is a chance that you will get caught, and like the former president of Stanford, not be allowed to continue bilking the gullible. This only gets half a point because the repercussions are generally not immediate and definitely not devastating to those who do it skillfully.
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  The former president of Stanford is the CEO of Xaira now.
o11c 2y ago
"Adequately" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in Hanlon's Razor. A good corollary to keep in mind is "Never attribute to stupidity what is better explained by malice." I usually apply this to politics, but science publishing is 90% politics, so it still fits.
- asddubs 2y ago
  Yeah, I have mixed feelings about hanlons razor. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is good, and some people don't do it enough, but there's also a lot of people that overextend the benefit of the doubt to the point that they're almost doing damage control for fraudsters

There are perverse incentives in scientific publishing, and there are not many alternative explanations.

So sick of Hanlon's Razor. It's just a gift to the actually-malicious. If the outcome is the same then intentions don't matter.

marxisttemp 2y ago
IMO it’s only applicable to humans. Hierarchies attract malicious actors.
JadeNB 2y ago
> So sick of Hanlon's Razor. It's just a gift to the actually-malicious. If the outcome is the same then intentions don't matter. I think that's only true for a single incident. If someone does injury to me, I'm just as injured whether they were malicious or incompetent, but mitigation strategies for future interactions are different.
dec0dedab0de 2y ago
I consider it a reminder to stop and think before getting swept up in outrage. Sure, bad actors will maintain plausible deniability, but I would rather let some people slide than get worked up over mistakes or misunderstandings.
- Lammy 2y ago
  Letting the people slide is not the same thing as letting the action/outcome slide. I do think it's reasonable to let intent inform one's feelings toward the person, but if it's easy to accidentally do fraudulent science then the system should still be criticized and the systemic problem should still be addressed.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Here's how the razor applies: There is no real malice behind all the fraud in science publications. The authors aren't usually out to specifically harm others. However, in the long run it is stupid because of two and a half reasons: - it reduces people's trust in science because it is obvious we cannot trust the scientists which in the long run will reduce public funding for The grift - it causes misallocation of funds by people misled by the grift and this may lead you actual harm (e.g., what if you catch Alzheimer's but there is no cure because you lied about the causes 20 years ago?) 1/2- there is a chance that you will get caught, and like the former president of Stanford, not be allowed to continue bilking the gullible. This only gets half a point because the repercussions are generally not immediate and definitely not devastating to those who do it skillfully.

selimthegrim 2y ago
The former president of Stanford is the CEO of Xaira now.

o11c 2y ago

"Adequately" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in Hanlon's Razor. A good corollary to keep in mind is "Never attribute to stupidity what is better explained by malice." I usually apply this to politics, but science publishing is 90% politics, so it still fits.

asddubs 2y ago
Yeah, I have mixed feelings about hanlons razor. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is good, and some people don't do it enough, but there's also a lot of people that overextend the benefit of the doubt to the point that they're almost doing damage control for fraudsters