Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated(lareviewofbooks.org)
lareviewofbooks.org
Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/why-trusting-the-science-is-complicated/
321 comments
Yes, I completely agree. The reason this is very disheartening to me is because I believe the thing that is really special and awesome about science as a discipline is that it teaches people how to critically evaluate and weigh evidence in support of a hypothesis. So instead of teaching people how to be good critical thinkers (and, especially in this day and age, ascertain whether a particular source of evidence should be trusted and what the potential biases that source may have), "trust the science" has been turned into a pretty empty appeal to authority.
This has been pretty evident in the past year when the experts have often been wrong, or at least pushed their opinions in a way that wasn't really supported by the underlying evidence ("the public doesn't need to wear masks" back in March is a good example). It actually wasn't really that hard to dig in to the underlying evidence, assess the validity of that evidence, and make up your mind for yourself.
This has been pretty evident in the past year when the experts have often been wrong, or at least pushed their opinions in a way that wasn't really supported by the underlying evidence ("the public doesn't need to wear masks" back in March is a good example). It actually wasn't really that hard to dig in to the underlying evidence, assess the validity of that evidence, and make up your mind for yourself.
While it wasn't that hard, general public does not know where to even look for primary or even preliminary evidence. Much less how to evaluate the densely written papers.
So in the end it is reliant on science communicators, and there is enough people who are either bad at it, fake it or altogether evil and misrepresenting scientific evidence for it to fail.
You always will have some authority needed as you have to be able to read really well and a lot of practice with the specific field to handle the outputs of science.
So in the end it is reliant on science communicators, and there is enough people who are either bad at it, fake it or altogether evil and misrepresenting scientific evidence for it to fail.
You always will have some authority needed as you have to be able to read really well and a lot of practice with the specific field to handle the outputs of science.
>While it wasn't that hard, general public does not know where to even look for primary or even preliminary evidence. Much less how to evaluate the densely written papers.
I feel like its much worse than that. All of current research is very specialized. I am not a scientist but I do work in vaccines. After having worked for the past eight years in this field, I feel I can generally get the gist of scientific articles/papers, and understand if its something useful or junk - but only in my niche areas. Outside of that, I'm pretty much your average Joe.
I feel like its much worse than that. All of current research is very specialized. I am not a scientist but I do work in vaccines. After having worked for the past eight years in this field, I feel I can generally get the gist of scientific articles/papers, and understand if its something useful or junk - but only in my niche areas. Outside of that, I'm pretty much your average Joe.
The same could be said about the science behind lockdowns (as very little was knows about the effects of attempting to control a pandemic until this incredibly costly experiment went underway), but it doesn't stop experts proclaiming this is what is needed to help.
Vaccines (especially mRNA vaccines) are not a bad field to be an expert in.
As an example I have chronic sinusitis without polyps which totally destroys my quality of life, while I can probably live with it for a long time. I’m looking at the successful cystic fibrosis inhaled vaccine trials that looks like a great way to help the cells produce missing proteins.
I’m hoping for similar treatments to be available in the near future, and I have some money that I would happily use to invest / donate in a chronic sinusitis vaccine development, but so far I see only biologics trials that are probably much slower to go through because of the greater toxicity.
Actually your knowledge is enough for you to have an edge over other people in investing in biotech companies.
As an example I have chronic sinusitis without polyps which totally destroys my quality of life, while I can probably live with it for a long time. I’m looking at the successful cystic fibrosis inhaled vaccine trials that looks like a great way to help the cells produce missing proteins.
I’m hoping for similar treatments to be available in the near future, and I have some money that I would happily use to invest / donate in a chronic sinusitis vaccine development, but so far I see only biologics trials that are probably much slower to go through because of the greater toxicity.
Actually your knowledge is enough for you to have an edge over other people in investing in biotech companies.
The problem with the medical world vs people who suffer from chronic illnesses is even the doctors who treat them don't seem to understand how bad it is to live with.
Last time I saw my ENT doctor he's like well it's not that bad and I just wanted to scream at him.
I liked how someone else on HN put it: your body is constantly sending an error code but there's no way to shut it off.
Do you also have chronically irritated, dry sinuses with no polyps?
I've tried nasal irrigation and a corticosteroid but nothing works.
Last time I saw my ENT doctor he's like well it's not that bad and I just wanted to scream at him.
I liked how someone else on HN put it: your body is constantly sending an error code but there's no way to shut it off.
Do you also have chronically irritated, dry sinuses with no polyps?
I've tried nasal irrigation and a corticosteroid but nothing works.
Yes. My symptoms correlate with the amount of air pollution around me, and much worse in winter.
Right now the only thing I can do is travel away from Europe to south/central america for the winter.
I tried all commercial air cleaners, but they don't decrease toxic gases, just PM2.5, which doesn't help me. I'm thinking of building a house/apartment with very clean air (maybe using nitrogene and oxygene concentrator). Also I'm planning to try cortisosteroid in my sinuses using a biodegradable net.
Biologics may help as well, but they help only IL-4 / IL-5 type inflammation, and I don't know what cytokins are causing my inflammation (I was thinking of doing an cytokin profiling from biopsy, but of course I need a great ENT doctor to help with it).
At the end the main problem is that there are multiple causes with CRS symptoms, so it's impossible to have 1 drug to cure all the symptoms. Also as it's not deadly short term, FDA is much stricter with the drug companies that try to come up with treatments, which is understandable.
Right now the only thing I can do is travel away from Europe to south/central america for the winter.
I tried all commercial air cleaners, but they don't decrease toxic gases, just PM2.5, which doesn't help me. I'm thinking of building a house/apartment with very clean air (maybe using nitrogene and oxygene concentrator). Also I'm planning to try cortisosteroid in my sinuses using a biodegradable net.
Biologics may help as well, but they help only IL-4 / IL-5 type inflammation, and I don't know what cytokins are causing my inflammation (I was thinking of doing an cytokin profiling from biopsy, but of course I need a great ENT doctor to help with it).
At the end the main problem is that there are multiple causes with CRS symptoms, so it's impossible to have 1 drug to cure all the symptoms. Also as it's not deadly short term, FDA is much stricter with the drug companies that try to come up with treatments, which is understandable.
Well vaccines as a field is super-mega broad, there are so many pure research sub-disciplines one can choose to be an expert on due to the intersection of medicine/immunology/chemistry/biology. And even those are super broad themselves. From an applied sciences standpoint again there are various disciplines depending on the particular vaccine technology - fermentation, protein purification, conjugation chemistry, formulation, drug delivery, etc, etc, etc. From an analytical chemistry/biology standpoint there are dozens more fields that come into the picture when testing. You can spend years and decades in any of these niche fields and still not probe the depths of our accumulated knowledge. And once you have a product, you get into the regulatory domain - finding the quickest and shortest path to the market - which is its own nightmare.
I don't know much about the particulars of the vaccine you are referring to, but when it comes to investing, I think it is always safe to assume that all major investing firms have ready access to SMEs that can give them the scoop on any company they're interested in.
I don't know much about the particulars of the vaccine you are referring to, but when it comes to investing, I think it is always safe to assume that all major investing firms have ready access to SMEs that can give them the scoop on any company they're interested in.
The exciting thing with mRNA vaccines is that while developing the delivery platform took decades, developing the COVID vaccine itself was just 48 hours according to the CEO of both Moderna and BioNTech. Right now they have a lot of work with manufacturing (and they had lots and lots of paper work to do), but even there I think they are doing great, as they were not prepared for a pandemic.
As the drug delivery platform is working great, it seems like it can be reused (unlike with older platforms), and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it.
As the drug delivery platform is working great, it seems like it can be reused (unlike with older platforms), and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it.
It is exciting. But what's a bit unclear (to me) is how re-usable safety testing is. Are we going to arrive at stage where we can "push to production" after this 48 hour design phase, or are we going to need months-to-years of trials for each new code?
There's a huge difference between months and years.
The delivery platform is reusable, which is a big difference from older vaccines, where the virus that is delivered can be used only once (Sputnik-V vaccine uses 2 different delivery platforms _because of_ this.
The other thing to look at is efficiency: as the vaccines can deliver mRNAs that cells express anyways in healthy people, the lesser toxicity can mean a higher likelihood of success for the drug (which is the main problem with drug development in the last 10-20 years).
The delivery platform is reusable, which is a big difference from older vaccines, where the virus that is delivered can be used only once (Sputnik-V vaccine uses 2 different delivery platforms _because of_ this.
The other thing to look at is efficiency: as the vaccines can deliver mRNAs that cells express anyways in healthy people, the lesser toxicity can mean a higher likelihood of success for the drug (which is the main problem with drug development in the last 10-20 years).
>As the drug delivery platform is working great, it seems like it can be reused (unlike with older platforms), and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it.
While we're all cheering for its success, its important to remember that the current authorization was under the 'emergency use' clause. Also, our body continues to evolve to fight attempts by external agents to inject foreign genetic material into our cells. Whether the same platform with work on future vaccines will be known only by performing science. But as always, data >> opinion.
You seem well read so you've already identified one of the key problems - the genetic code that forms the basis of the vaccine. Its not really my area, but from what I understand, dealing with synthetic RNA (RNA Mimics) is tricky since its never identical to cellular RNA. All of the associated problems will already be known to anyone working in that field, so there's nothing of value that I can add anyway.
While we're all cheering for its success, its important to remember that the current authorization was under the 'emergency use' clause. Also, our body continues to evolve to fight attempts by external agents to inject foreign genetic material into our cells. Whether the same platform with work on future vaccines will be known only by performing science. But as always, data >> opinion.
You seem well read so you've already identified one of the key problems - the genetic code that forms the basis of the vaccine. Its not really my area, but from what I understand, dealing with synthetic RNA (RNA Mimics) is tricky since its never identical to cellular RNA. All of the associated problems will already be known to anyone working in that field, so there's nothing of value that I can add anyway.
I'm not sure what you are refering to, as the end proteins expressed by the ribosome should be the same, even if the syntetic mRNA is optimized for increased expression compared to the non-syntatic one.
At the same time the vaccines can't control which cells get the mRNA delivered as opposed to non-syntetic cells, where the cells are differentiated by their methylation and other epigenetics and gene expression control pathways, which I guess can be problematic for some cell types.
At the same time the vaccines can't control which cells get the mRNA delivered as opposed to non-syntetic cells, where the cells are differentiated by their methylation and other epigenetics and gene expression control pathways, which I guess can be problematic for some cell types.
I don't think that is accurate. The spike protein that is being expressed has been modified (2p mutation) to enhance its stability. Proteins have a structure-function relationship and I believe this change in structure was done to inactivate the function of the spike protein, and merely use it as a immunogen.
But I was making a different point. Even before you get to the final expression of the protein, there are various steps that need to go smoothly. The mRNA sequence is carefully engineered to dodge the body's various defenses, among other things - and this sort of engineering is not trivial - which is the point I thought you were also making with - "and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it. ".
But maybe I misunderstood your original point?
But I was making a different point. Even before you get to the final expression of the protein, there are various steps that need to go smoothly. The mRNA sequence is carefully engineered to dodge the body's various defenses, among other things - and this sort of engineering is not trivial - which is the point I thought you were also making with - "and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it. ".
But maybe I misunderstood your original point?
I had sinusitis that left me bedridden for a week once. You have my sympathies.
> You always will have some authority needed as you have to be able to read really well and a lot of practice with the specific field to handle the outputs of science.
In other words, prophets, pastors and priests.
The conflation of academia and science is starting to grate.
In other words, prophets, pastors and priests.
The conflation of academia and science is starting to grate.
In the middle ages multiplication was a skill that was taught at universities. Somehow we now teach it to 7 year olds.
The reason why we haven't done the same for critical thinking is that the people in charge won't be if we had a citizenry which could think logically.
Case in point: NYC and SF have the worst homelessness problem of any city despite being in the hands of the party that keeps saying they are for the poor. That you now have dozens of reasons lined up in your head why it's not their fault despite having the power to solve it for decades and should be let off the hook is the lack of critical thinking in American education at work.
The reason why we haven't done the same for critical thinking is that the people in charge won't be if we had a citizenry which could think logically.
Case in point: NYC and SF have the worst homelessness problem of any city despite being in the hands of the party that keeps saying they are for the poor. That you now have dozens of reasons lined up in your head why it's not their fault despite having the power to solve it for decades and should be let off the hook is the lack of critical thinking in American education at work.
> The reason why we haven't done the same for critical thinking is that the people in charge won't be if we had a citizenry which could think logically.
I think this is only true because people think its true. There's plenty of PhD holding scientists that still participate in tribal politics. There's also plenty that are smart in their field and nothing more. This was logic that was used in the past and every time we've educated people the elite haven't lost their positions of power. But everyone's lives have increased in quality, I mean we don't use the streets of London as a sewer.
I think this is only true because people think its true. There's plenty of PhD holding scientists that still participate in tribal politics. There's also plenty that are smart in their field and nothing more. This was logic that was used in the past and every time we've educated people the elite haven't lost their positions of power. But everyone's lives have increased in quality, I mean we don't use the streets of London as a sewer.
What do you mean by "Critical Thinking"? If something can be explicitly explained, it can be taught. But a lot of people who want "critical thinking" just seem to think "I wish people weren't stupid and would all agree with me".
This may not be what the parent meant, but I think teaching logical reasoning in grade school would be a good first step. Understanding logical arguments and fallacies would go a long way to having a more informed, and less gullible populace.
I dont think it is nearly enough. Mostly because of my experience with how people who fancy "facts and logic", but dont know much else end up arguing.
The knowledge itself matters. The ability to see when is the statement subtly exaggerating what facts say, so that one can use it in manipulative "logical" claim matters great deal. The ability to understand nuance matters a lot too. So does the ability to deal with bad actors in discussion, to understand motivations of whoever wrote this or that document matters.
The knowledge itself matters. The ability to see when is the statement subtly exaggerating what facts say, so that one can use it in manipulative "logical" claim matters great deal. The ability to understand nuance matters a lot too. So does the ability to deal with bad actors in discussion, to understand motivations of whoever wrote this or that document matters.
I totally think we should be teaching logical fallacies and such in schools. Along with basic ethics (as in the various competing schools of thought).
But in fairness to the average person, scammers have to play big numbers games to find suckers and pick weaker targets like elderly because the average person isn't that incapable of critical thinking.
But in fairness to the average person, scammers have to play big numbers games to find suckers and pick weaker targets like elderly because the average person isn't that incapable of critical thinking.
Grammar schools in Croatia teach it, there is a subject called Logika, with all the moduses (ponens, tollens, etc) and mnemonics (barbara, celarent, etc) and everything in between. And it's probably been a subject since the austrian empire (the inherited school system here is slow to change).
As you might imagine, students mostly learn this for the exams and forget everything when they leave schools. The poor political and economical situation in the country reflects the ineffectiveness of this approach.
And hey, schools in yugoslavia also taught marxism as a subject I kid you not (it was an established science back then!). Yet the whole generation in the 90s soon abandoned it for the next shiny thing. Most probably expected to become capitalists themselves, forgetting that even in capitalism someone has to actually do the work and only cca 200 families would actually own the businesses.
(Logika curriculum in croatian) https://mzo.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Publikacije/Pred...
As you might imagine, students mostly learn this for the exams and forget everything when they leave schools. The poor political and economical situation in the country reflects the ineffectiveness of this approach.
And hey, schools in yugoslavia also taught marxism as a subject I kid you not (it was an established science back then!). Yet the whole generation in the 90s soon abandoned it for the next shiny thing. Most probably expected to become capitalists themselves, forgetting that even in capitalism someone has to actually do the work and only cca 200 families would actually own the businesses.
(Logika curriculum in croatian) https://mzo.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Publikacije/Pred...
It's fascinating that they teach the medieval approach to syllogism. I learned about that in a history of logic class, not in the actual logic classes. Slow to change indeed.
Second and higher order cognition. For starters realizing that what people in power say and what they do are very different.
Preferably for their own side first because I am really sick of predicting what the next 4 years will be like, being called shill, having that prediction borne out and then being told that it was actually impossible for anything else to happen from the start.
Preferably for their own side first because I am really sick of predicting what the next 4 years will be like, being called shill, having that prediction borne out and then being told that it was actually impossible for anything else to happen from the start.
The bigger problem is that in many fields, even if you can read and understand the paper, it is not actionable, much less verifiable by you. It may be incomplete, hide an asterisk as some other branch may mention, or be altogether written as to be unverifiable.
The last bit is especially common in the most important but soft sciences like psychology, sociology, economy, history or anthropology...
Or worse, it may be in principle verifiable but only at high expense, or the results of the analysis are incomplete or buried.
The last bit is especially common in the most important but soft sciences like psychology, sociology, economy, history or anthropology...
Or worse, it may be in principle verifiable but only at high expense, or the results of the analysis are incomplete or buried.
Reading cutting edge papers is not something the layman can do, it's a waste of time.
This is why we have things like the CDC offer guidelines, taking into account the changes and growth in our knowledge base. Knowledge is collected and verified over time and eventually becomes distilled in easy to understand ways to the public.
This is why we have things like the CDC offer guidelines, taking into account the changes and growth in our knowledge base. Knowledge is collected and verified over time and eventually becomes distilled in easy to understand ways to the public.
> In the middle ages multiplication was a skill that was taught at universities. Somehow we now teach it to 7 year olds.
I think that this is [citation needed] category.
Actually in both ways, my kids were not taught multiplication as 7 years old. At that age, they were still doing additions in school.
I think that this is [citation needed] category.
Actually in both ways, my kids were not taught multiplication as 7 years old. At that age, they were still doing additions in school.
Remember to vote Republican!
This is a rich take coming from anyone living in the US. It's a two party system - the failure of the party partially aligned with your views does not and has never made voting for the party expressly against your views the correct outcome.
This is you telling people to think critically while failing to think critically (because it suits the politics you want to advocate for).
This is a rich take coming from anyone living in the US. It's a two party system - the failure of the party partially aligned with your views does not and has never made voting for the party expressly against your views the correct outcome.
This is you telling people to think critically while failing to think critically (because it suits the politics you want to advocate for).
It's a two party system because everyone in US tries their hardest to keep it a two party system. Every election is the most important one ever, so there are "no options".
Instead of this, you can stop acting myopic towards elections and punish your party (vote the other one, 3rd party, or even write-in Bernie Sanders/Ron Paul) and force the political powers to answer accordingly if they want your vote for the next time.
Instead of this, you can stop acting myopic towards elections and punish your party (vote the other one, 3rd party, or even write-in Bernie Sanders/Ron Paul) and force the political powers to answer accordingly if they want your vote for the next time.
You do not understand your own country's electoral system.
Question: in a first past the post electoral system, what happens if the vote between two parties in a three party election is split 35% and 20%? Does either party take power? Do any of their candidates take power?
NO.
The other party wins - with 45% of the vote. EVERY TIME.
Third parties in the US literally cannot win, unless some mysterious outcome hands them an immediate largest share of the vote. Which isn't going to happen in one electoral cycle, which means the ascendancy of such a party has to involve decades of losses for whichever party they accidentally poach more voters from each cycle.
Question: in a first past the post electoral system, what happens if the vote between two parties in a three party election is split 35% and 20%? Does either party take power? Do any of their candidates take power?
NO.
The other party wins - with 45% of the vote. EVERY TIME.
Third parties in the US literally cannot win, unless some mysterious outcome hands them an immediate largest share of the vote. Which isn't going to happen in one electoral cycle, which means the ascendancy of such a party has to involve decades of losses for whichever party they accidentally poach more voters from each cycle.
Last time I checked, there were six parties in my country's general assembly. Also in my country, in your situation two parties would have to form a coalition to form a government as none of them would have the necessary majority in the assembly.
> Remember to vote Republican!
In NYC and SF? Sure. Or Greens, Independents, Socialists, anyone but Democrats.
I'd be giving the same advice to anyone from Alabama about voting not Republican.
Politics isn't about good and evil, it's about who gets what. If people who keep failing to give you what you want keep getting your vote they will keep doing what they were doing.
In NYC and SF? Sure. Or Greens, Independents, Socialists, anyone but Democrats.
I'd be giving the same advice to anyone from Alabama about voting not Republican.
Politics isn't about good and evil, it's about who gets what. If people who keep failing to give you what you want keep getting your vote they will keep doing what they were doing.
Alabama has one of the lowest homelessness rates in the country. What's wrong with Alabama? :)
[deleted]
yah, who knew how limited the utility of masks were until we tried it en masse? or the unreasonable effectiveness of distancing indoors around familiars, even without a mask? crazy, isn't it?
science is hard; human behavior is even harder.
science is hard; human behavior is even harder.
Masks of the FFP2/N95 variety have great utility at protecting the wearer, even when not worn perfectly.
This should be the main concern of every individual. Governments can worry about whether they work en masse.
This should be the main concern of every individual. Governments can worry about whether they work en masse.
no, the type of mask doesn’t matter. the situations where masks help are minimal and fleeting, and distancing (or natural dynamics) does the work in most common situations. moreover masks aren’t typically worn in situations where they’d actually be useful (around familiars, because less distance). those are (some of) the human dynamics involved, which nullify the potential utility of masks. masks are primarily palliative, political, tribal, and cargo-culted.
In Germany (and other countries) masks must be worn whenever distance can't be kept, so they are widely worn. Doctor's offices, public transport, work (typically not at one's desk), religious gatherings, retirement homes, etc.
Many people are nowadays wearing FFP2 masks, which are available everywhere.
Many people are nowadays wearing FFP2 masks, which are available everywhere.
masks don't absolve individuals of situational awareness (and worrying about the type of mask is a non sequitur in this regard), as we each still need to understand the actual risks of various common situations, ignorance of which is what is driving infection rates, not flouting arbitrary masking rules. mask messaging makes that worse by masking (ha) the real, actionable information and issues. people have been relentlessly messaged to think that wearing a mask in public is all they need to do, but that's diametrically opposed to the real infection threats we typically face (e.g., people we know gathering privately).
we shouldn't accept mindless rules from our "superiors", especially incorrect and politically motivated ones, but rather demand timely and correct information devoid of political intent, so that we can internalize the risks appropriately and act accordingly.
we shouldn't accept mindless rules from our "superiors", especially incorrect and politically motivated ones, but rather demand timely and correct information devoid of political intent, so that we can internalize the risks appropriately and act accordingly.
There is some danger in publicly adopting a "science has become religion" position. Just as "trust the science" can be used as a rhetorical weapon, "science has become another religion" can be too .. and usually to more dangerous effect because a lot of what is essentially known bullshit (see https://www.callingbullshit.org) gets accommodated by the latter compared to the former.
There are reasonable accepted empirical approaches in accepted use today. Any team that follows these methods and reports honestly can be trusted more than a team that doesn't.
Also "trust" is a loaded word .. but mostly we just mean "predictability" - ex: to "trust someone" means to be sure that if you know what they've said, you can predict what they'll do. Much of empirical science is about offering up data and models that aid such predictability, so declaring "trust the science is extinct" is an outright rejection of these empirical methods (ex: randomised control trials) that have taken a long time to mature and take root as standard practice.
What is needed though is to be able to separate the science from policy making. As Dietrich Dörner has shown in "The Logic of Failure" [1], folks in the hard sciences don't fare very well when policy making in systems with complex causally interconnected parts is tasked upon them due to learnt heuristics that don't fare well in that world.
Let science do its thing - which is inform and educate. Let policies be made by those with more full understanding of the system into which changes need to be effected.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Si...
There are reasonable accepted empirical approaches in accepted use today. Any team that follows these methods and reports honestly can be trusted more than a team that doesn't.
Also "trust" is a loaded word .. but mostly we just mean "predictability" - ex: to "trust someone" means to be sure that if you know what they've said, you can predict what they'll do. Much of empirical science is about offering up data and models that aid such predictability, so declaring "trust the science is extinct" is an outright rejection of these empirical methods (ex: randomised control trials) that have taken a long time to mature and take root as standard practice.
What is needed though is to be able to separate the science from policy making. As Dietrich Dörner has shown in "The Logic of Failure" [1], folks in the hard sciences don't fare very well when policy making in systems with complex causally interconnected parts is tasked upon them due to learnt heuristics that don't fare well in that world.
Let science do its thing - which is inform and educate. Let policies be made by those with more full understanding of the system into which changes need to be effected.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Si...
> There are reasonable accepted empirical approaches in accepted use today. Any team that follows these methods and reports honestly can be trusted more than a team that doesn't.
The underlying problem isn't actually a problem with science, it's a problem with politics.
You need to hire some scientists to do your experiments. If they follow the scientific method, you get results using the best system we know how.
But if they follow the scientific method then the Republicans work to defund climate science research and the Democrats work to cancel any scientist whose results challenge the orthodoxy on race or gender.
And if politics interferes then it's not science anymore. If research leading to politically inconvenient results has its funding withdrawn or scientists are intimidated into self-censorship then it's all just selection bias and fudging the numbers.
Maybe what we need is to do something like the court system, where you have multiple research funding "judges" which have lifetime appointments and each get a given amount of research money to dole out every year, and their job is to decide how to spend it. Then they can spend it however they like and can only be removed for e.g. corruption, not for funding research somebody doesn't like.
The underlying problem isn't actually a problem with science, it's a problem with politics.
You need to hire some scientists to do your experiments. If they follow the scientific method, you get results using the best system we know how.
But if they follow the scientific method then the Republicans work to defund climate science research and the Democrats work to cancel any scientist whose results challenge the orthodoxy on race or gender.
And if politics interferes then it's not science anymore. If research leading to politically inconvenient results has its funding withdrawn or scientists are intimidated into self-censorship then it's all just selection bias and fudging the numbers.
Maybe what we need is to do something like the court system, where you have multiple research funding "judges" which have lifetime appointments and each get a given amount of research money to dole out every year, and their job is to decide how to spend it. Then they can spend it however they like and can only be removed for e.g. corruption, not for funding research somebody doesn't like.
This is the fundamental problem with "evidence led policy". As soon as science can reliably affect policy outcomes, people who want to change policy outcomes will corrupt the science.
Yup this. In much the same way as things like judging the productivity of software developers by the number of lines of code they write. It sounds like a good idea to the inexperienced, and it may even seem sort of true if you look at it in the right way. But we all know, as soon as you try to make consequential decisions based on it, it will immediately be gamed and not true anymore.
You raise an interesting hypothesis - that all interactions between science and policy making is subject to Goodhart's law
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law).
In as much as science deals with things that cannot be affected by policy (ex: stellar physics or nuclear fusion), the "law" doesn't apply I think, except maybe in perception (people may believe that a particular nuclear fusion technique doesn't work even though it's been demonstrated but policy forbade it to be implemented).
For some cases, we would want Goodhart's law to apply - ex: climate change. We'd want actions to be taken to reduce the impact on the planet as we gather and report climate parameters accurately. Similarly, we'd want accurate reporting of gender discrimination in society to result in the reduction of such discrimination. The question really is the way the change is effected. If "salary difference" is an indicator of gender discrimination for example, law makers can pass laws that fix it, thereby removing its effectiveness as an indicator .. but we're happy for even that at some level. That would be similar to a government sending teams to re-freeze melting glaciers because climate scientists are using it as an indicator of global warming.
True policy thinkers, though, would want to ask the "five whys" and work to fix the underlying problem.
In as much as science deals with things that cannot be affected by policy (ex: stellar physics or nuclear fusion), the "law" doesn't apply I think, except maybe in perception (people may believe that a particular nuclear fusion technique doesn't work even though it's been demonstrated but policy forbade it to be implemented).
For some cases, we would want Goodhart's law to apply - ex: climate change. We'd want actions to be taken to reduce the impact on the planet as we gather and report climate parameters accurately. Similarly, we'd want accurate reporting of gender discrimination in society to result in the reduction of such discrimination. The question really is the way the change is effected. If "salary difference" is an indicator of gender discrimination for example, law makers can pass laws that fix it, thereby removing its effectiveness as an indicator .. but we're happy for even that at some level. That would be similar to a government sending teams to re-freeze melting glaciers because climate scientists are using it as an indicator of global warming.
True policy thinkers, though, would want to ask the "five whys" and work to fix the underlying problem.
It won't matter.
Eventually the governments who support technology will win - either via war or economic advantage.
Eventually the governments who support technology will win - either via war or economic advantage.
How is that not mattering? So if China uses science and the US descends further into hyper-partisan culture war, that doesn't matter?
It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
My point was that eventually the anti-science policymakers will eventually lose out. Societies that value technology and science will win in the end - they will have economic advantages and advantages in war.
> It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
This is irrelevant to the conversation, but yes that is why we spend trillions on defense technology, so that if it comes to blows we don't lose out.
> It matters kind of a lot whether the winner is a liberal democracy with free speech and civil liberties or a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
This is irrelevant to the conversation, but yes that is why we spend trillions on defense technology, so that if it comes to blows we don't lose out.
At the beginning (early March 2020) we were told that the lockdowns would last for at most a month or two, in order to "flatten the curve", at least that's what "science" was telling us. I know I believed in that, even though I'm no scientist.
One year on and that "prophecy" (because that's what that was, just a prophecy) turned out to be pretty damn false. Nevertheless, we still let the people/scientists who deceived us back in March 2020 to take "science"-based decisions that will affect the lives of hundreds of millions going forward. Nobody will be held responsible, apart from a few politicians.
One year on and that "prophecy" (because that's what that was, just a prophecy) turned out to be pretty damn false. Nevertheless, we still let the people/scientists who deceived us back in March 2020 to take "science"-based decisions that will affect the lives of hundreds of millions going forward. Nobody will be held responsible, apart from a few politicians.
"Flattening the curve" definitely worked, and you can see that in the data. However, what you're not accounting for is what happened AFTER the lockdowns were effective.
Experts worked on detailed plans for staged re-opening after the lockdown. I don't know about Europe, but the US did not follow such a plan. Different states reacted differently, and politics had a bigger say in how reopening was done than any epidemiologist.
Experts worked on detailed plans for staged re-opening after the lockdown. I don't know about Europe, but the US did not follow such a plan. Different states reacted differently, and politics had a bigger say in how reopening was done than any epidemiologist.
I think you are very mistaken if you think that.
Lockodwn appeared to work, but given that it takes at least 20 days from catching covid to dying, you can see in many countries that the curves for deaths were flattening off well before lockdown could have been the cause. Uruguay, Japan, Sweden, Belarus didn't lockdown, and don't stand out in any way for their numbers.
Japan has a far different culture than the US, people wear masks in normal times there.
And Sweden wasn't exactly a success, and has done far worse than their nordic neighbors, say, Norway. The numbers do not lie here.
Belarus had a very effective plan - they tested far earlier and more often, and have far more hospital beds per person.
Straight up country comparison is just a fool's game. We will have to learn from this as best we can - what worked, what didn't work, where, and why. If everyone wore masks properly, was lockdown necessary? We need time to study and find answers.
And Sweden wasn't exactly a success, and has done far worse than their nordic neighbors, say, Norway. The numbers do not lie here.
Belarus had a very effective plan - they tested far earlier and more often, and have far more hospital beds per person.
Straight up country comparison is just a fool's game. We will have to learn from this as best we can - what worked, what didn't work, where, and why. If everyone wore masks properly, was lockdown necessary? We need time to study and find answers.
Sweden was very average for Europe without any tyranny from government. I would say that is success. Here in Spain we had many more of our rights taken away and still had more deaths with corona.
> Sweden wasn't exactly a success, and has done far worse than their nordic neighbors, say, Norway
> Straight up country comparison is just a fool's game
> Sweden wasn't exactly a success, and has done far worse than their nordic neighbors, say, Norway
> Straight up country comparison is just a fool's game
This idea of 'flatten the curve' is pretty easy to prove false with a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Like: how many people that simultaneously have corona can the hospitals support? From that it follows how much time it takes for everyone to get corona. When I did that calculation back in March I found that it was a few years. So, the consequnce of 'flatten the curve' is a few years of lockdowns. A very bad conclusion....
The story told to the general public was obviously not the story to be closest to scientific truth, but instead the story that was thought to lead to the least severe outcomes. Nobody really knew the real fatality rate last year, the numbers could range from more than 10% to about 0.1%. If they turned out to be about 10%, quarantene would be essential in stopping the spread of the infection. Also, higher fatality rate would mean that the infection rate would be relatively low (as the number of dead were known), meaning that it would be realistically possible to exterminate the virus. On the other edge of the spectrum, the fatality rate might be near 0.1%, but the infection rate would be much higher. If this held true, flatting the curve would actually be a good strategy. Finally, if the true fatality rate would be around 1% (roughly the real number), the one would "flatten the curve" until a vaccine could be provided, as if hospitals had been flooded way behond what has happened, the fatality rate could easily be 2-4x higher. In the case of the US, that could mean around 10 million dead by now, if no lockdown or social distancing had been attempted.
Of course, had no action been taken to slow it down, and millions had died last spring (in the US alone), the public opinion would strongly demand a lockdown, as well as become so scared that they voluntarily self-isolate.
Of course, had no action been taken to slow it down, and millions had died last spring (in the US alone), the public opinion would strongly demand a lockdown, as well as become so scared that they voluntarily self-isolate.
This doesn't work because this assumes no learning takes place.
As you can see we now have vaccines - it would not have been a few years of lockdowns.
As you can see we now have vaccines - it would not have been a few years of lockdowns.
I'm not sure I understand.
New Zealand did lockdowns for a month or two and became completely Covid free.
China did lockdowns for a month or two and became almost Covid free.
Most European countries did lockdowns for a month or two and were quite open over the summer.
So either it was a different prophecy in the rest of the world or the prophecy was correct after all.
New Zealand did lockdowns for a month or two and became completely Covid free.
China did lockdowns for a month or two and became almost Covid free.
Most European countries did lockdowns for a month or two and were quite open over the summer.
So either it was a different prophecy in the rest of the world or the prophecy was correct after all.
>completely Covid free.
not any more https://time.com/5939502/new-zealand-covid-19-lockdown/
not any more https://time.com/5939502/new-zealand-covid-19-lockdown/
It's 3 cases and they are already implementing a city-wide lockdown.
Other 100+ countries did the lockdown as well and didn’t have the same results as NZ, science would thus tell us that what happened in NZ was the exception/statistical anomaly.
Okay, so you are saying that lockdowns do work, albeit in exceptional cases.
Then how did the lockdowns work in say New Zealand or Australia, or Singapore, or China? What is the mechanism of action?
Then how did the lockdowns work in say New Zealand or Australia, or Singapore, or China? What is the mechanism of action?
Through severe restrictions on travel, people coming in the country and invasion of privacy.
I know Australian people in Europe who haven't been able to visit home in a year. I know second-hand that in China if you had multi-stop flights you needed to quarantine at every stop. I don't know what test and trace measures the AU and NZ governments decided on, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't like them if I knew.
And it's easy to say 'well, good, people shouldn't travel now' - but this is not just about holiday. These restrictions keep families apart, make it more difficult for people to care for each other. Imagine someone close to you is in distress and you can't go help them because of this, how would you feel?
I don't know about you, but I would not want to live in China, even it gets to zero covid. And I wouldn't particularly like being isolated in AU or NZ either.
I know Australian people in Europe who haven't been able to visit home in a year. I know second-hand that in China if you had multi-stop flights you needed to quarantine at every stop. I don't know what test and trace measures the AU and NZ governments decided on, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't like them if I knew.
And it's easy to say 'well, good, people shouldn't travel now' - but this is not just about holiday. These restrictions keep families apart, make it more difficult for people to care for each other. Imagine someone close to you is in distress and you can't go help them because of this, how would you feel?
I don't know about you, but I would not want to live in China, even it gets to zero covid. And I wouldn't particularly like being isolated in AU or NZ either.
Completely agree, would not want to live in China either.
My comment was a response to parent, who feels betrayed by science, because lockdowns were supposed to work.
What I will say though is that there is no win scenario. It's lose-lose, either way. A non-Covid world does not exist anymore. Lockdowns come with exactly the downsides you describe. No lockdowns come with an overload of the health care system and high death tolls. Light lockdowns are a combination of both.
Both proponents and opponents share the same motivations by the way - to be able to see relatives, meet other people etc.
My comment was a response to parent, who feels betrayed by science, because lockdowns were supposed to work.
What I will say though is that there is no win scenario. It's lose-lose, either way. A non-Covid world does not exist anymore. Lockdowns come with exactly the downsides you describe. No lockdowns come with an overload of the health care system and high death tolls. Light lockdowns are a combination of both.
Both proponents and opponents share the same motivations by the way - to be able to see relatives, meet other people etc.
> Lockdowns come with exactly the downsides you describe. No lockdowns come with an overload of the health care system and high death tolls.
Please stop pushing the unproven narrative that lockdowns stop the healthcare system being overloaded. It's morally wrong to push for such a destructive policy without good supporting evidence.
Sweden, Japan, Uraguay, South Korea. No lockdown. No problem for any of those healthcare systems. It can be easily shown that curves were flattening before lockdown had a chance to take effect.
This is about as close as we will get to a controlled trail on lockdowns.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.20248936v...
Please stop pushing the unproven narrative that lockdowns stop the healthcare system being overloaded. It's morally wrong to push for such a destructive policy without good supporting evidence.
Sweden, Japan, Uraguay, South Korea. No lockdown. No problem for any of those healthcare systems. It can be easily shown that curves were flattening before lockdown had a chance to take effect.
This is about as close as we will get to a controlled trail on lockdowns.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.20248936v...
You are absolutely right, lockdowns are just a proxy, the real factor is behaviour. If everybody behaves lockdown-like, lockdown can be avoided.
You don't need lockdowns to stop the healthcare system from being overloaded, if everybody wears masks, socially distances, agrees to track, trace and isolate programmes, there is mass testing, no incentives for people to come to work sick, etc. One year on we have a pretty good estimate how each behaviour/measure influences the reproduction rate of Covid-19.
> Please stop pushing the unproven narrative that lockdowns stop the healthcare system being overloaded.
I don't understand what exactly is unproven. Lockdowns correlate with behaviour. The Chinese healthcare system was completely overwhelmed, even with CCP spin on things. In Bergamo, Italy, the dead were carried away in army trucks. Look at fatality rates for both countries at the time.
You don't need lockdowns to stop the healthcare system from being overloaded, if everybody wears masks, socially distances, agrees to track, trace and isolate programmes, there is mass testing, no incentives for people to come to work sick, etc. One year on we have a pretty good estimate how each behaviour/measure influences the reproduction rate of Covid-19.
> Please stop pushing the unproven narrative that lockdowns stop the healthcare system being overloaded.
I don't understand what exactly is unproven. Lockdowns correlate with behaviour. The Chinese healthcare system was completely overwhelmed, even with CCP spin on things. In Bergamo, Italy, the dead were carried away in army trucks. Look at fatality rates for both countries at the time.
> If everybody behaves lockdown-like, lockdown can be avoided.
Speculation without evidence.
Lockdowns are apolitical decision, not a scientific one. Lockdowns can be avoided if governments choose not to implement them. But most seem to be relishing in the emergency powers given to them.
Speculation without evidence.
Lockdowns are apolitical decision, not a scientific one. Lockdowns can be avoided if governments choose not to implement them. But most seem to be relishing in the emergency powers given to them.
Fine but this isn't evidence that lockdowns don't work, they clearly do work, it's just that in many places people put their freedom above other people's chance of getting sick and dying in Covid. If it was a higher risk of death I think that calculus would change.
>Let science do its thing - which is inform and educate. Let policies be made by those with more full understanding of the system into which changes need to be effected.
But what about when scientists collaborate with the policy-makers to shape public perception about how to inform and educate people?
One prime example is last years long and detailed study on how there was no "gay gene". In effect, homosexual activity and inclinations could not be shown to be the result of any specific gene expression after many trials and searches for such.
The scientists, worried about how this result would look to the public, worked with LGBTQ advocacy groups to shape how the paper would be released to the media and explained to the public[1].
Now, a sizable portion in HN's demographic will feel this is all well and good, but how far should this go? The uncomfortable truth here is that people are not "born gay" as we have been told so often. And that has been a very important talking point in the past two decades when debating about gay rights. Many people were convinced to support gay rights for this reason alone (however we might feel about that, it's true). They very well may feel duped by scientists and no longer "trust the science". How far should scientists go to shield the public from uncomfortable truths? And how much will the public continue to trust them when such veiling of the truth is made known to them?
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
But what about when scientists collaborate with the policy-makers to shape public perception about how to inform and educate people?
One prime example is last years long and detailed study on how there was no "gay gene". In effect, homosexual activity and inclinations could not be shown to be the result of any specific gene expression after many trials and searches for such.
The scientists, worried about how this result would look to the public, worked with LGBTQ advocacy groups to shape how the paper would be released to the media and explained to the public[1].
Now, a sizable portion in HN's demographic will feel this is all well and good, but how far should this go? The uncomfortable truth here is that people are not "born gay" as we have been told so often. And that has been a very important talking point in the past two decades when debating about gay rights. Many people were convinced to support gay rights for this reason alone (however we might feel about that, it's true). They very well may feel duped by scientists and no longer "trust the science". How far should scientists go to shield the public from uncomfortable truths? And how much will the public continue to trust them when such veiling of the truth is made known to them?
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
The problem I have with your comment is likely the reason the scientists were worried about how best to communicate their results:
"sexual orientation is not the expression of any one gene" is not the same as "people are not born gay".
It may be a complex genetic interaction or it may be some other effect at play, but whatever it is, it doesn't contradict that people don't choose their sexual orientation.
Since people have justified all sorts of atrocities based on the misconception that being queer is a choice for people that they could just not make, I can understand scientists who want to make sure their research doesn't fuel that again.
"sexual orientation is not the expression of any one gene" is not the same as "people are not born gay".
It may be a complex genetic interaction or it may be some other effect at play, but whatever it is, it doesn't contradict that people don't choose their sexual orientation.
Since people have justified all sorts of atrocities based on the misconception that being queer is a choice for people that they could just not make, I can understand scientists who want to make sure their research doesn't fuel that again.
While you appear to suggest that reference [1] is a bad thing, or even a slippery slope, there's not really any indication that these consultations had an adverse impact on the quality of the results.
Communication is an incredibly tricky thing. Even when the science is sound, shortsighted approaches at communication can have serious repercussions, even potentially causing deaths (think public health guidance being misinterpreted, misunderstood, or decontextualized, for example).
Being conscious of this doesn't dilute the truth of the message, and being respectful/mindful of others doesn't mean we need to compromise on the science either.
For clarity: this is not a response to any part of your comment other than the reference to the nature article.
Communication is an incredibly tricky thing. Even when the science is sound, shortsighted approaches at communication can have serious repercussions, even potentially causing deaths (think public health guidance being misinterpreted, misunderstood, or decontextualized, for example).
Being conscious of this doesn't dilute the truth of the message, and being respectful/mindful of others doesn't mean we need to compromise on the science either.
For clarity: this is not a response to any part of your comment other than the reference to the nature article.
> It feels to me like "science" has become something of a religion unto itself
I think this is true but I doubt it's anything new. I think the fundamental similarity between religious belief and "trusting the science" is the psychological simplicity of delegation to authority, and probably a deep seated property of the human mind.
Not knowing the right answer to questions we deem important, or worse the mental state of doubting what we've been raised to consider foundational and "obvious", is just too uncomfortable for the majority of people (I would've said all people, but I can't be sure).
I think this is true but I doubt it's anything new. I think the fundamental similarity between religious belief and "trusting the science" is the psychological simplicity of delegation to authority, and probably a deep seated property of the human mind.
Not knowing the right answer to questions we deem important, or worse the mental state of doubting what we've been raised to consider foundational and "obvious", is just too uncomfortable for the majority of people (I would've said all people, but I can't be sure).
True, but the problem is that religion can not be questioned, changed or reasoned with in any meaningful way. Science can. If we lose this distinction between the 2, then we just end up with a new religion with more modern priests.
> True, but the problem is that religion can not be questioned, changed or reasoned with in any meaningful way.
Religious teachings can be questioned and reasoned about. Prevalent understanding and interpretations of scripture also change over time and in different groups.
Religious teachings can be questioned and reasoned about. Prevalent understanding and interpretations of scripture also change over time and in different groups.
The history of science is full of examples of resistance to changing how we understand the world based upon newly found evidence that goes against established norms. I think the scientific method is sound, and the real problem is human nature.
>Science can.
But can we though?
But can we though?
Sure: just look at whether the claimed "science" has an actual track record of correct predictions to back up its claims. The nice thing about this method is that it doesn't require you to understand anything about how the scientific model makes its predictions; it could be reading tea leaves or using a magic 8-ball for all you know. The model itself is just a black box that outputs predictions, and all you need to check is how well the predictions matched reality.
The usual objection to this is that it's hard to assemble the data to make these evaluations. But imagine if society's standard response to this was to simply ignore any scientific claims not backed up by publicly available data sufficient to evaluate the predictions on which the claims are based? Note that physicists, for example, have no trouble making reams of data freely available online, or writing periodic review articles that summarize the current state of scientific models in a field, with copious references to the original research that verified the predictions.
The usual objection to this is that it's hard to assemble the data to make these evaluations. But imagine if society's standard response to this was to simply ignore any scientific claims not backed up by publicly available data sufficient to evaluate the predictions on which the claims are based? Note that physicists, for example, have no trouble making reams of data freely available online, or writing periodic review articles that summarize the current state of scientific models in a field, with copious references to the original research that verified the predictions.
I think society should ignore any result not independently reproduced. Especially (although statistically significant) the actual difference was tiny. (What I mean something like this (making this up): Eating a bar of chocalates increase sleep duration by 3,5 minutes on average)
Independent reproduction of a successful prediction by a proposed scientific model would be a first step towards a predictive track record, yes. But only a first step. A solid predictive track record for a model has to be built up over a substantial period of time and a substantial number of accurate predictions, not just one trial and one replication.
Note, also, that in many cases trials that produce statistically significant results, even when replicated, are not testing any actual model. They are just testing a hypothesis about a correlation. Correlation is not causation, and most such trials are not even capable of testing an actual causal model--they can test for the presence of a correlation, but not why it is present. Figuring out the actual causal process and developing a predictive model based on it takes more follow-up work. So really most such trials are just a first step towards developing a predictive model at all--but even after such a model is developed, you then have to take the time to assemble a good predictive track record for the model.
Note, also, that in many cases trials that produce statistically significant results, even when replicated, are not testing any actual model. They are just testing a hypothesis about a correlation. Correlation is not causation, and most such trials are not even capable of testing an actual causal model--they can test for the presence of a correlation, but not why it is present. Figuring out the actual causal process and developing a predictive model based on it takes more follow-up work. So really most such trials are just a first step towards developing a predictive model at all--but even after such a model is developed, you then have to take the time to assemble a good predictive track record for the model.
I agree, but am fine with less. I think no mechanism for head pain reliev is known, but we know that some medication works (painkiller). Ultimately we need to know why, but currently we have to life with less.
> no mechanism for head pain reliev is known, but we know that some medication works
Yes; I would not consider this as evidence in favor of any scientific model, since, as you note, we don't have a scientific model that predicts what drugs should relieve headache pain. It's just an empirical generalization; as an empirical generalization, yes, it has a solid track record of accuracy behind it, but only as an empirical generalization, not as support for any scientific model. Of course we humans have lots of empirical generalizations we use all the time that are similarly not based on any scientific model. I am certainly not claiming that we should not make use of such generalizations when we have them. We just shouldn't confuse them with scientific models.
Yes; I would not consider this as evidence in favor of any scientific model, since, as you note, we don't have a scientific model that predicts what drugs should relieve headache pain. It's just an empirical generalization; as an empirical generalization, yes, it has a solid track record of accuracy behind it, but only as an empirical generalization, not as support for any scientific model. Of course we humans have lots of empirical generalizations we use all the time that are similarly not based on any scientific model. I am certainly not claiming that we should not make use of such generalizations when we have them. We just shouldn't confuse them with scientific models.
Only after you have co-authored several papers with the very people you are trying to question, and earned a credential, it seems.
Not really. First you have to understand the paper in question, so you need at least partial background. Then you would have to find the authors. Many sensational paper authors or citation hunters don't like to answer critical questions. Nor is often raw data/algorithms/notes published so you can check if there is a problem.
That practice of “not publishing all code and data” really sets off the BS detector.
Are you a scientist? Because it really doesn't. For example, in most papers that I think harder than normal about, I don't care so much about 'the data' as I do about a description of what this 'data' is actually meant to represent, and how it was collected and processed. (I'm talking here about things that are a bit more complicated than e.g. railfall measurements or any other such lab-like, STEM topics) E.g., I do quite a bit of population modeling. You would think that 'population' is relatively easy to quantify, but it really isn't, and I can talk for hours about how cavalier people throw their 'population data' numbers into models and make all sorts of conclusions based on objectively wrong interpretations what this 'data' is.
If the vast majority of papers can't even get that right, I don't care as much about the HN idea of what 'reproducibility' is - i.e. check if 'git clone <xyz> && run_model.sh && run_tests.sh' says 'All OK!' at the end.
If the vast majority of papers can't even get that right, I don't care as much about the HN idea of what 'reproducibility' is - i.e. check if 'git clone <xyz> && run_model.sh && run_tests.sh' says 'All OK!' at the end.
I agree in part here, but think it doesn’t apply to all papers. Those wrong interpretations you mention are generally because statistical inference is hard, and it’s an unfortunate reality that a lot of scientists are bad statisticians.
There’s an article on the front page of HN about a nature retraction that came from someone asking authors of a paper for their data. That tells me that the data can be useful for fixing suspicions results. But also that simply asking for it can be sufficient. I wonder how often authors say no to data requests. My guess is only in the fishiest cases and in old cases. Publishing code and data isn’t high up the priority list, but in a lot of studies, it’s simple enough to be good ROI.
There’s an article on the front page of HN about a nature retraction that came from someone asking authors of a paper for their data. That tells me that the data can be useful for fixing suspicions results. But also that simply asking for it can be sufficient. I wonder how often authors say no to data requests. My guess is only in the fishiest cases and in old cases. Publishing code and data isn’t high up the priority list, but in a lot of studies, it’s simple enough to be good ROI.
Reposting a comment I made a few years ago on a thread lamenting the "church of TED."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9209761
I think that in science there is an inherent tension between what scientists know and what what the public knows.
Scientific knowledge is covered in asterisks. To read and understand science typically requires an extensive amount of background knowledge; without that it is very easy to misinterpret the strength, significance, or applicability of a scientific finding. Many of the asterisks are themselves scientific conclusions with their own set of asterisks.
The public, at least in areas which are not immediately relevant to daily life, cannot be assumed to have that background knowledge. Therefore, the tension is essentially this: How can scientists make people aware of (or interested in) scientific knowledge if they have to strip out all the asterisks when talking to them?
Making science into a catechism is simply one solution to the above problem. Ignore the asterisks and turn the fundamental findings of physics and chemistry into dogma and dispense it as gospel truth. I actually am somewhat o.k. with this. Sure, Joe Public might come away with an over-simplified and over-confident knowledge about what science says, but I think that a clumsy knowledge of scientific facts is better than the impression that scientific knowledge is arcane and out of reach. After all, it is highly unlikely that Joey P. will find himself in a situation where it is very important for him to really understand all the subtleties behind his k-8 scientific knowledge, but that knowledge is likely to come in handy.
The only problems with the science-as-religion solution are a potential "loss of faith" and the perception of arbitrarity with regards to scientific findings. The first can easily happen when someone learns about a new finding which contradicts the dogmatic version of science but is entirely consistent with the heavily asterisked actual scientific consensus. The second problem is basically "rejectability;" if people think that science is a set of arbitrary rules, then they are free to reject them the same way they would reject other religions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9209761
I think that in science there is an inherent tension between what scientists know and what what the public knows.
Scientific knowledge is covered in asterisks. To read and understand science typically requires an extensive amount of background knowledge; without that it is very easy to misinterpret the strength, significance, or applicability of a scientific finding. Many of the asterisks are themselves scientific conclusions with their own set of asterisks.
The public, at least in areas which are not immediately relevant to daily life, cannot be assumed to have that background knowledge. Therefore, the tension is essentially this: How can scientists make people aware of (or interested in) scientific knowledge if they have to strip out all the asterisks when talking to them?
Making science into a catechism is simply one solution to the above problem. Ignore the asterisks and turn the fundamental findings of physics and chemistry into dogma and dispense it as gospel truth. I actually am somewhat o.k. with this. Sure, Joe Public might come away with an over-simplified and over-confident knowledge about what science says, but I think that a clumsy knowledge of scientific facts is better than the impression that scientific knowledge is arcane and out of reach. After all, it is highly unlikely that Joey P. will find himself in a situation where it is very important for him to really understand all the subtleties behind his k-8 scientific knowledge, but that knowledge is likely to come in handy.
The only problems with the science-as-religion solution are a potential "loss of faith" and the perception of arbitrarity with regards to scientific findings. The first can easily happen when someone learns about a new finding which contradicts the dogmatic version of science but is entirely consistent with the heavily asterisked actual scientific consensus. The second problem is basically "rejectability;" if people think that science is a set of arbitrary rules, then they are free to reject them the same way they would reject other religions.
>Joe Public might come away with an over-simplified and over-confident knowledge about what science says, but I think that a clumsy knowledge of scientific facts is better than the impression that scientific knowledge is arcane and out of reach.
This seems like a false dilemma. Joe Public is as capable of reading a paper on sci-hub as anyone else. It would probably do everyone a bit of good if JP were more likely to do that when he's wondering what to do about the aphids in his garden, or read a patent relevant to his mechanics business, or assess the evidence around masks during a pandemic. And I think it's the idea that science needs to be dumbed down for a certain kind of person that keeps ordinary people from digging into the asterisks when things are relevant to what they're doing. Executive summaries are useful when something isn't very relevant, which is most of science for most people. But some science is relevant to everyone, and it would be good if we challenged the myth that one needs to belong to some kind of separate class in order to practice science. Science is for everyone. No one can know all of it, but everyone will come to a point where they'd benefit from knowing some of it.
This seems like a false dilemma. Joe Public is as capable of reading a paper on sci-hub as anyone else. It would probably do everyone a bit of good if JP were more likely to do that when he's wondering what to do about the aphids in his garden, or read a patent relevant to his mechanics business, or assess the evidence around masks during a pandemic. And I think it's the idea that science needs to be dumbed down for a certain kind of person that keeps ordinary people from digging into the asterisks when things are relevant to what they're doing. Executive summaries are useful when something isn't very relevant, which is most of science for most people. But some science is relevant to everyone, and it would be good if we challenged the myth that one needs to belong to some kind of separate class in order to practice science. Science is for everyone. No one can know all of it, but everyone will come to a point where they'd benefit from knowing some of it.
I think the picture you paint is too idealistic. Not many can read a scientific paper and understand exactly what it is trying to say, since we are trained to avoid adjectives, adverbs, and half-formed speculations when writing papers. What is omitted from a paper is often as illuminating as what is in the paper. To know what is not said, you must have an anticipation of what must have been said. Often, that is quite important in peer review.
Even when giving scientific talks, the advice I give my students and post-docs is to first have a clear idea of who the audience is: is it
a) experts only from your area? [e.g. conference]
b) people from the same department who may be generally aware of the area without knowing specifics? [e.g. job talk]
c) General public [e.g. showing lab to school kids. This is the level at which you talk to the public. soundbites - so it is invariably misrepresented by the media]
All three levels require different approaches for the same subject. (b) is especially tricky - you are talking to experts, but from a different field. So you have to simplify, while not being patronizing. As for (c), I think it is best to avoid it. Except in situations like the pandemic, it rarely is beneficial. Also, to do it right, it requires a lot of preparation.
Even when giving scientific talks, the advice I give my students and post-docs is to first have a clear idea of who the audience is: is it
a) experts only from your area? [e.g. conference]
b) people from the same department who may be generally aware of the area without knowing specifics? [e.g. job talk]
c) General public [e.g. showing lab to school kids. This is the level at which you talk to the public. soundbites - so it is invariably misrepresented by the media]
All three levels require different approaches for the same subject. (b) is especially tricky - you are talking to experts, but from a different field. So you have to simplify, while not being patronizing. As for (c), I think it is best to avoid it. Except in situations like the pandemic, it rarely is beneficial. Also, to do it right, it requires a lot of preparation.
That is fair, but I think the general skill of reading scientific papers is one that more people are capable of learning than are encouraged to learn. I certainly don't think anyone has the time or intellect to digest every paper that might be of interest to them. But a lot of people I've met seem to be interested in science beyond a 'headline' depth and simply don't think they have the capacity to read any papers at all. That seems to me like a shortfall that could be corrected with better public education and media behaviour.
I'd be curious if you disagree with any of that in theory or just have a better appreciation of the practical difficulties...
I'd be curious if you disagree with any of that in theory or just have a better appreciation of the practical difficulties...
I agree with this. One more point is that journalistic summaries of scientific findings are flat out wrong. Journals like Quanta may represent a middle ground, which are readable yet sober.
I'm sure that many could read it, but reading it and understand are not the same thing. Understanding takes time, often a lot of time. And this is where the simplified bit comes back.
Discussions on social media rarely indicate much effort at nuance...
Discussions on social media rarely indicate much effort at nuance...
I'm not even confident about the "many could read it" part. Most papers are full of obscure jargon, and occasionally fields of study will just re-define words for their own purposes.
I think falling for the Science as religion trap is a bad choice in the long run.
Why not Math as a religion, dumb down complex problems, if it's wrong for the common Joe, it's okay cause he wouldn't understand it anyway.. not a good strategy.. I think if Science has a knowledge management problem, that should be addressed rather than dumbing down of things for public consumption.
Why not Math as a religion, dumb down complex problems, if it's wrong for the common Joe, it's okay cause he wouldn't understand it anyway.. not a good strategy.. I think if Science has a knowledge management problem, that should be addressed rather than dumbing down of things for public consumption.
Do you have an example of a mainstream presentation of a complicated math discovery that doesn't dumb down the complex problem?
I will point out that math discoveries don't have quite the same kinds of asterisks as the physical sciences.
I will point out that math discoveries don't have quite the same kinds of asterisks as the physical sciences.
> Why not Math as a religion
Math is indeed a religion deep down, at least according to people like Hume, you have to "believe" in things like induction, you have to "believe" that natural numbers "don't end at some point" (for lack of a better word) or that two parallel lines don't finally meet, because who's there to watch them till the end of the world to say that they don't in fact meet? (Hume writes it down way better than I could ever do).
Math is indeed a religion deep down, at least according to people like Hume, you have to "believe" in things like induction, you have to "believe" that natural numbers "don't end at some point" (for lack of a better word) or that two parallel lines don't finally meet, because who's there to watch them till the end of the world to say that they don't in fact meet? (Hume writes it down way better than I could ever do).
That's not how it works, though. We can study any set of axioms we want. Mathematics often study "multiple incompatible worlds". For example, euclidean space where parallel lines never meet, and projective space, where parallel lines do meet at infinity. This is a general theme of math; we can study different sets of "beliefs" when we don't know which one is the "correct belief".
Thus, we come out on top, since we know what happens in all possible worlds.
Thus, we come out on top, since we know what happens in all possible worlds.
> what happens in all possible worlds.
Talking about "all possible worlds" is religious-talk (at least that's what Hume would say), afaik we only know of one world, talking about the "possibility" of other worlds is what established/institutional religions do.
Talking about "all possible worlds" is religious-talk (at least that's what Hume would say), afaik we only know of one world, talking about the "possibility" of other worlds is what established/institutional religions do.
Not literal worlds, mathematical possibilities. Analysis like "If XYZ is true, then [conclusion 1], but if XYZ is false, then [conclusion 2]". It's not religion, it's logic and mathematics, and we absolutely can look at all possibilities in many circumstances.
I find it rather unfortunate that this comment is the top comment, because I think the "science is like a religion" is both misleading and a strategy to dismiss evidence which don't align with ones ideological views (which is a very human reaction to be fair and it takes conscious effort to avoid, speaking from my own experience). As you acknowledge the scientific method has given completely new technology (I find your choice of words "revolutionary useful goods" a bit weird, as if the only purpose of science was to produce new goods).
You're setting up a bit of a straw man that science can not tell us with certainty what is the better course of action. Stating that science can give answers with absolute certainty is a stark misunderstanding of the scientific process (something alluded to in the article). However, trusting the (scientific) evidence (what is typically meant when people use "trust the science") can very definitely guide our decision making process. People typically bring up "trust the science" when proposals are being rejected based on some "ideological" reasoning.
To give a more concrete example, in the discussion about universal basic income, one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working. The answer to that counterargument is "trust the science", because every study made, has found that in fact people don't just stop working. Now one might still reject the concept of UBI for various other reasons, but this should be underpinned by evidence based arguments, not saying that the side which says trust the science (evidence) is treating it like a religion.
When people use the term "trust the science" what they typically mean is "trust the (scientific) evidence" and yes that is what we should be doing, even outside the "technological fields". The "trust the science" argument is often made when people reject an
You're setting up a bit of a straw man that science can not tell us with certainty what is the better course of action. Stating that science can give answers with absolute certainty is a stark misunderstanding of the scientific process (something alluded to in the article). However, trusting the (scientific) evidence (what is typically meant when people use "trust the science") can very definitely guide our decision making process. People typically bring up "trust the science" when proposals are being rejected based on some "ideological" reasoning.
To give a more concrete example, in the discussion about universal basic income, one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working. The answer to that counterargument is "trust the science", because every study made, has found that in fact people don't just stop working. Now one might still reject the concept of UBI for various other reasons, but this should be underpinned by evidence based arguments, not saying that the side which says trust the science (evidence) is treating it like a religion.
When people use the term "trust the science" what they typically mean is "trust the (scientific) evidence" and yes that is what we should be doing, even outside the "technological fields". The "trust the science" argument is often made when people reject an
Socio-economic science is rife of p-hacking. The vast majority of those studies are not reproducible. Your argument would be stronger if you'd choose a different example. I would assume that most studies on UBI are done by strong supporters of it which introduces enough subconscious bias to make them problematic.
In the medical area (testing medications) history is full of wrong studies either by negligence or just by greed.
"Trust the science" is never a good argument as being to general. I'd trust most of the science in physics, chemistry and mathematics. Apart from those there are too many shenanigans.
In the medical area (testing medications) history is full of wrong studies either by negligence or just by greed.
"Trust the science" is never a good argument as being to general. I'd trust most of the science in physics, chemistry and mathematics. Apart from those there are too many shenanigans.
What do you suggest then ? We claim that every opinion is equally worthy and just stop trying to understand the social world ?
We could set higher bars for what is accepted as "scientifically valid" as an example.
What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. At least when political action affecting many is derived from science, standards must be higher than currently.
For example the mRNA vaccines: As far as I know there is no or little research for possible long term side effects as the original research is for cancer medication which has vastly different risk trade offs. Nevertheless the vaccines are approved for use. I've read and seen in many discussions if one raises doubts that just "trust science" is the answer although there is no science. At least I expect when asked that a proponent can name a study which researches on the long term effects of vaccines or the underlying technology (eg. safety of packaging, which is deemed a trade secret and thus not public afaik). "Trust us" is the wrong answer as long as regulatory capture is a thing.
What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. At least when political action affecting many is derived from science, standards must be higher than currently.
For example the mRNA vaccines: As far as I know there is no or little research for possible long term side effects as the original research is for cancer medication which has vastly different risk trade offs. Nevertheless the vaccines are approved for use. I've read and seen in many discussions if one raises doubts that just "trust science" is the answer although there is no science. At least I expect when asked that a proponent can name a study which researches on the long term effects of vaccines or the underlying technology (eg. safety of packaging, which is deemed a trade secret and thus not public afaik). "Trust us" is the wrong answer as long as regulatory capture is a thing.
> What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try.
You can be wrong but state clear hypotheses and a non logically flawed reasoning that allows you to make statements about the world. These can then be tested for their validity.
What you claim is that the standard for the quality of the test are not high enough. That may be true or false however this is only one aspect of science. For instance many people misunderstand the use of maths in Economics. The point of using mathematical models is not to be able to make predictions about next year's GDP but to make sure that what follows from your clearly stated hypotheses about human behaviour is consistent.
You can be wrong but state clear hypotheses and a non logically flawed reasoning that allows you to make statements about the world. These can then be tested for their validity.
What you claim is that the standard for the quality of the test are not high enough. That may be true or false however this is only one aspect of science. For instance many people misunderstand the use of maths in Economics. The point of using mathematical models is not to be able to make predictions about next year's GDP but to make sure that what follows from your clearly stated hypotheses about human behaviour is consistent.
> people don't just stop working
Did the participants receive enough money to maintain their current standard of living? Was the UBI granted for life or just for a few years? If it was granted for life, did the participants fear that the program might be ended prematurely? Did they keep working to be a role model for their children, who might never receive UBI? Did the participants even have a job to begin with? A study can give only unemployed people UBI and if the participants don't seek employment, the unemployment rate doesn't change, and your conclusion drawn from this fact is all wrong.
Did the participants receive enough money to maintain their current standard of living? Was the UBI granted for life or just for a few years? If it was granted for life, did the participants fear that the program might be ended prematurely? Did they keep working to be a role model for their children, who might never receive UBI? Did the participants even have a job to begin with? A study can give only unemployed people UBI and if the participants don't seek employment, the unemployment rate doesn't change, and your conclusion drawn from this fact is all wrong.
I've only heard of one of them in passing, and the part I remember is that it was known from the start to be a limited-duration experiment. So yeah, not a good example.
If anything, I see this as the good example of "trust the science" used as a thought-terminating cliche - a way to shut down questioning without having to provide answers.
If anything, I see this as the good example of "trust the science" used as a thought-terminating cliche - a way to shut down questioning without having to provide answers.
> one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working
One of the main counterarguments to the universal basic income is that napkin math does not work out. You don't even need to get the "science" involved, just relatively simple algebra. Humanity does not have the resources for the majority of the population to receive benefits out of thin air. And no, $3200 AMZN is not really a resource most people would feel comfortable surviving on, unless they can exchange it for something of an actual value.
p.s. the Amazon bit is related to the "let's divide the wealth of the billionaires and we all will live happily ever after" mantra.
One of the main counterarguments to the universal basic income is that napkin math does not work out. You don't even need to get the "science" involved, just relatively simple algebra. Humanity does not have the resources for the majority of the population to receive benefits out of thin air. And no, $3200 AMZN is not really a resource most people would feel comfortable surviving on, unless they can exchange it for something of an actual value.
p.s. the Amazon bit is related to the "let's divide the wealth of the billionaires and we all will live happily ever after" mantra.
Well I did not say anything about the cost of UBI, I was not even necessarily advocating for UBI, I simply was giving an example were I had heard a similar "trust the evidence" argument.
That said, answering with "napkin math" to a complex costing problem like UBI is exactly the problem and why we should listen more to scientists.
Unfortunately, many of us engineering types are way too quick to make very strong statements based on essentially no expertise except for some math and engineering education. Interestingly in my observation this behaviour is less prevalent in scientists (i.e. people coming from a science opposed to an engineering background). Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but I would be interested if others have observed this.
That said, answering with "napkin math" to a complex costing problem like UBI is exactly the problem and why we should listen more to scientists.
Unfortunately, many of us engineering types are way too quick to make very strong statements based on essentially no expertise except for some math and engineering education. Interestingly in my observation this behaviour is less prevalent in scientists (i.e. people coming from a science opposed to an engineering background). Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but I would be interested if others have observed this.
Using the "trust the science" line on UBI studies is a perfect example of the abuse of the phrase.
> To give a more concrete example, in the discussion about universal basic income, one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working. The answer to that counterargument is "trust the science", because every study made, has found that in fact people don't just stop working.
In literally every study ever done, the UBI substitute was not permanent. Studies of the impacts of a temporary stipend do not logically transfer to a permanent stipend. If you get a source of income that will stop in three years, it makes perfect sense to use that income to prepare yourself for life after the income. If you get a source of income that has been guaranteed for life, you've got a completely different set of incentives and there is no reason to assume that studies of temporary stipends apply.
> To give a more concrete example, in the discussion about universal basic income, one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working. The answer to that counterargument is "trust the science", because every study made, has found that in fact people don't just stop working.
In literally every study ever done, the UBI substitute was not permanent. Studies of the impacts of a temporary stipend do not logically transfer to a permanent stipend. If you get a source of income that will stop in three years, it makes perfect sense to use that income to prepare yourself for life after the income. If you get a source of income that has been guaranteed for life, you've got a completely different set of incentives and there is no reason to assume that studies of temporary stipends apply.
I think people would stop working, but it might not be so terrible. Maybe all the "bullshit" jobs would disappear and people would have more time for community activities, volunteering, youth work actions, political engagement, art, culture...and maybe even science?
In all these discussions we forget that science is “created” by humans and thus just as fallible as humans are.
“Trust in science or “because science” are just ways to shut down discussion or lines on inquiry that dare question the existing narrative.
Don’t believe me? Here’s an example.
Have you ever wondered, just hypothetically, if the Covid outbreak may have had any relation to the bio research lab located in Wuhan?
Well, you can’t wonder about that. If you do, being called a conspiracy theorist is the nicest thing anyone will say about you. If you think this is a good thing then you’ll be in for a rude awakening hen you happen to find yourself on the wrong side of the “scientific” debate.
“Trust in science or “because science” are just ways to shut down discussion or lines on inquiry that dare question the existing narrative.
Don’t believe me? Here’s an example.
Have you ever wondered, just hypothetically, if the Covid outbreak may have had any relation to the bio research lab located in Wuhan?
Well, you can’t wonder about that. If you do, being called a conspiracy theorist is the nicest thing anyone will say about you. If you think this is a good thing then you’ll be in for a rude awakening hen you happen to find yourself on the wrong side of the “scientific” debate.
Yes, "trust the science" in covid times means "trust the narrative pushed by the mainstream media". The fact your comment is downvoted with no actual counterargument seems to prove this point.
There is no argument to counter. It's entirely speculative.
Real science is not without it's problems but, in general, nothing comes close to it for producing trustworthy and useful results.
There is plenty of pseudoscience masquerading as science unfortunately. A good book to read on this is Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". A significant portion of the book is devoted to what Sagan calls a "Baloney detection kit" that he thinks everyone should have. If more people could accurately distinguish science from pseudoscience, the world might be a better place.
My personal pick for pseudoscience that is routinely given credence by the general public is nutritional studies. Any study that says an oddly specific food (e.g. blueberries) is a "superfood" is probably baloney. Producers of that food probably got together and funded a study that, surprise, says what they produce is good to eat! Why aren't other berries just as good? What about berries vs other fruit? What is in blueberries that is not present in other berries?
The thing about nutritional studies is that they're so hard to do properly that virtually nobody does. If you wanted to find out which foods are genuinely healthy you'd need a large sample size of people willing to have their diets and activities micro-managed in a way that would make most people rebel. You could probably do a decent study if you had enough money, but nobody is willing to foot the bill. The only people with skin in the game (e.g. blueberry producers) have no interest in a study that puts blueberries fairly in their place amongst a plethora of other foods.
My crazy prediction is that, sometime in the next century or two, we're actually going to become interested enough in optimizing healthy bodies that governments will start funding real scientific studies on nutrition, exercise, etc.. The crap that's out there today is going to be seen as utter quackery, albeit with some nuggets of truth mixed in almost by random chance.
There is plenty of pseudoscience masquerading as science unfortunately. A good book to read on this is Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". A significant portion of the book is devoted to what Sagan calls a "Baloney detection kit" that he thinks everyone should have. If more people could accurately distinguish science from pseudoscience, the world might be a better place.
My personal pick for pseudoscience that is routinely given credence by the general public is nutritional studies. Any study that says an oddly specific food (e.g. blueberries) is a "superfood" is probably baloney. Producers of that food probably got together and funded a study that, surprise, says what they produce is good to eat! Why aren't other berries just as good? What about berries vs other fruit? What is in blueberries that is not present in other berries?
The thing about nutritional studies is that they're so hard to do properly that virtually nobody does. If you wanted to find out which foods are genuinely healthy you'd need a large sample size of people willing to have their diets and activities micro-managed in a way that would make most people rebel. You could probably do a decent study if you had enough money, but nobody is willing to foot the bill. The only people with skin in the game (e.g. blueberry producers) have no interest in a study that puts blueberries fairly in their place amongst a plethora of other foods.
My crazy prediction is that, sometime in the next century or two, we're actually going to become interested enough in optimizing healthy bodies that governments will start funding real scientific studies on nutrition, exercise, etc.. The crap that's out there today is going to be seen as utter quackery, albeit with some nuggets of truth mixed in almost by random chance.
Knowing what is science and what is pseudoscience is a science itself. To take a trivial example, consider the climate change topic. Read a couple randomly chosen papers and if you’re unlucky, you might come out of it thinking global warming isn’t real. (Remember, papers like that do exist and although they are a minority, random number generation doesn’t know about that.) How do you know if the papers you read are a representative sample? How do you know the papers that are published are a representative sample? It boils down to some disturbing epistemological conclusions. You can use metastudies, but then the metastudies could have the same problem, or worse, might not exist. (In my experience they usually don’t.)
References to climate change are going to become something like an index fossil for papers written in the current decade. A paper might seem to have no connection to climate science at all, but if the authors can grasp for some tenuous link that lets them put "climate change" in their abstract, they will.
Say you're a researcher fifty years in the future who is doing a literature review. When a paper about anti-hydrogen trapping works in a reference to climate change, you won't even need to look at the date of the paper to know, roughly, when it was written.
Say you're a researcher fifty years in the future who is doing a literature review. When a paper about anti-hydrogen trapping works in a reference to climate change, you won't even need to look at the date of the paper to know, roughly, when it was written.
>How do you know if the papers you read are a representative sample? How do you know the papers that are published are a representative sample?
You don't. You use the sources you've seen to make the best analysis you can, fully prepared to drop it if with further evidence.
You don't. You use the sources you've seen to make the best analysis you can, fully prepared to drop it if with further evidence.
That’s the very reason you can’t “trust the science” in general though. Science is a good tool for knowledge when there has been a repetition of studies, but when all you have is a few, you’re kind of screwed. You can’t claim to know even a basic thing without being an expert in the field these days as a result. A large part of this though is down to lack of discoverability of similar studies which I think can be helped.
> other fields where such principles aren't really applicable
Statistics and reasoning are almost always applicable, and that's the extent science is applied to most fields.
If you want people to act in an evidence-based way without invoking trust/faith, they need to understand statistics and be able to evaluate studies on their statistical merit. Unfortunately that's quite difficult and the educational systems we have do a poor job of teaching it.
Statistics is subtle. For example, "It turns out, most doctors don’t know actually know probability." https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2014/11/12/doctors-dont-k...
Statistics and reasoning are almost always applicable, and that's the extent science is applied to most fields.
If you want people to act in an evidence-based way without invoking trust/faith, they need to understand statistics and be able to evaluate studies on their statistical merit. Unfortunately that's quite difficult and the educational systems we have do a poor job of teaching it.
Statistics is subtle. For example, "It turns out, most doctors don’t know actually know probability." https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2014/11/12/doctors-dont-k...
To build on that, most scientists* are also terrible at statistics.
Perhaps more controversially, I also don't think statistics in general is a particularly rigorous or well-founded field. Where there is any analysis at all in the field - that is, very rarely - it provides guarantees only with hefty assumptions and in the limit. I'm fine with that from a theoretical perspective, but practitioners of all stripes seem to assume that with real world phenomena, the data either satisfy the assumptions or, more defensibly, don't violate the assumptions by enough to invalidate the results.
I don't know about others, but I see real-world datasets all the time that wildly invalidate the assumptions of common regression analysis, to take just one example.
To reign this little rant back into a well-formed comment, perhaps my summary is "everything and everyone is wrong, almost all the time, and I'm not quite sure how to fix that."
* In my personal experience.
Perhaps more controversially, I also don't think statistics in general is a particularly rigorous or well-founded field. Where there is any analysis at all in the field - that is, very rarely - it provides guarantees only with hefty assumptions and in the limit. I'm fine with that from a theoretical perspective, but practitioners of all stripes seem to assume that with real world phenomena, the data either satisfy the assumptions or, more defensibly, don't violate the assumptions by enough to invalidate the results.
I don't know about others, but I see real-world datasets all the time that wildly invalidate the assumptions of common regression analysis, to take just one example.
To reign this little rant back into a well-formed comment, perhaps my summary is "everything and everyone is wrong, almost all the time, and I'm not quite sure how to fix that."
* In my personal experience.
>To build on that, most scientists* are also terrible at statistics.
BTW, I think your use of the asterisk goes beyond what was intended. Its typically been used to omit things or add caveats that only matter in very specific situations. 'in my personal experience' could mean you know 5 scientists or 5 thousand so mentioning a rough range would certainly give more credibility to your comment over the asterisk. That said, I broadly agree with the rest of your comment, but this did bug me enough to comment I suppose.
>I don't know about others, but I see real-world datasets all the time that wildly invalidate the assumptions of common regression analysis, to take just one example.
I'm interested in knowing about them. Any major ones that come to mind?
BTW, I think your use of the asterisk goes beyond what was intended. Its typically been used to omit things or add caveats that only matter in very specific situations. 'in my personal experience' could mean you know 5 scientists or 5 thousand so mentioning a rough range would certainly give more credibility to your comment over the asterisk. That said, I broadly agree with the rest of your comment, but this did bug me enough to comment I suppose.
>I don't know about others, but I see real-world datasets all the time that wildly invalidate the assumptions of common regression analysis, to take just one example.
I'm interested in knowing about them. Any major ones that come to mind?
>'in my personal experience' could mean you know 5 scientists or 5 thousand so mentioning a rough range would certainly give more credibility to your comment over the asterisk.
Agreed. Providing us with some statistics would help support their argument here.
Agreed. Providing us with some statistics would help support their argument here.
It looks like the author of that article isn't too clear on the matter either, since there's a fundamental arithmetic error leading to a self-contradictory claim halfway through the article.
Indeed. The comments section shows the history; the author mindlessly corrected a non-error into an error. This looked like a decent summary at a glance but that issue is definitely distracting.
> It feels to me like "science" has become something of a religion unto itself.
This might be because there is very, very little scientific thinking in the general population. People like doctors who, due to their education, should have scientific thinking, no longer can be trusted to have this scientific thinking. Instead of approaching issues with a scientific attitude, the resort to "trust me, I'm a doctor".
Scientific thinking, at its core, is just "things might not be how you think they are". It is a type of skepticism about your own thinking and a reliance, or trust, on a set of processes that have been proven to produce useful epistemic truths. A good example of this is the Monty Hall problem where loss aversion would make most people pick the suboptimal solution. The Cognitive Bias Codex [1] documents a lot of these cognitive biases.
So, the way to move forward is to fix the education process so that this kind of thinking is inculcated into most children by age 12.
[1] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cognitiv...
This might be because there is very, very little scientific thinking in the general population. People like doctors who, due to their education, should have scientific thinking, no longer can be trusted to have this scientific thinking. Instead of approaching issues with a scientific attitude, the resort to "trust me, I'm a doctor".
Scientific thinking, at its core, is just "things might not be how you think they are". It is a type of skepticism about your own thinking and a reliance, or trust, on a set of processes that have been proven to produce useful epistemic truths. A good example of this is the Monty Hall problem where loss aversion would make most people pick the suboptimal solution. The Cognitive Bias Codex [1] documents a lot of these cognitive biases.
So, the way to move forward is to fix the education process so that this kind of thinking is inculcated into most children by age 12.
[1] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cognitiv...
>> Many of the big society-level issues that we grapple with are more properly questions of economics than science.
I would add that resolving those issues should involve engineers because they try to design solutions that take reality into account. To often solutions from politics and government are based on hope and intent. Sometimes they dont even care about money, principles or goals.
I would add that resolving those issues should involve engineers because they try to design solutions that take reality into account. To often solutions from politics and government are based on hope and intent. Sometimes they dont even care about money, principles or goals.
That ignores the understanding problem of power struggle for resources between those that have a lot and those that don't. It assumes all actors have intentions for the "common good". The system is the way it is because it works for someone, it just seems broken to you because you are not the beneficiary..
And here comes philosophy. Is it that hard to point out flaws where beneficiaries are few and uneven? It should be obvious to anyone from looking at the numbers, yet literally nothing is done until powder keg explodes. And then things can go even worse.
Most importantly, nobody is actually experimenting. (Not even the Chinese.) Status quo is king, old tried solutions are queen, and propaganda is jack.
Most importantly, nobody is actually experimenting. (Not even the Chinese.) Status quo is king, old tried solutions are queen, and propaganda is jack.
>nobody is actually experimenting
Experimentation with society requires risk taking and uncertainty. Of course no one wants it.
What if someone came up to you and said "hey we're going to put your kid into a new type of experimental school. We think there's a a 50% chance we can save money on education but there's 20% chance they'll be severely undereducated. Btw, you can't opt out because that would mess up the integrity of the randomized selection process"
That's some dystopian level shit
Experimentation with society requires risk taking and uncertainty. Of course no one wants it.
What if someone came up to you and said "hey we're going to put your kid into a new type of experimental school. We think there's a a 50% chance we can save money on education but there's 20% chance they'll be severely undereducated. Btw, you can't opt out because that would mess up the integrity of the randomized selection process"
That's some dystopian level shit
I appreciate your call to pay attention to subtlety.
And in that light:
Both science and economics are used broadly and brutally to justify a biases.
Both are ignored for their ability to measure, and used to shout over disagreements instead.
May we use both for more nuanced conversations, instead of less.
And in that light:
Both science and economics are used broadly and brutally to justify a biases.
Both are ignored for their ability to measure, and used to shout over disagreements instead.
May we use both for more nuanced conversations, instead of less.
Karl Popper called it "scientism".
Popper, K. (1978). Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica, 339-355.
Popper, K. (1978). Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica, 339-355.
The problem with blindindly "believing the science" is that with enough money you can get scientific results that push a certain narrative. We are learning now that most of the anti-fat dietician push was sponsored by sugary drink companies. Likewise we are learning that a lot of "clean air" research is sponsored by fossil fuel companies. What current research will we learn about 10-20 years from now that it was mostly sponsored by a party with a commercial interest?
Thankfully there are a few places on the internet where a statement about not having faith in Science is not automatically blasphemous. Everytime I see "TRUST SCIENCE" - I picture a customer for quantum healing crystals.
I have faith in religion. Science my friend stands on that other line there where everything has to be proven. That is the strength of science. If it tries to get in the religion line where I need to put faith and belief it's no longer Science.
I have faith in religion. Science my friend stands on that other line there where everything has to be proven. That is the strength of science. If it tries to get in the religion line where I need to put faith and belief it's no longer Science.
Science is where almost nothing is proven. Most findings are mutable, preliminary and incomplete.
Engineering is where things are proven, by building things using or that are proving scientific findings. For example, Randomized Controlled Trials are one of the final engineering steps for drugs, with partial engineering step being chemistry and process chemistry. Similar steps should be done but are often omitted for social sciences.
The exception to this is pure mathematics.
Example from biology: you found some fun cellular process model description. Fine, now you have to mess with it using engineering to prove it actually works in the way you described, is not missing crucial steps and so on. This for example happened a lot in gerontology - studies of aging. People latching on to small pieces of mechanism which actually are not very relevant or actionable.
Examples from physics are machines that use physics theories, such as quantum communication devices, particle colliders, clocks or nanostructured devices.
Examples from chemistry are evaluations of synthesis processes step by step by introducing various process changes.
Analysis is rather on the side, as without engineering first you cannot really proceed with it.
Engineering is where things are proven, by building things using or that are proving scientific findings. For example, Randomized Controlled Trials are one of the final engineering steps for drugs, with partial engineering step being chemistry and process chemistry. Similar steps should be done but are often omitted for social sciences.
The exception to this is pure mathematics.
Example from biology: you found some fun cellular process model description. Fine, now you have to mess with it using engineering to prove it actually works in the way you described, is not missing crucial steps and so on. This for example happened a lot in gerontology - studies of aging. People latching on to small pieces of mechanism which actually are not very relevant or actionable.
Examples from physics are machines that use physics theories, such as quantum communication devices, particle colliders, clocks or nanostructured devices.
Examples from chemistry are evaluations of synthesis processes step by step by introducing various process changes.
Analysis is rather on the side, as without engineering first you cannot really proceed with it.
> Science is where almost nothing is proven. Most findings are mutable, preliminary and incomplete.
This may be debatable, but seems to accurately describe what most academics call "science". The more common understanding is what's described in the parent.
Often times when people say "trust the science" they're referring to results in the first category, but people take it to mean not "these results are preliminary and unproven" (and filled with asterisks), but instead "to deny this is denying empirical fact."
This may be debatable, but seems to accurately describe what most academics call "science". The more common understanding is what's described in the parent.
Often times when people say "trust the science" they're referring to results in the first category, but people take it to mean not "these results are preliminary and unproven" (and filled with asterisks), but instead "to deny this is denying empirical fact."
In my view, the flip side is that "science is a religion" is also a weapon.
The part about religion reminds me of an excerpt from the "circular reasoning" wikipedia article.
"-"using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
"-"using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Could you give examples of one side attempting to show one potential outcome as the worst thing possible?
> It feels to me like "science" has become something of a religion unto itself.
See:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
See:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Humans are hard-wired to be religious, and in the absence of a well-structured religion, most people will default to poorly-constructed religions like secular state scientism. This doesn't apply to everyone, but I think it applies to at least 80% of the population.
i think it's more like all human brains need heuristics to process the vast amount of data in the universe. the best heuristics come in the form of grand narratives, such as traditional religions, historical materialism, transhumanism, or whatever works for each brain.
[deleted]
> It feels to me like "science" has become something of a religion unto itself.
People like Jacques Ellul had been warning us about that for at least five or six decades now, I guess that's how long it takes from an idea first being "caught" as actually "existing" (for lack of a better word) to becoming so prevalent as to be very easily observable.
I'd also very highly recommend the works of Ulrich Beck [1], well, his "Risk Society" to be more precise, to quote wikipedia: "Risk society is the manner in which modern society organizes in response to risk" [2]. It is a book written in the mid '80s, right before Chernobyl, and recently other people have (re-)discovered him too, like in this "Foreign Policy" article [3] from last August.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Beck
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_society
[3] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/01/the-sociologist-who-cou...
People like Jacques Ellul had been warning us about that for at least five or six decades now, I guess that's how long it takes from an idea first being "caught" as actually "existing" (for lack of a better word) to becoming so prevalent as to be very easily observable.
I'd also very highly recommend the works of Ulrich Beck [1], well, his "Risk Society" to be more precise, to quote wikipedia: "Risk society is the manner in which modern society organizes in response to risk" [2]. It is a book written in the mid '80s, right before Chernobyl, and recently other people have (re-)discovered him too, like in this "Foreign Policy" article [3] from last August.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Beck
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_society
[3] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/01/the-sociologist-who-cou...
Agreed. The most visible manifestation of this is that I've recently noticed is the phrase, "wear the mask." Not the message, but the phrase. You see, it's not an ordinary English construction like "wear a mask" is. So when I see people saying it, I can be pretty sure that it was copy-pasted word-for-word as a slogan, not the expression of an original thought. I don't have an issue with the message, but it bugs me because it's such a visible example of people just repeating something. Most of the people saying to "trust the science" haven't read any more of it than the people saying not to or peddling conspiracy theories.
And of course, there is no "the science". "The science" for decades said that fat was bad and carbs were fine. There was other science that said otherwise, but that's what "the science" said. Same with tobacco and many other things. And people believed them, because they just "trusted the science" instead of doing their own reading. The most scientific thing one can do is to always view something with skepticism and subject evidence to harsh scrutiny. There is a reason that things as well-established as evolution and relativity are still theories.
I like Murray Rothbard's take on this "scientism", and would recommend his writings. https://mises.org/library/mantle-science
And of course, there is no "the science". "The science" for decades said that fat was bad and carbs were fine. There was other science that said otherwise, but that's what "the science" said. Same with tobacco and many other things. And people believed them, because they just "trusted the science" instead of doing their own reading. The most scientific thing one can do is to always view something with skepticism and subject evidence to harsh scrutiny. There is a reason that things as well-established as evolution and relativity are still theories.
I like Murray Rothbard's take on this "scientism", and would recommend his writings. https://mises.org/library/mantle-science
Sometimes, the "science" is wrong. Everything from low-fat diets, to high sodium diets, to DDT, to MSG. Many of the things that we have literally been indoctrinated with have been fully wrong.
Most recently, when the government, most especially the Surgeon General and even Fauci, told people that masks don't work. That infuriated me and they instantly lost credibility with me. And it caused a split in Americans where too many believed that masks didn't work, even after they changed their tune. It was absolutely unnecessary to lie and it killed people.
So read the science. Listen to the science. But read up further, and make educated decisions. Don't just listen to "experts" blindly.
Most recently, when the government, most especially the Surgeon General and even Fauci, told people that masks don't work. That infuriated me and they instantly lost credibility with me. And it caused a split in Americans where too many believed that masks didn't work, even after they changed their tune. It was absolutely unnecessary to lie and it killed people.
So read the science. Listen to the science. But read up further, and make educated decisions. Don't just listen to "experts" blindly.
> But read up further, and make educated decisions. Don't just listen to "experts" blindly.
I don't see that being very practical. The average person simply isn't qualified to read scientific literature and draw their own conclusions. I doubt I'd be able to make much sense of a research paper on virology or epidemiology, despite that I consider myself scientifically literate in the general sense.
The answer is to have credible communicators of science. The best way to do that is with credible institutions. If the assumption is that this is impossible, the game is already lost.
> the Surgeon General and even Fauci, told people that masks don't work. That infuriated me and they instantly lost credibility with me. And it caused a split in Americans where too many believed that masks didn't work, even after they changed their tune. It was absolutely unnecessary to lie and it killed people.
Broadly agree, although I think anti-mask sentiments are due to mindless partisanship rather than listening to Fauci's early lie.
I don't see that being very practical. The average person simply isn't qualified to read scientific literature and draw their own conclusions. I doubt I'd be able to make much sense of a research paper on virology or epidemiology, despite that I consider myself scientifically literate in the general sense.
The answer is to have credible communicators of science. The best way to do that is with credible institutions. If the assumption is that this is impossible, the game is already lost.
> the Surgeon General and even Fauci, told people that masks don't work. That infuriated me and they instantly lost credibility with me. And it caused a split in Americans where too many believed that masks didn't work, even after they changed their tune. It was absolutely unnecessary to lie and it killed people.
Broadly agree, although I think anti-mask sentiments are due to mindless partisanship rather than listening to Fauci's early lie.
> The average person simply isn't qualified to read scientific literature and draw their own conclusions.
Reading the scientific literature is still "trusting the science".
Are we replicating experiments to see for ourselves if the data is correct? Are we re-working the error calculations to make sure the statistical evaluation is correct? Are we studying the topic so we're informed enough to identify poor work as well as the peer reviewers?
I believe the answer to these questions is "no".
Reading the scientific literature is still "trusting the science".
Are we replicating experiments to see for ourselves if the data is correct? Are we re-working the error calculations to make sure the statistical evaluation is correct? Are we studying the topic so we're informed enough to identify poor work as well as the peer reviewers?
I believe the answer to these questions is "no".
A few centuries back the average person couldn't read at all, so I think there's hope that it can be taught, not just explained.
On the other hand, the separate disciplines are more and more specialized and complex, so then I agree 100% that communication (translation) is key.
Lastly, "mindless partisanship" may be the cause, but is also an effect of other longer/subtler trends in media-tech, culture, education, etc.
On the other hand, the separate disciplines are more and more specialized and complex, so then I agree 100% that communication (translation) is key.
Lastly, "mindless partisanship" may be the cause, but is also an effect of other longer/subtler trends in media-tech, culture, education, etc.
> ... even Fauci, told people that masks don't work.
So, this troubles me.
One thing about science, of course, is that you need to be certain of your measuring equipment, and of your observations.
I cannot find any evidence that Fauci ever said that "masks don't work".
I have found:
* Late Feb: "at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis"
* March 8th: "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask"
* March 8th: "When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face"
* March: "Right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks … You should think of healthcare providers who are needing them and the people who are ill."
I see:
* ~"No need to panic at this time" (Feb)
* ~"Masks do not confer perfect protection, make sure to use them correctly, social distancing is still required" (Mar)
* ~"Reserve PPE (e.g. N95 masks) for the people who need it most" (Mar)
And shortly after this time, his recommendation changed to strongly recommending masks, when three critical things changed: asymptomatic spread was established, PPE supplies were beginning to stabilize, and testing determined that cloth masks are roughly as effective as surgical masks (not N95 masks).
All of those statements and decisions strike me as reasonable, from a spokesperson for public health in that time frame.
My memory of last spring is that masks were not recommended for the general public, but the clear message was that they do work, otherwise they would not be recommended for health workers.
I do not ever remember any non-political health professionals saying that masks do not work. So it troubles me to see it repeated ad nauseam that Fauci said such a thing.
If I have missed something, please help me out.
So, this troubles me.
One thing about science, of course, is that you need to be certain of your measuring equipment, and of your observations.
I cannot find any evidence that Fauci ever said that "masks don't work".
I have found:
* Late Feb: "at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis"
* March 8th: "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask"
* March 8th: "When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face"
* March: "Right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks … You should think of healthcare providers who are needing them and the people who are ill."
I see:
* ~"No need to panic at this time" (Feb)
* ~"Masks do not confer perfect protection, make sure to use them correctly, social distancing is still required" (Mar)
* ~"Reserve PPE (e.g. N95 masks) for the people who need it most" (Mar)
And shortly after this time, his recommendation changed to strongly recommending masks, when three critical things changed: asymptomatic spread was established, PPE supplies were beginning to stabilize, and testing determined that cloth masks are roughly as effective as surgical masks (not N95 masks).
All of those statements and decisions strike me as reasonable, from a spokesperson for public health in that time frame.
My memory of last spring is that masks were not recommended for the general public, but the clear message was that they do work, otherwise they would not be recommended for health workers.
I do not ever remember any non-political health professionals saying that masks do not work. So it troubles me to see it repeated ad nauseam that Fauci said such a thing.
If I have missed something, please help me out.
"When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face"
What do you think is being communicated here? It makes you feel better, but there are unintended consequences is worse than they don't work, it is saying they are worse than nothing. Around the same time the Surgeon General more explicitly said they don't work.
“They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”
Which was an absurd statement at the time - if they are not effective for the public, why would health care providers need them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-fa...
What do you think is being communicated here? It makes you feel better, but there are unintended consequences is worse than they don't work, it is saying they are worse than nothing. Around the same time the Surgeon General more explicitly said they don't work.
“They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”
Which was an absurd statement at the time - if they are not effective for the public, why would health care providers need them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-fa...
This a classic communication error. Media can't handle subtlety of message. It's a mistake Fauci should not make, being a decades-long expert.
But I hear, and I heard at the time, "Masks help, but they are not perfect, and if you use them in the obviously-wrong way, they are useless or harmful".
Which aligns with my understanding of every tool used for any purpose.
The Surgeon General, OTOH, was never a person to be taken seriously. But I don't blame Fauci for that.
But I hear, and I heard at the time, "Masks help, but they are not perfect, and if you use them in the obviously-wrong way, they are useless or harmful".
Which aligns with my understanding of every tool used for any purpose.
The Surgeon General, OTOH, was never a person to be taken seriously. But I don't blame Fauci for that.
> The Surgeon General, OTOH, was never a person to be taken seriously. But I don't blame Fauci for that.
Why? I'm not from the USA, so obviously I don't understand the specifics of that position.
Why? I'm not from the USA, so obviously I don't understand the specifics of that position.
The US Surgeon General is a political appointee, with a largely ceremonial role and little policy influence.
Some have been better than others, but they mostly serve as a mouthpiece for the administration's agenda as it relates to health-adjacent matters.
As such, when the President does not take a health matter seriously (historically: AIDS, opioids, obesity, guns, tobacco, mental health, drunk driving; newly: COVID-19), the Surgeon General is not to be taken seriously.
Some have been better than others, but they mostly serve as a mouthpiece for the administration's agenda as it relates to health-adjacent matters.
As such, when the President does not take a health matter seriously (historically: AIDS, opioids, obesity, guns, tobacco, mental health, drunk driving; newly: COVID-19), the Surgeon General is not to be taken seriously.
Considering this part of his statement I think his message might have even more subtle than that:
but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
I suspect at the time of the statement, health care works where struggle to get PPE, which would not have been helped by the run on masks by the general public.
In that context I see this a plea for the public to understand a mask in the hand of a medical worker is much more valuable than one in the hand of a member of the public. So lets try and help the medical staff before we try and help ourselves.
but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
I suspect at the time of the statement, health care works where struggle to get PPE, which would not have been helped by the run on masks by the general public.
In that context I see this a plea for the public to understand a mask in the hand of a medical worker is much more valuable than one in the hand of a member of the public. So lets try and help the medical staff before we try and help ourselves.
It wasn't communication error. Fauci admitted he lied for the greater good.
It was really short-sighted. He could have suggested cloth masks.
And Fauci was considered the best COVID thought leader. US is so dead.
It was really short-sighted. He could have suggested cloth masks.
And Fauci was considered the best COVID thought leader. US is so dead.
> Fauci admitted he lied for the greater good.
Again, this is repeated a lot -- but it does not match my memory, nor can I find evidence of it in my searches.
If you know differently, please share a link.
> He could have suggested cloth masks.
IIRC, the consensus pre-COVID and post-SARS, was that cloth masks are inferior to N95 masks. When the supply of N95 masks was not considered unreliable, there was no need for public health to think about bandanas.
In Feb/Mar, before asymptomatic transmission was proven, it was reasonable to not bother suggesting cloth masks, and simultaneously to preserve the "useful" (N95) masks for the most at-risk.
> US is so dead.
There were so many failures. The system that Fauci was relying upon turned out to not have been funded. Maybe he should have known that, but I'm not sure he had visibility into the problem.
I see Fauci as the firefighter who arrives at the scene, hooks up the hoses, and discovers that the hydrants are dry and the city hadn't bothered to tell anyone.
I'm sure it's more complicated than that. He has definitely made some mistakes, but the system which is supposed to back him up has completely failed him and all the rest of us.
Again, this is repeated a lot -- but it does not match my memory, nor can I find evidence of it in my searches.
If you know differently, please share a link.
> He could have suggested cloth masks.
IIRC, the consensus pre-COVID and post-SARS, was that cloth masks are inferior to N95 masks. When the supply of N95 masks was not considered unreliable, there was no need for public health to think about bandanas.
In Feb/Mar, before asymptomatic transmission was proven, it was reasonable to not bother suggesting cloth masks, and simultaneously to preserve the "useful" (N95) masks for the most at-risk.
> US is so dead.
There were so many failures. The system that Fauci was relying upon turned out to not have been funded. Maybe he should have known that, but I'm not sure he had visibility into the problem.
I see Fauci as the firefighter who arrives at the scene, hooks up the hoses, and discovers that the hydrants are dry and the city hadn't bothered to tell anyone.
I'm sure it's more complicated than that. He has definitely made some mistakes, but the system which is supposed to back him up has completely failed him and all the rest of us.
"I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs," he said.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...
It makes no sense since cloth masks don't cause PPE shortage.
> IIRC, the consensus pre-COVID and post-SARS, was that cloth masks are inferior to N95 masks. When the supply of N95 masks was not considered unreliable, there was no need for public health to think about bandanas.
It's inferior but still better than nothing.
So, you agree that cloth masks are better than nothing.
> In Feb/Mar, before asymptomatic transmission was proven, it was reasonable to not bother suggesting cloth masks,
The precautionary principle 101.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
They should have be cautious first. Like come on, it's beginner's level of crisis management.
They even implied against it (because you would touch your face and etc.)
A tweet from US surgeon general: https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/healthcare/2020/03/0...
"They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
Why would you say masks are NOT effective? With emphasis on NOT.
Fauci never refuted this tweet at the time, so what were we supposed to think?
> I see Fauci as the firefighter who arrives at the scene, hooks up the hoses, and discovers that the hydrants are dry and the city hadn't bothered to tell anyone.
It's more like he showed up and said water didn't help put out fire. Let's not use water.
He also didn't regret it because, well, we were in the water shortage period.
> He has definitely made some mistakes
A mistake that caused many lives.
He made a bad judgement call. Bad at communication with public. No idea how to manage crisis.
Just say "hey, it looks like a flu. We should be cautious and cover our face with something. Please don't buy n95 because doctors need it".
At the time, I covered my face in public and kept saying masks worked, and I felt like an anti-vaxx for going against "science". What a shit show.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising...
It makes no sense since cloth masks don't cause PPE shortage.
> IIRC, the consensus pre-COVID and post-SARS, was that cloth masks are inferior to N95 masks. When the supply of N95 masks was not considered unreliable, there was no need for public health to think about bandanas.
It's inferior but still better than nothing.
So, you agree that cloth masks are better than nothing.
> In Feb/Mar, before asymptomatic transmission was proven, it was reasonable to not bother suggesting cloth masks,
The precautionary principle 101.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
They should have be cautious first. Like come on, it's beginner's level of crisis management.
They even implied against it (because you would touch your face and etc.)
A tweet from US surgeon general: https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/healthcare/2020/03/0...
"They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
Why would you say masks are NOT effective? With emphasis on NOT.
Fauci never refuted this tweet at the time, so what were we supposed to think?
> I see Fauci as the firefighter who arrives at the scene, hooks up the hoses, and discovers that the hydrants are dry and the city hadn't bothered to tell anyone.
It's more like he showed up and said water didn't help put out fire. Let's not use water.
He also didn't regret it because, well, we were in the water shortage period.
> He has definitely made some mistakes
A mistake that caused many lives.
He made a bad judgement call. Bad at communication with public. No idea how to manage crisis.
Just say "hey, it looks like a flu. We should be cautious and cover our face with something. Please don't buy n95 because doctors need it".
At the time, I covered my face in public and kept saying masks worked, and I felt like an anti-vaxx for going against "science". What a shit show.
"Masks" meant something different in March than it does now.
Cloth masks were a thing in Asia, but the US had never thought about them much. They were not available for sale.
When Fauci discouraged use of masks among the general public, but implored that they be conserved for medical professionals, he was speaking in the context of PPE. N95 masks, etc.
Sometime in March, people started asking "well do cloth masks work at all"? And there was no consensus answer until (IIRC) early May.
Maybe someone should have said "Hey, we don't know for sure, we've never studied it -- but they use cloth masks in Asia and they have more experience than we do. They certainly can't hurt as long as you recognize clean side/dirty side, and wash them regularly. You can't buy them, but you can make them. Don't make them poorly."
Remember that Fauci was sidelined for a while in there though. And that his job is not public health communications management.
I really don't think you can blame Fauci for the failures here. His messaging, when able to speak, was not that confusing or contradictory. And yet he still got in trouble with the people who wanted him to be less honest. He was simply not able to counter the extreme bloviation and misinformed dishonesty coming from the administration. And he received death threats for trying!
Blame Deborah Birx, a bit, for conflicting signals and bending to pressure. Blame Jerome Adams, for not having the background to separate truth from fiction, and lacking the strength to demand accuracy and clarity. But even those two didn't have much power, their biggest error was lending the appearance of credibility to the broken process which employed them. Blame their boss for having an agenda at odds with direct and honest communication.
Anthony Fauci did not save us, nor did Robert Redfield. We all wish they had. They both spoke honestly when given the chance though, and in a functional government, they (along with the rest of NIAID, CDC, HHS, and OSG) might have given the country a fighting chance.
Or maybe not. Most of the rest of the world is in pretty rough shape too.
Cloth masks were a thing in Asia, but the US had never thought about them much. They were not available for sale.
When Fauci discouraged use of masks among the general public, but implored that they be conserved for medical professionals, he was speaking in the context of PPE. N95 masks, etc.
Sometime in March, people started asking "well do cloth masks work at all"? And there was no consensus answer until (IIRC) early May.
Maybe someone should have said "Hey, we don't know for sure, we've never studied it -- but they use cloth masks in Asia and they have more experience than we do. They certainly can't hurt as long as you recognize clean side/dirty side, and wash them regularly. You can't buy them, but you can make them. Don't make them poorly."
Remember that Fauci was sidelined for a while in there though. And that his job is not public health communications management.
I really don't think you can blame Fauci for the failures here. His messaging, when able to speak, was not that confusing or contradictory. And yet he still got in trouble with the people who wanted him to be less honest. He was simply not able to counter the extreme bloviation and misinformed dishonesty coming from the administration. And he received death threats for trying!
Blame Deborah Birx, a bit, for conflicting signals and bending to pressure. Blame Jerome Adams, for not having the background to separate truth from fiction, and lacking the strength to demand accuracy and clarity. But even those two didn't have much power, their biggest error was lending the appearance of credibility to the broken process which employed them. Blame their boss for having an agenda at odds with direct and honest communication.
Anthony Fauci did not save us, nor did Robert Redfield. We all wish they had. They both spoke honestly when given the chance though, and in a functional government, they (along with the rest of NIAID, CDC, HHS, and OSG) might have given the country a fighting chance.
Or maybe not. Most of the rest of the world is in pretty rough shape too.
> Maybe someone should have said "Hey, we don't know for sure, we've never studied it -- but they use cloth masks in Asia and they have more experience than we do
Nah.
Putting any filter between 2 people are going to reduce particle exchange. Even bad filter would do.
Isn't this just physics regardless of whether it's classical or quantum?
Asian countries don't have greater insight. It's common sense. Someone coughs at us. We put anything on our face to reduce the particles reaching us. Somehow you tried to argue that this was a recent scientific discovery.
We can agree to disagree.
The fact remains. Fauci could have easily recommended bandana or any type of face covering. He didn't. He even admitted he lied for the greater good. He didn't even think of bandana. And this is the best person we have in US...
Nah.
Putting any filter between 2 people are going to reduce particle exchange. Even bad filter would do.
Isn't this just physics regardless of whether it's classical or quantum?
Asian countries don't have greater insight. It's common sense. Someone coughs at us. We put anything on our face to reduce the particles reaching us. Somehow you tried to argue that this was a recent scientific discovery.
We can agree to disagree.
The fact remains. Fauci could have easily recommended bandana or any type of face covering. He didn't. He even admitted he lied for the greater good. He didn't even think of bandana. And this is the best person we have in US...
> Putting any filter between 2 people are going to reduce particle exchange. Even bad filter would do.
That's really not true though.
Early speculation included aerosol transmission, which is not effectively stopped by cloth.
Anyone strongly endorsing cloth for aerosol containment would have been wrong, and blamed for misleading the public, and lost their job, probably.
Current estimates put cloth masks at a ~15% reduction in transmission by droplet. This is significant and important and makes them worth wearing! But if it had been aerosols, they would be <1% effective. And if people believed them to be effective, more people would have been infected.
We will disagree on whether Fauci lied. I believe that he did not lie, although I do believe he was duty-bound to speak when no one had perfect information, and that some of the things he said were misinterpreted.
I never read anything from him that communicated "masks do not work". I did read "masks are not perfect, most people don't know how to use them correctly (N95), they are awkward and uncomfortable to use properly, they are essential for health care workers, they are in short supply, and having a false sense of security is dangerous". This is the message I took from him last spring. Although I was definitely aware of the dishonest noise in the air, it was not coming from Fauci.
I wish he had been in possession of perfect information, and had been able to communicate it with perfect clarity, and without interference from batshit-crazy alternaquacks. No one else was better though. Many were far worse.
That's really not true though.
Early speculation included aerosol transmission, which is not effectively stopped by cloth.
Anyone strongly endorsing cloth for aerosol containment would have been wrong, and blamed for misleading the public, and lost their job, probably.
Current estimates put cloth masks at a ~15% reduction in transmission by droplet. This is significant and important and makes them worth wearing! But if it had been aerosols, they would be <1% effective. And if people believed them to be effective, more people would have been infected.
We will disagree on whether Fauci lied. I believe that he did not lie, although I do believe he was duty-bound to speak when no one had perfect information, and that some of the things he said were misinterpreted.
I never read anything from him that communicated "masks do not work". I did read "masks are not perfect, most people don't know how to use them correctly (N95), they are awkward and uncomfortable to use properly, they are essential for health care workers, they are in short supply, and having a false sense of security is dangerous". This is the message I took from him last spring. Although I was definitely aware of the dishonest noise in the air, it was not coming from Fauci.
I wish he had been in possession of perfect information, and had been able to communicate it with perfect clarity, and without interference from batshit-crazy alternaquacks. No one else was better though. Many were far worse.
> We will disagree on whether Fauci lied. I believe that he did not lie, although I do believe he was duty-bound to speak when no one had perfect information, and that some of the things he said were misinterpreted.
Two points that are worth repeating;
1. The precautionary principle. We should be more cautious. This is crisis management 101. It was way more likely that masks would help than not.
2. Fauci admitted he lied as in he didn't regret anything because of the PPE shortage. Not because he thought masks didn't work. This implied he believed masks worked but didn't want to say it out loud.
> But if it had been aerosols, they would be <1% effective.
If it was aerosol, many many more people would be infected. It would have been 10x. This was already unlikely back them.
Again, with the lack of data, we should have been more cautious. Not less cautious.
Even aerosol was true, wearing masks would still be better.
"False sense of security" is mostly a myth. It's a pandemic. We could have done both social distancing and wearing masks.
Not sure why you assume wearing masks and other activities are mutually exclusive.
Just because I wear a firefighter suit doesn't mean I will run toward every fire I see. Be real.
Two points that are worth repeating;
1. The precautionary principle. We should be more cautious. This is crisis management 101. It was way more likely that masks would help than not.
2. Fauci admitted he lied as in he didn't regret anything because of the PPE shortage. Not because he thought masks didn't work. This implied he believed masks worked but didn't want to say it out loud.
> But if it had been aerosols, they would be <1% effective.
If it was aerosol, many many more people would be infected. It would have been 10x. This was already unlikely back them.
Again, with the lack of data, we should have been more cautious. Not less cautious.
Even aerosol was true, wearing masks would still be better.
"False sense of security" is mostly a myth. It's a pandemic. We could have done both social distancing and wearing masks.
Not sure why you assume wearing masks and other activities are mutually exclusive.
Just because I wear a firefighter suit doesn't mean I will run toward every fire I see. Be real.
As I've not been commuting for a couple of years, I am way behind in my podcasts. Just this weekend, I listened to the March 10, 2020 episode of "Naked Scientists" (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/), a British radio science show from Cambridge. Chris Smith, a virologist, (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/users/chris-smith), at that time, said to buy beer rather than masks; you'll enjoy the beer and it'll protect you as well as a mask.
His concerns were that (1) cloth masks wouldn't help, and (2) that wearing masks incorrectly wouldn't help either. He was wrong about (1), but (2) is still a problem.
I'm sure I'll have opportunity to provide updates as I get further along. :-)
The Nature podcast didn't get on the mask bandwagon until early June, when they had an interview on the effectiveness of masks in this specific case.
No one I've seen has said that medical masks don't work.
His concerns were that (1) cloth masks wouldn't help, and (2) that wearing masks incorrectly wouldn't help either. He was wrong about (1), but (2) is still a problem.
I'm sure I'll have opportunity to provide updates as I get further along. :-)
The Nature podcast didn't get on the mask bandwagon until early June, when they had an interview on the effectiveness of masks in this specific case.
No one I've seen has said that medical masks don't work.
Maybe the population wouldn't have to reserve N95 masks for medical personnel if:
* the production hadn't been outsourced to China which then decided to ban exports while also accepting the PPE donations of other countries
* the government would have noticed that there's a pandemic brewing, and instead of saying "nothing to see here" would have ramped up PPE production or at least procured PPE from the market.
* failing all of the above, at least instituted an export stop so that the remaining PPE wouldn't have been bought from under their noses.
But yes, when one fails so utterly, one has to end up begging the people to work against their own interests with predictable results.
And yes, Fauci and the surgeon general lied. Nothing ambiguous about it, even if they were trying to save PPE for medical personnel.
* the production hadn't been outsourced to China which then decided to ban exports while also accepting the PPE donations of other countries
* the government would have noticed that there's a pandemic brewing, and instead of saying "nothing to see here" would have ramped up PPE production or at least procured PPE from the market.
* failing all of the above, at least instituted an export stop so that the remaining PPE wouldn't have been bought from under their noses.
But yes, when one fails so utterly, one has to end up begging the people to work against their own interests with predictable results.
And yes, Fauci and the surgeon general lied. Nothing ambiguous about it, even if they were trying to save PPE for medical personnel.
Can you show me the peer reviewed studies that you think Fauci etc showed have used to recommend mask wearing in the general population?
We had lots of studies around mask wearing, and most of them really struggled to show any kind of benefit.
We had lots of studies around mask wearing, and most of them really struggled to show any kind of benefit.
Whether they work for the general population is maybe a concern for Fauci, the government and the odd HN commenter. The message was that they don't work to protect individuals from the virus, hence they should not be bought by normal people.
That's obviously false. And an individual will be first and foremost concerned about their own safety, not if they can single-handedly stop the pandemic.
That's obviously false. And an individual will be first and foremost concerned about their own safety, not if they can single-handedly stop the pandemic.
> That's obviously false.
It's not obviously false, because there were studies available at the time that showed masks did not work to protect individuals, especially members of the public.
But, again, I'd be interested to read any studies you have that were 1) available at the time and 2) showed benefit of wearing masks.
It's not obviously false, because there were studies available at the time that showed masks did not work to protect individuals, especially members of the public.
But, again, I'd be interested to read any studies you have that were 1) available at the time and 2) showed benefit of wearing masks.
I've linked this somewhere else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25479729. This references studies from the SARS times and for flu. N95/FFP2 masks are pretty well established, they were used by front line workers in all the pandemics in the last decades.
That's why most Western countries were stockpiling them - as protection in case of a flu pandemic.
That's why most Western countries were stockpiling them - as protection in case of a flu pandemic.
saying that masks work, is a tad simplistic. there are many types of masks, and while they have their benefits there is plenty of evidence that mask wearing has not inhibited the virus from spreading in the population. there is little evidence that the casual masks that are being worn have significantly reduce the risk of exposure.
fauci was well justified when he said before that mask wearing isn't the solution to this pandemic, but now any nuanced discussion is not tolerated, which, perhaps, is the reason people aren't trusting the science. another reason is that politicians are making arbitrary decisions claiming it is what science (facts and data) told them to do.
fauci was well justified when he said before that mask wearing isn't the solution to this pandemic, but now any nuanced discussion is not tolerated, which, perhaps, is the reason people aren't trusting the science. another reason is that politicians are making arbitrary decisions claiming it is what science (facts and data) told them to do.
Science is always wrong to begin with and it gets close to a correct answer with iteration. It’s actually not at all a solved problem how to communicate “science” to the public. Your comment is a perfect example of one of these annoying fallacies I see around covid messaging. Don’t you think they “changed their tune” because they got better data that showed that masks are helpful? You seem mad that they couldn’t conjure clinical data in early 2020 that showed that masks cut the transmission by X%
To go one level deeper, I feel your comment exhibits a fallacy as well.
Sure, science progresses over time. It's fallacious to say that science is wrong because we used to think the sun revolved around the earth. Evidence evolved, ideas changed.
But dismissing all instances of scientists changing their mind, when they really just lied, as "oh, evidence evolved" is the kind of thing that (I feel) erodes trust in science.
I think the evidence is strong that advice against masks was a lie meant to prevent panic, not honestly communicated "best we could do at the time" science. A lie with good intent for overall public health, but dishonest nonetheless.
Sure, science progresses over time. It's fallacious to say that science is wrong because we used to think the sun revolved around the earth. Evidence evolved, ideas changed.
But dismissing all instances of scientists changing their mind, when they really just lied, as "oh, evidence evolved" is the kind of thing that (I feel) erodes trust in science.
I think the evidence is strong that advice against masks was a lie meant to prevent panic, not honestly communicated "best we could do at the time" science. A lie with good intent for overall public health, but dishonest nonetheless.
It did seem like there was a initial misinformation panic statement to try to save ppe for medical staff
Evidence is nice, but sometimes it makes sense to reason from known principles. SARS-CoV-2 was known to spread through respiratory droplets almost from the beginning. Particulate respirators are known to protect people against respiratory droplets. Surgical masks are routinely used for source control of respiratory droplets in surgical settings. A mask recommendation made a lot of sense, even before there was data suggesting they were specifically helpful against SARS-CoV-2.
Respiratory droplets do not travel very far.
"For respiratory exhalation flows, the critical size of large droplets was also between 60 and 100 μm, depending on the exhalation air velocity and relative humidity of the ambient air. Expelled large droplets were carried ... less than 1 m away at a velocity of 1 m/s (breathing)." -- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0668...
Hence the idea of social distancing (for airborne droplets) and frequent hand washing (for surface contamination). (And, of course, staying home if you have symptoms like coughing or sneezing.) Convincing people to use masks consistently and correctly has previously been shown (and remains!) to be an uphill fight.
(I note that there was a meeting of epidemiologists in March, 2020, where famously, no one wore masks. How far are you willing to to go to lie?)
Later, it was found that viruses could be carried by much smaller particles, much farther.
"Our laser light scattering method not only provides real-time visual evidence for speech droplet emission, but also assesses their airborne lifetime. This direct visualization demonstrates how normal speech generates airborne droplets that can remain suspended for tens of minutes or longer and are eminently capable of transmitting disease in confined spaces." -- https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11875
"For respiratory exhalation flows, the critical size of large droplets was also between 60 and 100 μm, depending on the exhalation air velocity and relative humidity of the ambient air. Expelled large droplets were carried ... less than 1 m away at a velocity of 1 m/s (breathing)." -- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0668...
Hence the idea of social distancing (for airborne droplets) and frequent hand washing (for surface contamination). (And, of course, staying home if you have symptoms like coughing or sneezing.) Convincing people to use masks consistently and correctly has previously been shown (and remains!) to be an uphill fight.
(I note that there was a meeting of epidemiologists in March, 2020, where famously, no one wore masks. How far are you willing to to go to lie?)
Later, it was found that viruses could be carried by much smaller particles, much farther.
"Our laser light scattering method not only provides real-time visual evidence for speech droplet emission, but also assesses their airborne lifetime. This direct visualization demonstrates how normal speech generates airborne droplets that can remain suspended for tens of minutes or longer and are eminently capable of transmitting disease in confined spaces." -- https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11875
In general, I think you are right. In this case, the person involved admitted in an interview with "The Street" 6/12/2020 that it was to keep the supply for healthcare workers.
> "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."
> "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."
> it was to keep the supply for healthcare workers
I've heard this argument several times. I don't buy it at all. They could have instructed people to make their own masks especially since everyone was stuck at home. There is no shortage of fabric that I'm aware of. It also would have given manufacturers more time to produce masks.
Also, it's not okay to lie to the public, especially if you're supposed to be non-political. They deliberately lied and didn't apologize. There's no way I can trust someone who does that. That's not how my brain works.
I've heard this argument several times. I don't buy it at all. They could have instructed people to make their own masks especially since everyone was stuck at home. There is no shortage of fabric that I'm aware of. It also would have given manufacturers more time to produce masks.
Also, it's not okay to lie to the public, especially if you're supposed to be non-political. They deliberately lied and didn't apologize. There's no way I can trust someone who does that. That's not how my brain works.
I think it's a little more complicated/nuanced than that.
It's clear that some medical professionals felt the science wasn't there, and ofcourse it wasn't. The science takes a long time. i.e. there was no science that showed that for Covid19 the use of masks would make a difference. Sure, it's common sense, but medical professionals don't use common sense. There might have been some papers about the Flu (with mixed results) and there were some other random papers, but there was no clear evidence either way. If touching the virus and then touching your face is the primary vector then it is possible that masks make things worse. Again, to me it was always common sense you should wear a mask (and not touch it and not touch your face) but even here on HN people were arguing both ways given the existing papers/publications.
Then there's the nature of public health, where your messaging isn't necessarily about what's the right choice for an individual, but rather what's the right choice for the public as a whole.
I don't think the public would understand the nuance of make a mask vs. buy a mask, ofcourse there'd be a run on PPE. Even with the message there was a run on PPE. Good luck trying to find an N95 mask in Home Depot last year in the first few months of the pandemic.
I'm not sure what's the takeaway here, public health officials, and medical professionals are not really scientists, they don't communicate science, they have their own objectives. Generally their objectives should be aligned with our objectives as a public but they may not be aligned with our objectives as individuals within that public.
The bigger issue to me is how slow the response has been across the board in most places, because all those bureaucracies move at the pace of a snail, pretty much every country on this planet botched the initial handling of this (of special note is China ofcourse) and blew away our chance of containing this early on. By the time we were on the mask vs. no mask debate the die was already cast (and a lot of people wore masks anyways and a lot of those who didn't wouldn't wear one anyways).
It's clear that some medical professionals felt the science wasn't there, and ofcourse it wasn't. The science takes a long time. i.e. there was no science that showed that for Covid19 the use of masks would make a difference. Sure, it's common sense, but medical professionals don't use common sense. There might have been some papers about the Flu (with mixed results) and there were some other random papers, but there was no clear evidence either way. If touching the virus and then touching your face is the primary vector then it is possible that masks make things worse. Again, to me it was always common sense you should wear a mask (and not touch it and not touch your face) but even here on HN people were arguing both ways given the existing papers/publications.
Then there's the nature of public health, where your messaging isn't necessarily about what's the right choice for an individual, but rather what's the right choice for the public as a whole.
I don't think the public would understand the nuance of make a mask vs. buy a mask, ofcourse there'd be a run on PPE. Even with the message there was a run on PPE. Good luck trying to find an N95 mask in Home Depot last year in the first few months of the pandemic.
I'm not sure what's the takeaway here, public health officials, and medical professionals are not really scientists, they don't communicate science, they have their own objectives. Generally their objectives should be aligned with our objectives as a public but they may not be aligned with our objectives as individuals within that public.
The bigger issue to me is how slow the response has been across the board in most places, because all those bureaucracies move at the pace of a snail, pretty much every country on this planet botched the initial handling of this (of special note is China ofcourse) and blew away our chance of containing this early on. By the time we were on the mask vs. no mask debate the die was already cast (and a lot of people wore masks anyways and a lot of those who didn't wouldn't wear one anyways).
> Most recently, when the government, most especially the Surgeon General and even Fauci, told people that masks don't work.
They said that mask don't work in preventing you from contracting covid. This holds up to this day. As early as February, Fauci was saying that he was discouraging masks because he wanted make sure there were enough for healthcare workers and sick people, but people are acting like it was a secret agenda. I think that people are deliberately misinterpreting Fauci's words, so that they can blame someone besides themselves or their own social circle for the pandemic. People completely ignored stay at home orders and social distancing. Masks are only meant as a last resort if you have no other choice.
They said that mask don't work in preventing you from contracting covid. This holds up to this day. As early as February, Fauci was saying that he was discouraging masks because he wanted make sure there were enough for healthcare workers and sick people, but people are acting like it was a secret agenda. I think that people are deliberately misinterpreting Fauci's words, so that they can blame someone besides themselves or their own social circle for the pandemic. People completely ignored stay at home orders and social distancing. Masks are only meant as a last resort if you have no other choice.
Having closely followed the mask discussion, they lied, plain and simple. Maybe they didn't specifically use a certain wording, but the aim was clear - discourage people from wearing any masks.
And N95+/FFP2+ masks work at protecting one from the virus, why else would medical personnel wear them? They work even when not worn perfectly.
Of course many are being purposefully obtuse and call those "respirators" in order to muddy the waters and don't even consider them to be masks, even if one wears them on their face and breathes through them. Those so-called respirators are high-quality masks, that's all there is to it.
And N95+/FFP2+ masks work at protecting one from the virus, why else would medical personnel wear them? They work even when not worn perfectly.
Of course many are being purposefully obtuse and call those "respirators" in order to muddy the waters and don't even consider them to be masks, even if one wears them on their face and breathes through them. Those so-called respirators are high-quality masks, that's all there is to it.
> So read the science. Listen to the science. But read up further, and make educated decisions. Don't just listen to "experts" blindly.
This is not feasible advice. I can't read studies and correctly interpret and summarize them in every area of science which could affect my day-to-day decisions. That's insane.
We need to work on improving the trust of our scientific institutions, so that we can continue living our lives and focusing our efforts on our specializations. This may involve changing the institutions themselves to fix legitimate issues (like the funding fiasco), addressing misunderstandings by the public that also contribute to mistrust, etc.
There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As with many issues of our day, the challenge will be in disciplined focus on the issues themselves and what changes we should make to address them, instead of surrendering to tribal bickering.
This is not feasible advice. I can't read studies and correctly interpret and summarize them in every area of science which could affect my day-to-day decisions. That's insane.
We need to work on improving the trust of our scientific institutions, so that we can continue living our lives and focusing our efforts on our specializations. This may involve changing the institutions themselves to fix legitimate issues (like the funding fiasco), addressing misunderstandings by the public that also contribute to mistrust, etc.
There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As with many issues of our day, the challenge will be in disciplined focus on the issues themselves and what changes we should make to address them, instead of surrendering to tribal bickering.
This is not feasible advice. I can't read studies and correctly interpret and summarize them in every area of science which could affect my day-to-day decisions. That's insane.
But if you wanted to study something out and make your own decision, you should be free to do so.
I think nutrition is a great example. Despite decades of research, there appears to be no one single answer as to what constitutes a healthy diet, or what the most important aspects of a healthy diet are.
Low-calorie? Low-carb? Dairy-free? Meat-free? Low-sodium? Low-fat? High-fat?
As an individual, you have lots of choices, including eating whatever you want with no particular dietary plan at all. But if you want to read a book or read research papers and change your diet, you can.
But if you wanted to study something out and make your own decision, you should be free to do so.
I think nutrition is a great example. Despite decades of research, there appears to be no one single answer as to what constitutes a healthy diet, or what the most important aspects of a healthy diet are.
Low-calorie? Low-carb? Dairy-free? Meat-free? Low-sodium? Low-fat? High-fat?
As an individual, you have lots of choices, including eating whatever you want with no particular dietary plan at all. But if you want to read a book or read research papers and change your diet, you can.
Sure you can, go for it. But I doubt that many people have the time nor the skills required to actually come to some justified conclusion. The scary part is that many of them think they do. Often the very ones who tell you "read the science" or "just go read some papers" are the ones who dramatically underestimate the amount of effort and nuance it takes to synthesize the results of numerous researchers into a coherent meta-analysis. You can try, sure, and personally I enjoy it, but unless you're already an expert researcher in the field, you should be very skeptical that any conclusions you make are actually valid.
It takes an enormous amount of domain knowledge to reasonably interpret the statistics of experiments, epidemiological studies, etc. We may think we can read them and come to our own conclusions, but I think it's usually our hubris that leads us to believe that those conclusions are justified and not just rolls of the dice.
It takes an enormous amount of domain knowledge to reasonably interpret the statistics of experiments, epidemiological studies, etc. We may think we can read them and come to our own conclusions, but I think it's usually our hubris that leads us to believe that those conclusions are justified and not just rolls of the dice.
> We need to work on improving the trust of our scientific institutions, so that we can continue living our lives and focusing our efforts on our specializations.
Putting it that way is putting the cart before the horse. Our institutions need to become more trustworthy, then we'll be able to trust them more. Even then, I suspect a certain level of scepticism is needed to keep them honest.
Putting it that way is putting the cart before the horse. Our institutions need to become more trustworthy, then we'll be able to trust them more. Even then, I suspect a certain level of scepticism is needed to keep them honest.
That is a great way to improve trust. There are other ways as well, and we should work on them all.
Not necessarily. If our scientific institutions are actually untrustworthy, then the public is correct to mistrust them, and acting to artificially increase public trust in them would be counterproductive.
[deleted]
There are a lot of people out there with unfounded mistrust. Some of it is justified, some of it is not. These things are not mutually exclusive.
> So read the science. Listen to the science. But read up further, and make educated decisions. Don't just listen to "experts" blindly.
For most people, even educated people, they are more likely to hold correct beliefs by listening to experts blindly than investigating papers themselves. Sometimes experts are wrong. But experts are wrong way less often than laypeople. A culture of a bunch of inexpert youtubers reading papers and convincing people of medical advice is perilous.
For most people, even educated people, they are more likely to hold correct beliefs by listening to experts blindly than investigating papers themselves. Sometimes experts are wrong. But experts are wrong way less often than laypeople. A culture of a bunch of inexpert youtubers reading papers and convincing people of medical advice is perilous.
Scientific knowledge is _always_ wrong in a strict sense. Every law, every theory has a confidence interval attached. Every measurement, an error bar. Sometimes that confidence interval is really, really big, like our model of how gravity works when things aren't too big or moving too fast. Sometimes those error bars are really, really big, like how we though non-HEPA masks wouldn't really help prevent the spread of a novel airborne virus, so more conservative pandemic mitigations were necessary to prevent unnecessary deaths. The good news is that the scientific process emphasizes and incentivizes increasing those confidence intervals and reducing errors (but never eliminating them—that's impossible). We know a lot more now than we did this time last year. It's why we have not just one but several safe and effective vaccines, for example.
> It's why we have not just one but several safe and effective vaccines, for example.
Well, if I were to follow your skeptical line of thinking, I'd say that vaccines are never safe/effective, they simply have a confidence interval attached to them. Furthermore, vaccines made using novel processes have no long term data. Its never this simple :)
You see, we can't really apply such logic to every day decisions. The 'error bar' you referred to is of little benefit here, and also subject to the same skepticism. Its useful when you know a high percentage of the the variables, and all the mechanisms where data can be wrong/insufficient, etc. But you can't know that when you know so little of the pathogen. Its turtles all the way down :)
Also, HEPA masks cannot filter out COVID-19 (~ 100nm). HEPA filters, or sterile filters in general are roughly around 0.2um (200nm).
(source: works in biotech on vaccines)
Well, if I were to follow your skeptical line of thinking, I'd say that vaccines are never safe/effective, they simply have a confidence interval attached to them. Furthermore, vaccines made using novel processes have no long term data. Its never this simple :)
You see, we can't really apply such logic to every day decisions. The 'error bar' you referred to is of little benefit here, and also subject to the same skepticism. Its useful when you know a high percentage of the the variables, and all the mechanisms where data can be wrong/insufficient, etc. But you can't know that when you know so little of the pathogen. Its turtles all the way down :)
Also, HEPA masks cannot filter out COVID-19 (~ 100nm). HEPA filters, or sterile filters in general are roughly around 0.2um (200nm).
(source: works in biotech on vaccines)
“Safe” and “known to be safe” aren’t the same thing.
Something can both not cause problems, but also be such that one cannot yet rule out with high confidence that it might.
Something can both not cause problems, but also be such that one cannot yet rule out with high confidence that it might.
Agreed. I'm for healthy skepticism, not paranoia. But like everyone else I do have my preferences and biases. Given a choice, I'd much rather take a vaccine based on established 'boring' tech.
Oh, yes, I agree that for two different vaccines for the same illness, one of which was developed using novel methods / is of a novel style, and where the two different vaccines have individually been tested the same amount with equivalent results regarding safety and effectiveness, it usually makes sense to prefer the one which is of a style which has been tested more thoroughly.
Like, it probably makes sense to trust glass or ceramic glasses somewhat more than plastic or metal glasses, just by how long the technologies have been around?
I think I hadn't read all of your previous comment, and was largely responding to just the first part. Whoops?
Like, it probably makes sense to trust glass or ceramic glasses somewhat more than plastic or metal glasses, just by how long the technologies have been around?
I think I hadn't read all of your previous comment, and was largely responding to just the first part. Whoops?
You absolutely can apply that kind of logic to everyday decisions. It's called risk-benefit analysis.
I explained why you can't - Because you don't know what you don't know. An error margin or error rate or error probability or whatever error measure you choose to use, relies on your knowledge of the problem set. This is already known to most researchers. Establishing probabilities such as "life on planet X" or "existence of aliens" etc are problematic for the same reasons. Certainly these are not every-day decisions, but merely to illustrate the point. I suspect we might agree somewhere in the middle - maybe our disagreement is on what constitutes every day decisions?
The stupidity of the mask debate is breath taking and the general public needs to take some of the responsibility.
There is a reason surgeons wear masks in operating theaters.
There is a reason surgeons wear masks in operating theaters.
I think it only really became a debate once a popular idea spread around saying that wearing a mask is to protect others from yourself. Before that, mask wearing seemed a little bit selfish or paranoid, but that idea turned it into a moral action. And morals give people a feeling of rightousness in judging others and fighting against them. Then when people start fighting, others find themselves in the position of enemy so they fight back out of indignation.
[deleted]
What’s the problem with low fat diet?
Well, this is how you get anti-vaxxers as well...don't listen to the experts blindly and do your own "research". Most of the population lacks the skills (as evidenced by general math scores) to make even a partially informed judgment if they were to do their own "research"...
Science is a process. I repeat: science is a process. It is not a collection of special knowledge. It is not "truth". It is not the opinion of some expert or group of experts. Science is a process.
I get so sick of people talking about "trusting science". What they always seem to mean is "trusting some specific scientist or group of scientists". At this point I'm inherently cynical regarding anyone who claims to have "science" on their side.
Science is a process for establishing trust in an idea. It is a process for evaluating theories. It is a process for creating evidence. Science is a process.
I get so sick of people talking about "trusting science". What they always seem to mean is "trusting some specific scientist or group of scientists". At this point I'm inherently cynical regarding anyone who claims to have "science" on their side.
Science is a process for establishing trust in an idea. It is a process for evaluating theories. It is a process for creating evidence. Science is a process.
Most people don't know these process.
The notion of what science exactly is, and how to use it isn't even taught in schools. (Stuff like Popper's falsification techniques)
As a result people find that the only way they can verify information is through appealing to authority, which of cause manipulates them to their own will.
The notion of what science exactly is, and how to use it isn't even taught in schools. (Stuff like Popper's falsification techniques)
As a result people find that the only way they can verify information is through appealing to authority, which of cause manipulates them to their own will.
Yes, but ... there are degrees of trustworthiness. Results in physics tend to be very trustworthy and can withstand time well. On the other end of the spectrum, there are academic disciplines that have little more to offer than opinions. And there's a lot in between. You can only trust a discipline to the degree it has shown to be trustworthy.
That, of course, says nothing about trusting individuals or daring new hypotheses, which is what the article seems to address rather pointlessly, with some hand-waiving, and avoiding the difficult issues: you might want to apply the proposals to physics, precisely because it is so trustworthy, but probably not to the other disciplines.
That, of course, says nothing about trusting individuals or daring new hypotheses, which is what the article seems to address rather pointlessly, with some hand-waiving, and avoiding the difficult issues: you might want to apply the proposals to physics, precisely because it is so trustworthy, but probably not to the other disciplines.
I can further clarify that process by saying "Science is the evolution of answering questions."
What worries me the most is when people use the phrase "a majority of experts agree that..." and imply that is the absolute truth. It's not.
A majority of experts, in their day, agreed that the sun is rotating around the earth. A majority of experts agreed that time and space are absolute. And since it's trendy these days to declare absolute medical truths, a majority of experts agreed that disease is caused by imbalances of bodily fluids and that bloodletting is the cure to any disease.
A majority of experts, in their day, agreed that the sun is rotating around the earth. A majority of experts agreed that time and space are absolute. And since it's trendy these days to declare absolute medical truths, a majority of experts agreed that disease is caused by imbalances of bodily fluids and that bloodletting is the cure to any disease.
You cannot deny that scientific consensus holds certain weight, though.
Yes, but "trusting the scientists" is not the same as "trusting the science". Humans are self-serving creatures. Processes are not.
Prediction of phenomena in a repeatable fashion is the hallmark of all good science.
Very few of what pass for sciences today in our world, save for the sciences of chemistry and large parts of physics, have achieved such precision of prediction in the laws they have been able to come up with to describe the universe.
Parts of Medicine largely fit the bill but other parts aren't yet that far along.
Psychology and psychiatry are at best a crap shoot and do not have solutions that work for all, in a repeatable fashion.
Economics and social "sciences" are at best a set of theories with varying degrees of merit or applicability but are mostly a set of opinions and authorities who like to argue with each other about their own pet theory.
It's amazing how far humanity has come thanks to the advance of true science but it's important to not forget we have a long ways to go still.
Very few of what pass for sciences today in our world, save for the sciences of chemistry and large parts of physics, have achieved such precision of prediction in the laws they have been able to come up with to describe the universe.
Parts of Medicine largely fit the bill but other parts aren't yet that far along.
Psychology and psychiatry are at best a crap shoot and do not have solutions that work for all, in a repeatable fashion.
Economics and social "sciences" are at best a set of theories with varying degrees of merit or applicability but are mostly a set of opinions and authorities who like to argue with each other about their own pet theory.
It's amazing how far humanity has come thanks to the advance of true science but it's important to not forget we have a long ways to go still.
You say that but the fact that dark patterns in games, apps, websites, and advertising are so effective would seem to contradict this. Also, a psychiatrist is an MD and completely different that a psychologist who usually has a PhD and is actually running experiments. That said, psychology does have a repeatability problem for sure. The sheer volume of papers submitted is so much noise that picking out the signal is a hard problem with no good solution at the moment.
Science is about the idea that ideas are tested by experiment (or more generally, some objective empirical validation ). Economics, while traditionally a scene of some combination of occasional mathematical rigor combined with ideological opinion, has as of late been going through an empirical renaissance of late. Economics is changing.
> proposed drinking bleach
speaking of trust. here's a PSA for those, who like myself, had trusted the media and thought that happened:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/...
speaking of trust. here's a PSA for those, who like myself, had trusted the media and thought that happened:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/...
The news generally played his exact statement with him saying it.
If you believe that he's telling you to drink bleach is up to you, but some people certainly did, and tried it.
If you believe that he's telling you to drink bleach is up to you, but some people certainly did, and tried it.
Sure, it's not quite correct -- what he actually proposed was injecting bleach, which is even worse.
You can watch the entire press conference here [1]. The relevant portion, starting at 27:04, is:
-----
Bill Bryan: We’re also testing disinfectants readily available. We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids and I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes. Isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing. Just spraying it on and leaving it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster ...
Donald Trump: A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.
-----
This matches my recollection of what was being reported at the time. The fact check you linked to is about a claim by Joe Biden, not a media report.
[1] https://youtu.be/YqsGjWNXB2M
You can watch the entire press conference here [1]. The relevant portion, starting at 27:04, is:
-----
Bill Bryan: We’re also testing disinfectants readily available. We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids and I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes. Isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing. Just spraying it on and leaving it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster ...
Donald Trump: A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.
-----
This matches my recollection of what was being reported at the time. The fact check you linked to is about a claim by Joe Biden, not a media report.
[1] https://youtu.be/YqsGjWNXB2M
"A Cedars-Sinai research team is in the pre-clinical stages of developing a technology that harnesses intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light for treating viruses and bacteria."
https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/cedars-sinai-statement...
https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/cedars-sinai-statement...
I wonder why you posted that, since it shows him clearly not proposing injecting bleach. That quote shows him wondering if there is some way some disinfectant can be injected into the bloodstream to destroy the virus, and that it would be interesting for doctors to look into that. He was obviously told that UV light is a disinfectant that has been used to directly treat blood (which is true).
I really dislike Trump, but I feel like I end up defending him quite often against people who are just completely uncharitable in their interpretations of everything he's ever said or done.
I really dislike Trump, but I feel like I end up defending him quite often against people who are just completely uncharitable in their interpretations of everything he's ever said or done.
[deleted]
Really? you really want to argue that Trump wondering if disinfectant can be injected to destroy the virus is anything other than dangerously ignorant?
We have things that can be injected to destroy the virus. They are called "vaccines".
Trumps dumb suggestion is like watching someone use a weed whacker in their yard, then asking if microscopic weed whackers can be injected to fight the virus. I expect it off a young child, not a President.
We have things that can be injected to destroy the virus. They are called "vaccines".
Trumps dumb suggestion is like watching someone use a weed whacker in their yard, then asking if microscopic weed whackers can be injected to fight the virus. I expect it off a young child, not a President.
You mean monoclonal antibodies[0]? Vaccines are far too slow for a fast-moving virus like this if you are already exposed.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody
There is no such thing as "the science". Science doesn't say anything, people say thing. You don't follow science, you follow what some people said in their research. The world needs to understand that science is nothing but a set of guidelines/principles to discover knowledge and it is up-to the people to follow them properly or cut corners and let their biases take over.
Science tells us what is true, it does not tell us what to do about it. What to do is up to people - we need to get together and look at the situation and the trade-offs and agree on a way forward. 'Trust the science' is a lame excuse for not engaging with the discussion.
Science is a process for inspecting and then describing phenomenon. It does not say what is true, it only does its best to accurately and meticulously describe reality. It does not, and can not, know if it has missed something, or if the things it has described will be changed by nature tomorrow and invalidate everything that went before. The results of the scientific process are always provisional and subject to revision.
We need to be humble about what science can actually achieve. Yes, it's the absolute best humans can do given the limitations of our senses and no signed contract from the universe to always behave as it did yesterday. But we need to stop treating the "facts" it produces as divine revelation that we can beat the congregation into submission with.
We need to be humble about what science can actually achieve. Yes, it's the absolute best humans can do given the limitations of our senses and no signed contract from the universe to always behave as it did yesterday. But we need to stop treating the "facts" it produces as divine revelation that we can beat the congregation into submission with.
‘Trusting the Science’ is mostly used by people who can’t write a line of code in python or figure out basics of linear algebra. It is scientism not science, just cherry picking theories to support politicised narratives
That's what the anti-climate-change folks keep telling us.
People who doubt that we are all going to die in 12 years are not anti-climate change folks
Also, consensus science is BS. If it's science, there does not need to be any consensus for something to be true. It's not like science is evaluated democratically. Unless, of course, the science says something nobody likes to admit is true.
Well what if the science is still developing and is extremely complex and the predictive models require petabytes of data and supercomputers and expert interpretation? Like, say, with climate change. Doesn't seem like there's an easy way for an individual scientist to take in all that info and make accurate predictions. Hence groups of scientists reach a "consensus" of what the current best interpretation of the complexity is. The consensus might still be wrong, but at least it signals "all the experts are currently thinking the data means X, Y, Z"
> Well what if the science is still developing and is extremely complex and the predictive models require petabytes of data and supercomputers and expert interpretation?
Then the public and policymakers should be aware that there isn't a consensus. If there are question marks about a lot of points of detail, then we can't just average everyone and then be confident in the result of that.
Then the public and policymakers should be aware that there isn't a consensus. If there are question marks about a lot of points of detail, then we can't just average everyone and then be confident in the result of that.
The scientific consensus is so that the guy who doesn't want to know the details can see what most experts believe. That's a perfectly reasonable way to develop knowledge if you weight it correctly. It's like when I want a TV, I want it to be big enough and show a nice enough picture. I just go to Wirecutter. I don't go buy and return a bunch of TVs till I'm content. That's because I've only got 80 years on this Earth.
No one who uses first principles experiments for anything is capable of forming higher-level hypotheses. Heck, I've never even really formally tested if rain causes the roads to be wet.
No one who uses first principles experiments for anything is capable of forming higher-level hypotheses. Heck, I've never even really formally tested if rain causes the roads to be wet.
Even if we trust the science, the results of those experiments don't necessarily correspond to a political policy in a straightforward or 1-to-1 fashion.
I think a lot of the science today is not easily reproducible, which makes it hard to trust.
I think a lot of the science today is not easily reproducible, which makes it hard to trust.
Science is a human process. Trusting the science means trusting humans. Research performed by humans has many opportunities for biases to slip in. There's no one monitoring or auditing raw data collection for example - whether that is measured observations in scientific research or survey data in social research. Most students also have poor statistical knowledge and make numerous mistakes in drawing their conclusion, and some even misstate their findings in more deliberate ways (like p hacking). Then there's the ecosystem around the people performing the science. Journals with poor review processes, magazines that publish headlines that lack the intended nuance/context, and so forth.
The calls to "trust the science" also often extend beyond what the scientific material states. For instance, the science might tell us that the coronavirus poses a particular level of risk in terms of mortality. But deciding whether or not to react to that risk with heavy measures is still a human decision that crosses value systems, economic considerations, moral considerations, etc. Still, somehow you see people in social media or news media attaching the "science" label to their opinion on what must be done, even though that final consideration is an opinion or judgment call.
The calls to "trust the science" also often extend beyond what the scientific material states. For instance, the science might tell us that the coronavirus poses a particular level of risk in terms of mortality. But deciding whether or not to react to that risk with heavy measures is still a human decision that crosses value systems, economic considerations, moral considerations, etc. Still, somehow you see people in social media or news media attaching the "science" label to their opinion on what must be done, even though that final consideration is an opinion or judgment call.
I disagree with this claim in the article: "Not all falsifiable claims, then, are scientific, and not all scientific claims are falsifiable. How would one directly test the Big Bang Theory, which seeks to explain the origins of the universe?"
I think all useful scientific claims must be falsifiable. And the Big Bang theory is falsifiable as it made predictions of the Cosmic Microwave background.
But overall, for sure, boundaries what's scientific or non-scientific are a bit fuzzy. And Popper criterion is not the only criterion for definition whether something is scientific or not. But still I think they key point is making verifyiable predictions.
But overall, for sure, boundaries what's scientific or non-scientific are a bit fuzzy. And Popper criterion is not the only criterion for definition whether something is scientific or not. But still I think they key point is making verifyiable predictions.
Trust science, but, unfortunately, not scientists, many of who have shown to be just as capable of letting their biases override their reason as the rest of the unwashed masses.
My problem in the current pandemic is we are told to listen to scientists, who if they were honest would admit they don't know a great deal about what will happen. So we are getting a scientists opinion about things such as lockdown, for which there was practically no evidence (it's the fist time this experiment has been tried), just Neil Ferguson and his demonstrably wrong computer models and his opinion that lockdown is the way forward.
I feel like the author of this article is simplifying "falsifiability". Yes, it's not easy to identify, but getting unexpected results from an experiment, I don't think, has ever been the line.
You have to understand those results as well, before you can interpret them, and while "understanding" is surely fuzzy, it's completely missing in his commentary, as if Popper suggested at any point that the moment something unexpected happens, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
"Wobbly philosophy would become part of legal doctrine."
It's only wobbly if you leave out large parts of it, as the author has...
The title of the article suggested nuance, but I don't see much of it in the article itself. It seems as if the author attempted to take down a basic tenant of science, and feeling satisfied that he had, moved on to draw further conclusions that result. I don't think he succeeded in that set up, however, which makes the second half of the book review (the part about the actual book) less interesting or compelling.
You have to understand those results as well, before you can interpret them, and while "understanding" is surely fuzzy, it's completely missing in his commentary, as if Popper suggested at any point that the moment something unexpected happens, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
"Wobbly philosophy would become part of legal doctrine."
It's only wobbly if you leave out large parts of it, as the author has...
The title of the article suggested nuance, but I don't see much of it in the article itself. It seems as if the author attempted to take down a basic tenant of science, and feeling satisfied that he had, moved on to draw further conclusions that result. I don't think he succeeded in that set up, however, which makes the second half of the book review (the part about the actual book) less interesting or compelling.
My feeling exactly. I stopped reading after a while because of it.
He gives an example of a theory that's falsified, so it's clearly falsifiable! And yet it's not science! Well duh, if it's falsified it's obviously not correct. A robust theory is a theory that is falsifiable but isn't falsified even under heavy scrutiny.
He gives an example of a theory that's falsified, so it's clearly falsifiable! And yet it's not science! Well duh, if it's falsified it's obviously not correct. A robust theory is a theory that is falsifiable but isn't falsified even under heavy scrutiny.
I remember reading Stephan Jay Gould writing about multiple magisteria - science and religion. That you shouldn't use one in the domain of the other. It struck me as idealistic because there's another magisteria that he didn't mention. Politics.
Politics looks at science and religion and sees a precious and innocent teenager. It smiles and nods and knows that it can grab either or both, hand it a gun and it will happily run out to do whatever it's manipulated into doing.
My personal definition of politics is "help your friends and hurt your enemies." Anytime I read an argument from a disinterested source - science or religion - and the end result is one or both of those things I get suspicious.
It's not to say I don't agree with it. Frequently you need to one, the other or both but once it's a question of politics you have to think about the issue in political terms. You have to consider about compromises that have nothing to do with science or religion.
Politics looks at science and religion and sees a precious and innocent teenager. It smiles and nods and knows that it can grab either or both, hand it a gun and it will happily run out to do whatever it's manipulated into doing.
My personal definition of politics is "help your friends and hurt your enemies." Anytime I read an argument from a disinterested source - science or religion - and the end result is one or both of those things I get suspicious.
It's not to say I don't agree with it. Frequently you need to one, the other or both but once it's a question of politics you have to think about the issue in political terms. You have to consider about compromises that have nothing to do with science or religion.
> help your friends and hurt your enemies
That, in turn, seems ripe for exploitation by the not insignificant set of people who see politics as simply a route to power.
That, in turn, seems ripe for exploitation by the not insignificant set of people who see politics as simply a route to power.
Politics is a route to power. It is only that. Its virtue, inasmuch as it has one, is that when properly performed it involves no violence, or at least much less violence than any other route to power commonly encountered in human history.
Interesting related fact:
Meteorites (as in: Rocks falling from the Sky) were not acknowledged as real until 1803. Only then did a large meteorite shower in France give enough evidence for the general public to acknowledge their existence.
Of course meteorites had fallen before and were even in people's homes (who just picked them up). But they were dismissed as conspiracy theories/hoax.
However, please don't misunderstand this comment as me saying you should believe in flat-earth theories and similar nonsense.
Meteorites (as in: Rocks falling from the Sky) were not acknowledged as real until 1803. Only then did a large meteorite shower in France give enough evidence for the general public to acknowledge their existence.
Of course meteorites had fallen before and were even in people's homes (who just picked them up). But they were dismissed as conspiracy theories/hoax.
However, please don't misunderstand this comment as me saying you should believe in flat-earth theories and similar nonsense.
All sorts of things like this. Rogue waves essentially weren't believed to be possible until 1995.
Conflating failure of imagination (lack of proposed mechanism) and impossibility is a rather common failure mode. Heck, it took a decade for biologists to just agree on the Hardy-Weinberg theorem!
Conflating failure of imagination (lack of proposed mechanism) and impossibility is a rather common failure mode. Heck, it took a decade for biologists to just agree on the Hardy-Weinberg theorem!
I am not fond of the way people refer to science.
It's common to see people say 'believe the science' as if science is a person making one specific claim. The scientific method is a process practiced by humans. Humans are prone to error and dishonesty depending on the circumstances. They are also able, on occasion, to make brilliant discoveries.
I find the framing of conversations about science to be dishonest and intended to make one party in the discussion look like a fool.
It's common to see people say 'believe the science' as if science is a person making one specific claim. The scientific method is a process practiced by humans. Humans are prone to error and dishonesty depending on the circumstances. They are also able, on occasion, to make brilliant discoveries.
I find the framing of conversations about science to be dishonest and intended to make one party in the discussion look like a fool.
Science is something you should use, learn, study but not trust or believe. If you're looking for something to believe, maybe religion is possibility, science should continually be tested.
Science is important because you know it can be wrong. It evolves when mistakes or errors are found, not when it is confirmed.
Science is important because you know it can be wrong. It evolves when mistakes or errors are found, not when it is confirmed.
If someone is saying “the science is settled”, I immediately dismiss them. That’s how how science works, and when you use that phrase you are making a religious statement not a scientific one.
I think you're making a bit much over a phrase.
True, no matter how long something has settled in science, it can be overturned by more evidence (hence Newtonian gravity, once quite well settled eventually be doubted then disrupted by GR). But, even given that, it's still true that science on a topic may be presently settled.
So, it seems to me, more import than dismissing every use of the phrase is to judge the context of how it's being used. If it's being used to dismiss the presentation of evidence or anomalies ("hey, it seems odd the Mecury's orbit doesn't quite fit the prediction") then the phrase is absolutely being abused.
But if instead it's being used to dismiss a claim that lacks any evidence ("the apple falls because the earth is flat and accelerating upward due to the giant turtles it rests on"), then the phrase is better applied.
True, no matter how long something has settled in science, it can be overturned by more evidence (hence Newtonian gravity, once quite well settled eventually be doubted then disrupted by GR). But, even given that, it's still true that science on a topic may be presently settled.
So, it seems to me, more import than dismissing every use of the phrase is to judge the context of how it's being used. If it's being used to dismiss the presentation of evidence or anomalies ("hey, it seems odd the Mecury's orbit doesn't quite fit the prediction") then the phrase is absolutely being abused.
But if instead it's being used to dismiss a claim that lacks any evidence ("the apple falls because the earth is flat and accelerating upward due to the giant turtles it rests on"), then the phrase is better applied.
> the apple falls because the earth is flat and accelerating upward due to the giant turtles it rests on
Hmm, be careful ridiculing all of this, because under GR the earth is accelerating upward toward the apple; it has to in order to remain in the same spot in curved spacetime.
Hmm, be careful ridiculing all of this, because under GR the earth is accelerating upward toward the apple; it has to in order to remain in the same spot in curved spacetime.
I'd argue as a distinction that the surface of the earth accelerates outward, not upward, and nuanced GR takes aside I'll happily continue to gently mock the claims of flat earthers.
Indeed, I just think general relativity would never have been discovered had einstein not questioned settled science. In other words, if einstein assumed "the earth doesn't accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downward! The science is settled!", we would have never been enlightened by his paradigm shift.
> In other words, if einstein assumed “the earth doesn’t accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downward! The science is settled!”,
But, insofar as there was a broadly accepted pre-GR scientific explanation, it was not “The earth doesn’t accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downardThe second half, yes, but not the first.
But, insofar as there was a broadly accepted pre-GR scientific explanation, it was not “The earth doesn’t accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downardThe second half, yes, but not the first.
"Up" is away from the center of the gravity well.
Since gravity wells are generally spherical in practice, up is always going to point radially outward, so there's no distinction to make.
Since gravity wells are generally spherical in practice, up is always going to point radially outward, so there's no distinction to make.
[deleted]
I am not the GP, but when someone says, "The science is settled, I also ignore them, and this is why.
"The Earth is flat. The science is settled." "No, it's actually round." "Okay, it's round. The science is settled." "Actually, it's an oblate spheroid."
And that last one matters for GPS.
Beyond that, there is always a new question. Sure, the COVID vaccine works with small enough side effects. Cool. What about medium-term side effects? What about long-term side effects?
Also, "science" is the process, not the body of Knowledge or the consensus. See https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/ .
"The Earth is flat. The science is settled." "No, it's actually round." "Okay, it's round. The science is settled." "Actually, it's an oblate spheroid."
And that last one matters for GPS.
Beyond that, there is always a new question. Sure, the COVID vaccine works with small enough side effects. Cool. What about medium-term side effects? What about long-term side effects?
Also, "science" is the process, not the body of Knowledge or the consensus. See https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/ .
First, the science was never settled that the earth was flat.
For as long as we've had anything resembling science, we've known the earth was round.
But none of that addresses my point. I'm not saying that nothing in science is overturned (in fact, I pointed out exactly that).
In saying the phrase can be reasonably used in some contexts.
It can _never_ be reasonably used to dismiss evidence or anomalies.
It can _sometimes_ be reasonably used to dismiss completely unsupported and unfounded claims. If someone claims the earth is flat, I will happily tell them that it is not, and the science on the matter is settled.
Again, to rule out evidence or anomalies, no. But to rule out unsupported claims, I'm still going to use it.
If you think that wrong, you should probably be ignoring me.
For as long as we've had anything resembling science, we've known the earth was round.
But none of that addresses my point. I'm not saying that nothing in science is overturned (in fact, I pointed out exactly that).
In saying the phrase can be reasonably used in some contexts.
It can _never_ be reasonably used to dismiss evidence or anomalies.
It can _sometimes_ be reasonably used to dismiss completely unsupported and unfounded claims. If someone claims the earth is flat, I will happily tell them that it is not, and the science on the matter is settled.
Again, to rule out evidence or anomalies, no. But to rule out unsupported claims, I'm still going to use it.
If you think that wrong, you should probably be ignoring me.
I guess you could use it against those that know nothing about the process of science, but then they would just ignore you because they really don't understand what you are saying.
However, in my experience, that phrase more often comes from someone who claims to be a scientist, which is why it puts me off.
If you don't claim to be a scientist, then I can respect that.
However, in my experience, that phrase more often comes from someone who claims to be a scientist, which is why it puts me off.
If you don't claim to be a scientist, then I can respect that.
I don’t claim to be a scientist.
The times I use this phrase are typically when having political arguments where what we know is correct is pitted against monied interests that aren’t seeking truth but working hard to obscure it (“is smoking cigarettes harmful?”, “is climate change real?”, “is the earth round?”, etc).
The times I use this phrase are typically when having political arguments where what we know is correct is pitted against monied interests that aren’t seeking truth but working hard to obscure it (“is smoking cigarettes harmful?”, “is climate change real?”, “is the earth round?”, etc).
Is that never context dependent? What about in a rebuttal to flat-earth "Theory"?
In that conversation, nobody flat out says "the science is settled" because it is easy to explain the science behind the earth being round. No, "the science is settled" is only ever used as a way to end a discussion without explaining the details of one's position. Not that they're necessarily wrong, but just that they don't know the answers. It is always an attempt to end a conversation on an authoritative basis.
I think sometimes it's out of recognition that the amount of effort required to convince someone -- who probably isn't even arguing in good faith -- of something sometimes exceeds the amount of effort required to dismiss them. Which is really sort of the main issue with ongoing discussions about settled topics (creationism, flat earth, young earth, anti-vax, etc.)... it's just miserable from a signal-to-noise POV
> In that conversation, nobody flat out says "the science is settled" because it is easy to explain the science behind the earth being round.
Not to a flat earther. There is a mountain of garbage you need to wade through. You can sit there and talk about observing the curvature across bodies of water or with satellites or whatever and they will just sit and say "nuh uh". At that point "the science is settled" is way easier than wasting your time with them.
Not to a flat earther. There is a mountain of garbage you need to wade through. You can sit there and talk about observing the curvature across bodies of water or with satellites or whatever and they will just sit and say "nuh uh". At that point "the science is settled" is way easier than wasting your time with them.
So, you're arguing that the Earth could be flat?
Where on earth do you get anything close to that from what I've said?
If you get drawn into a debate about whether the earth is flat, you're the sucker and are being made fun of by the person "debating" you. And retorting that "the science is settled" would be a ridiculous response.
In serious debate, "the science is settled" is the intellectual equivalent of "because I said so". But I don't believe it comes up often in serious debate, it's more likely to happen when two parties that don't really understand science are having an ideological debate that they pretend had to do with science as a rhetorical device to gain legitimacy.
In serious debate, "the science is settled" is the intellectual equivalent of "because I said so". But I don't believe it comes up often in serious debate, it's more likely to happen when two parties that don't really understand science are having an ideological debate that they pretend had to do with science as a rhetorical device to gain legitimacy.
Are you saying that all flat-earthers are actually lying, and just there to troll?
It's better to use different language, like saying how we're exceedingly confident that the earth is round, rather than it being an absolute. Sort of like our confidence asymptotically approaches absolute but never actually reaches it.
This is similar to Hume's argument for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Obviously, we all believe (even flat-earthers) that the sun will rise tomorrow and we have much science to indicate this will continue to be the case for a long time. Still, that doesn't mean we can be 100% confident this is the case. It's frankly just exceedingly difficult to be 100% absolutely sure about anything, unless it's first order mathematics.
This is similar to Hume's argument for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Obviously, we all believe (even flat-earthers) that the sun will rise tomorrow and we have much science to indicate this will continue to be the case for a long time. Still, that doesn't mean we can be 100% confident this is the case. It's frankly just exceedingly difficult to be 100% absolutely sure about anything, unless it's first order mathematics.
The Earth might not be flat, but it isn't round either. That one is a lot more wrong than the other matters little if you're trying to land a spaceship.
I doubt anyone in a position to land a spaceship would be convinced that the earth is flat. And just because something isn't 100% true doesn't make it useless. Newtons laws are very useful in most real life situations, even though we know them to be wrong.
The Earth being flat is a very useful approximation in all cases where you don't need to land as spaceship. Just because something is useful doesn't mean it's true.
I would contest that an oblate spheroid with an uneven surface is "round", at least that's a pretty good approximation in general conversation.
No it’s never context dependant. In regard to flat earth, the scientific response is simply that the evidence seems to contradict that theory. If some people think it’s still a valid line of inquiry, then they’re perfectly entitled to pursue it. Science doesn’t dictate what is and is not a waste of time. If some people wish to assert that flat earth theories are definitely true, then that’s fine too. It’s not scientific, because science doesn’t have any mechanism for determining something to be definitely true. If some people want to claim that flat earth is likely true, that’s fine too, but it’s also not a very defensible scientific conclusion either, because the scientific evidence weighs heavily against that conclusion. But saying that something is definitely not true is equally anti-science, because science doesn’t have a mechanism for determining something to be definitely not true either.
The problem that people have with this tends to be that when they notice somebody being “wrong” about something, they want to be able to conclusively prove that the other person is wrong, and that they are right. Especially if it’s in regards to an issue they consider important. If you think that the scientific evidence supports your position in a situation like this, the temptation is to claim that science unequivocally proves you are correct. It is however, an outright abuse of the scientific method.
This sort of situation has become very common place. When science communicators are faced with anti-scientific assertions of absolute truth, they’re not inclined to acknowledge scientific uncertainty, and the limits of their own understanding. Sadly this has created a culture of anti-scientific science worship.
The problem that people have with this tends to be that when they notice somebody being “wrong” about something, they want to be able to conclusively prove that the other person is wrong, and that they are right. Especially if it’s in regards to an issue they consider important. If you think that the scientific evidence supports your position in a situation like this, the temptation is to claim that science unequivocally proves you are correct. It is however, an outright abuse of the scientific method.
This sort of situation has become very common place. When science communicators are faced with anti-scientific assertions of absolute truth, they’re not inclined to acknowledge scientific uncertainty, and the limits of their own understanding. Sadly this has created a culture of anti-scientific science worship.
[deleted]
Absolutely. Trust, faith in scientists, in journals, opinions, consensus opinion, etc should be irrelevant. The studies/observations/experiments should stand for themselves.
This sounds good in theory, but how does it work in practice? 99% of people aren’t going to be able to read a scientific paper and judge the scientific merits of the conclusion, at least for anything that is not a complete farce. If I read a paper about some aspect of the event horizon of a black hole, how am I going to judge the veracity without spending a career studying the field?
Even if every person could understand every scientific paper, no one has the time to read them all.
How should some practically interpret the truth of a scientific claim? I really find it unlikely that the answer doesn’t at some point hinge on “I trust the judgment of this other person”
Even if every person could understand every scientific paper, no one has the time to read them all.
How should some practically interpret the truth of a scientific claim? I really find it unlikely that the answer doesn’t at some point hinge on “I trust the judgment of this other person”
For me, it is at that stage where I would have to prove whatever is being said for myself, rather than accept any claims. Even reading the paper would not be enough - I mean that I would need to verify the claim personally. Obviously I don't have time for that, so my position is that I take all claims extremely skeptically.
The problem is that there that the rational position is that there should be no trust in science. 70% of papers cannot be replicated (see the replication crisis).
There is also the issue of funding - you get what you pay for. There are really only 3 funding sources of science - government, military and corporations. (To me, these are actually just one source 3 facets of the same beast, but not everyone agrees with me that we live in a fascist state.) But those funding interests don't make for 'free' science.
No one will research good diet - confusion reigns on the best diet for people. They will research expensive drugs and treatments. No one researches how climate change isn't happening, only that it is. Etc. The upshot is, that with enough funding you can fairly quickly have reams of papers and documents in support of whatever case you want to promote. The broader scientific 'truth' is left at the wayside.
The problem is that there that the rational position is that there should be no trust in science. 70% of papers cannot be replicated (see the replication crisis).
There is also the issue of funding - you get what you pay for. There are really only 3 funding sources of science - government, military and corporations. (To me, these are actually just one source 3 facets of the same beast, but not everyone agrees with me that we live in a fascist state.) But those funding interests don't make for 'free' science.
No one will research good diet - confusion reigns on the best diet for people. They will research expensive drugs and treatments. No one researches how climate change isn't happening, only that it is. Etc. The upshot is, that with enough funding you can fairly quickly have reams of papers and documents in support of whatever case you want to promote. The broader scientific 'truth' is left at the wayside.
This is why abusing the trust of the public in the pursuit of punishing or shaming political rivals is so corrosive. Many people have simply stopped listening to the politicians of the opposite stripe and the main-stream media as authoritative sources because they feel that they're always hostile. For example when authoritative sounding talking heads appear on media and deride 40+% of the voting public as unworthy reprobates without being seriously challenged, a large number of people will completely shut off and turn toward less hostile voices who may or may not actually be worthy of trust themselves... That is a seriously bad thing when you have something important you need the public to rally around.
The government and media should be rebuilding trust and making amends because if we can't trust what our leaders say, civil society simply can not do anything but crumble. That's not an easy thing to accomplish, but it could be done if approached in a genuine and humble manner. Unfortunately, there's no sign of that happening anywhere.
The government and media should be rebuilding trust and making amends because if we can't trust what our leaders say, civil society simply can not do anything but crumble. That's not an easy thing to accomplish, but it could be done if approached in a genuine and humble manner. Unfortunately, there's no sign of that happening anywhere.
I recommend the book "Wrong", which talks about a number of failings in our current research system, why invalid results persist, and how people game the system to get the results they want.
https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-cons...
https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-cons...
"I believe that only scientists can understand the universe. It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in non-scientists being wrong."
--- Isaac Asimov
The scientific method does not give us a sort of monolithic, hierarchical entity, into which everyone collaborates and then an answer pops out from the top of the pyramid.
That's the role that politics serves. To take into account all of the data we're given, think about outcomes across all scientific fields, take into account the opinion of the population and execute on it.
I think that for the most part, snappy soundbites like "follow the science" are a result of social media and reactionaries breaking our normal, carefully considered methods of discourse.
Physics tells us that the Universe has enough space for an unfathomable number of humans.
Biology tells us that the conditions aren't there.
Psychology tells us that even if they were, people wouldn't be happy plugged into capsules.
Behavioural science tells us that, regardless of the other three, we might just have to work out a solution anyway, because we're gonna breed.
Politicians... well, from what I can tell usually they just sort of do whatever they want and manipulate the population into wanting it. :)
That's the role that politics serves. To take into account all of the data we're given, think about outcomes across all scientific fields, take into account the opinion of the population and execute on it.
I think that for the most part, snappy soundbites like "follow the science" are a result of social media and reactionaries breaking our normal, carefully considered methods of discourse.
Physics tells us that the Universe has enough space for an unfathomable number of humans.
Biology tells us that the conditions aren't there.
Psychology tells us that even if they were, people wouldn't be happy plugged into capsules.
Behavioural science tells us that, regardless of the other three, we might just have to work out a solution anyway, because we're gonna breed.
Politicians... well, from what I can tell usually they just sort of do whatever they want and manipulate the population into wanting it. :)
Trust the scientific method.
If I may add:
And understand its limits.
I think most people don't, and that's why it gets more and more religious. I think that's actually why conspiracy theories are on the rise, because both 'sides' are becoming more dogmatic.
If someone reading this is curious and wants to learn more, I recommend getting books on theory of science.
And understand its limits.
I think most people don't, and that's why it gets more and more religious. I think that's actually why conspiracy theories are on the rise, because both 'sides' are becoming more dogmatic.
If someone reading this is curious and wants to learn more, I recommend getting books on theory of science.
Exactly this. The method should be highlighted and discussed. Statements like "we believe in science in this household" are weak. I wish we talked more about hypotheses and measurements than numbers of scientists in things like e.g. climate change.
Then again as Alvin Weinberg wrote in the 1970s, there are questions that can be posed scientifically but whose definitive answers are beyond the normal scientific method to answer. He called this "trans-science"
Then again as Alvin Weinberg wrote in the 1970s, there are questions that can be posed scientifically but whose definitive answers are beyond the normal scientific method to answer. He called this "trans-science"
Science is the best method we have for interpreting reality but there is a huge and fundamental flaw that most people don't know about. Yes I am differentiating the scientific method and the politics surrounding science and saying there is a huge flaw in the method.
The scientific method cannot actually Prove anything to be true. That's right. Nothing can actually be proven to be true with science.
If you have a hypothesis it is fundamentally impossible with science to prove that the hypothesis is true. It is only possible to disprove the hypothesis. I'm not making this up from some obscure philosophical conjecture. See this quote from Einstein:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Literally, all of Einsteins theories have never been proven to be true by science. This occurs because the domain for evidence is literally unknown. At any point in time someone can discover new evidence that can disprove a theory. Thus relativity will always be a target for disproof.
What we do have is evidence supporting Einsteins theory but we currently (nor will we ever) have anything that can prove relativity to be True. Know the distinction.
I feel "Science" is just a cover word. To truly understand the magnitude of this you need to rephrase the saying and get rid of the word "science":
"It is fundamentally impossible to prove anything to be true in reality as we know it. Proof is the domain of maths and logic."
Once you thoroughly understand this, then you will know the limits of science and why people always talk about "falsifying" things: Because like I said earlier "true-ifying" anything is fundamentally impossible in reality as we know it!
The scientific method cannot actually Prove anything to be true. That's right. Nothing can actually be proven to be true with science.
If you have a hypothesis it is fundamentally impossible with science to prove that the hypothesis is true. It is only possible to disprove the hypothesis. I'm not making this up from some obscure philosophical conjecture. See this quote from Einstein:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Literally, all of Einsteins theories have never been proven to be true by science. This occurs because the domain for evidence is literally unknown. At any point in time someone can discover new evidence that can disprove a theory. Thus relativity will always be a target for disproof.
What we do have is evidence supporting Einsteins theory but we currently (nor will we ever) have anything that can prove relativity to be True. Know the distinction.
I feel "Science" is just a cover word. To truly understand the magnitude of this you need to rephrase the saying and get rid of the word "science":
"It is fundamentally impossible to prove anything to be true in reality as we know it. Proof is the domain of maths and logic."
Once you thoroughly understand this, then you will know the limits of science and why people always talk about "falsifying" things: Because like I said earlier "true-ifying" anything is fundamentally impossible in reality as we know it!
[deleted]
Science is about facts. Modern scientific articles have been often fluff opinionated pieces.
It's extremely normal not to believe in the morally twisted, incomplete, politically-charged, with perverse incentives and written in a clickbait language modern scientific journalism.
I am not doubting the unbiased science. But I can't find it almost anywhere.
It's extremely normal not to believe in the morally twisted, incomplete, politically-charged, with perverse incentives and written in a clickbait language modern scientific journalism.
I am not doubting the unbiased science. But I can't find it almost anywhere.
Science is about probabilities, not facts.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".
- Richard Feynman [1]
The problem trusting the "Science" has is that the moment we anoint an institution of people as the holders of truth, we diminish lower-case "science", which is the activity useful for determining truth in an objective way.
[1] http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/
- Richard Feynman [1]
The problem trusting the "Science" has is that the moment we anoint an institution of people as the holders of truth, we diminish lower-case "science", which is the activity useful for determining truth in an objective way.
[1] http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/
[deleted]
The way I see it, science has nothing to do with trust (or faith). Or, if anything it is all about mistrust!
When I trust a person, that means, even when I cannot possibly know, I still believe that they are telling the truth.
I tell you the results of an experiment, you say, "ok, prove it," or "I'll see for myself." That's science. The rest is PR and politics.
The royal society's motto: "nullius in verba" = "take nobody's word for it"
but then, there are multiple meanings for "science", and I was only thinking of the method, not the institution or "scientific community", or even the body of knowledge that all get lumped together.
When I trust a person, that means, even when I cannot possibly know, I still believe that they are telling the truth.
I tell you the results of an experiment, you say, "ok, prove it," or "I'll see for myself." That's science. The rest is PR and politics.
The royal society's motto: "nullius in verba" = "take nobody's word for it"
but then, there are multiple meanings for "science", and I was only thinking of the method, not the institution or "scientific community", or even the body of knowledge that all get lumped together.
I think about this all the time because of recent revelations about the micro biome. It was right under our noses but we assumed the clues were all in the human body’s own cellular machinery.
surely the big picture for "trust the science" is not "science is always right" (as the writer notes,) but that the PROCESS of testing and revising scientific theories can be trusted.
As sabine hossenfelder says.. science doesn't tell you not to pee on electric fences, it just points out that urine is a decent conductor of electricity...
(or words to that effect)
I trust the "best available science"... as a rule. (YMMV)
As sabine hossenfelder says.. science doesn't tell you not to pee on electric fences, it just points out that urine is a decent conductor of electricity...
(or words to that effect)
I trust the "best available science"... as a rule. (YMMV)
It's not "trust the science because it is 100% correct all the time and will never steer you wrong"
It's "trust the science more than guessing because at any given moment, it has a much greater chance of giving you useful information than guessing".
Science is the least bad way we have of learning true things (or at least useful approximations of truth) about the world.
It's "trust the science more than guessing because at any given moment, it has a much greater chance of giving you useful information than guessing".
Science is the least bad way we have of learning true things (or at least useful approximations of truth) about the world.
"Science is essentially what a few large donors or institutions or interest groups want to fund."
Quote from a disillusioned researcher.
Quote from a disillusioned researcher.
god finally an article with some moderated sense! I'm beyond sick of seeing social media posts and politicians (most recently here in GA) touting they "follow the science".. As if 'the science' is some monolithic book of f*cking truth that one can 'choose' to read from.
What set of tradeoffs do you see as being better to follow then?
If you trust science then you are not doing science, by definition. The scientific process is an ever self-critical experiment of additions and improvements. Trusting the scientists for questions of policy is just plain folly that has led to disastrous consequences.
It's worth noting that his tired claim-- that Trump suggested drinking bleach to cure COVID-- is false. He did not say this; at best, the author is willfully ignorant of his actual comments, and at worst, he's purposefully lying. Here are his full comments, so that readers may decide for themselves whether or not they believe this claim.
"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that,too. Sounds interesting, right?"
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."
Then, later, after asked directly by a reporter if he meant that people should inject disinfectants:
"It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object."
"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that,too. Sounds interesting, right?"
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."
Then, later, after asked directly by a reporter if he meant that people should inject disinfectants:
"It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object."
This is a _ridiculously_ charitable interpretation. These comments were immediately following other presenters talking about success in sterilising surfaces in hospitals etc.
"bringing the [powerful surface-sterilising UV] light inside the body" and "injection inside or a cleaning [of, again, powerful surface disinfectant]" is a five-year-old's idea of how stuff works.
And "oh it wouldn't be through injections, almost a cleansing and sterilization of an area" - what does that even _mean_? Clearly just backtracking once people started making fun of how dumb the original statement is.
"bringing the [powerful surface-sterilising UV] light inside the body" and "injection inside or a cleaning [of, again, powerful surface disinfectant]" is a five-year-old's idea of how stuff works.
And "oh it wouldn't be through injections, almost a cleansing and sterilization of an area" - what does that even _mean_? Clearly just backtracking once people started making fun of how dumb the original statement is.
I think the general belief is that it never hurts to beat a kind - they're either coming from trouble or going to it.
Or as the Russians say, "When you see an Uzbek punch him - he'll know why."
Or as the Russians say, "When you see an Uzbek punch him - he'll know why."
[deleted]
Trusting the science is meaningless and more akin to scientism, a kind of religion.
Science says very little about the things we actually care about.
Science says very little about the things we actually care about.
Exactly that. Science can never tell us what is a worthy purpose to pursuit. Say for example we want to decapitate all of the HN crowd. Science provides us, with overwhelming evidence that an axe is the way to go, and not say a fork. Anyone who disagrees with it, the decapitating of the HN crowd with an axe, is not against science. There is a hidden presupposition that we all want to decapitate the HN crowd, and that is the purpose we all are pursuing.
The purpose of making a 90 year old person live another 2 years, i am not sure we are all pursuing it. Is there a scientific evidence that there is a way for that 90 year old man to live another 2 years? I bet there is. However who said that is a worthy endeavor to invest money and time on?
Well the proponents of the Covid hoax, that's who. However science provides us with an infinity of evidence, that we didn't do even that, in any country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNKn5d_yUrg
The purpose of making a 90 year old person live another 2 years, i am not sure we are all pursuing it. Is there a scientific evidence that there is a way for that 90 year old man to live another 2 years? I bet there is. However who said that is a worthy endeavor to invest money and time on?
Well the proponents of the Covid hoax, that's who. However science provides us with an infinity of evidence, that we didn't do even that, in any country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNKn5d_yUrg
I saved this HN comment from a few months ago, it helps remind me why the subject of science gets difficult to communicate when humans don’t have real or ethical means to randomly control variables:
“ Correlations are a profound part of our universe.
When observing the universe, humans can never prove any facts about the universe. We can only establish correlations. Correlations between events that occur in our universe is the furthest "truth" we can establish about the universe short of a full on proof.
What this means is that nothing in the physical universe can be proven. Proof is the domain of maths and logic, correlations is the domain of science. Science cannot prove anything, it can only establish correlations and causations.
The reason this occurs is because at any time in the future one can observe an event that contradicts a hypothesis. You can hypothesize that all birds have wings and observe 2 trillion birds with wings but you never know when one day you'll observe a bird without wings disproving your entire hypothesis. That is why nothing can be proven, you can only correlate things through observation.
The other interesting part about correlation is what it isn't: Causation. People often talk about how correlation is not causation but people never talk about what causation is and how to establish it. If I can't empirically use correlation to establish causation how on earth is causation ever formally established? People rarely question this disconnect.
The fact is, causation is rarely formally established but a method does exist and it's subtle.
If I observe that whenever Bob flicks a switch the light comes on then I established that the light coming on is correlated with Bob flipping the switch. This is as far as I can go with just observation.
To establish causation I must make myself both an observer and an entity that is part of the system itself. I have to take control and flip the switch randomly and observe that when I don't flip the switch nothing happens and when I do flip the switch the lights come on.
By doing this I establish causation. To establish causation to higher and higher degrees I need to Cause (keyword) random events and make sure that a cause influences an effect AND absence of a cause and therefore absence of an effect occurs.
Also note that establishing causation is not proof. At any point in time in the future I can flip the switch and the light may not come on which is contradictory evidence for causation.
Causation in the statistical sense is like correlation, you establish it to a degree of confidence but you can never Prove A caused B.
Note that there are ways to test causal hypotheses without intervening.
For example, suppose we wish to test the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer via the main mechanism of tar buildup in the lungs, against the alternative hypothesis that smoking is correlated with lung cancer because of a gene that predisposes people to both smoking and lung cancer (this example comes from Judea Pearl’s Book of Why).
If the former hypothesis is true, then we should see a correlation between smoking behavior and tar deposits, and we should also see a correlation between tar deposits and lung cancer even after controlling for smoking behavior. Composing the causal effects at each stage, we can then calculate the indirect causal effect of smoking on lung cancer. If this suffixes to explain the correlation, then that rules out the alternative genetic explanation for the correlation.
Of course, we can always propose ad-hoc further hypotheses that complicate the analysis: maybe the correlation between smoking and tar deposits is itself non-causative, etc.
This only goes to show that scientific inquiry must be done with judgment and with expert domain knowledge, testing plausible hypotheses in good faith. But that’s true for detecting mere correlations too — we can always doubt our instruments, or claim the data is a statistical fluke. And it’s true in randomized controlled trials: it’s conceivable we didn’t properly randomize, for example.
* This (causation as correlation) revelation was highlighted by Hume and this and other work by him had profound influence on Kant (famously awaking him from his "dogmatic slumbers") and scientists like Darwin and Einstein - the latter obviously in a more healthy scientific age when those at the forefront of physics were not so disdainful of philosophers. “
“ Correlations are a profound part of our universe.
When observing the universe, humans can never prove any facts about the universe. We can only establish correlations. Correlations between events that occur in our universe is the furthest "truth" we can establish about the universe short of a full on proof.
What this means is that nothing in the physical universe can be proven. Proof is the domain of maths and logic, correlations is the domain of science. Science cannot prove anything, it can only establish correlations and causations.
The reason this occurs is because at any time in the future one can observe an event that contradicts a hypothesis. You can hypothesize that all birds have wings and observe 2 trillion birds with wings but you never know when one day you'll observe a bird without wings disproving your entire hypothesis. That is why nothing can be proven, you can only correlate things through observation.
The other interesting part about correlation is what it isn't: Causation. People often talk about how correlation is not causation but people never talk about what causation is and how to establish it. If I can't empirically use correlation to establish causation how on earth is causation ever formally established? People rarely question this disconnect.
The fact is, causation is rarely formally established but a method does exist and it's subtle.
If I observe that whenever Bob flicks a switch the light comes on then I established that the light coming on is correlated with Bob flipping the switch. This is as far as I can go with just observation.
To establish causation I must make myself both an observer and an entity that is part of the system itself. I have to take control and flip the switch randomly and observe that when I don't flip the switch nothing happens and when I do flip the switch the lights come on.
By doing this I establish causation. To establish causation to higher and higher degrees I need to Cause (keyword) random events and make sure that a cause influences an effect AND absence of a cause and therefore absence of an effect occurs.
Also note that establishing causation is not proof. At any point in time in the future I can flip the switch and the light may not come on which is contradictory evidence for causation.
Causation in the statistical sense is like correlation, you establish it to a degree of confidence but you can never Prove A caused B.
Note that there are ways to test causal hypotheses without intervening.
For example, suppose we wish to test the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer via the main mechanism of tar buildup in the lungs, against the alternative hypothesis that smoking is correlated with lung cancer because of a gene that predisposes people to both smoking and lung cancer (this example comes from Judea Pearl’s Book of Why).
If the former hypothesis is true, then we should see a correlation between smoking behavior and tar deposits, and we should also see a correlation between tar deposits and lung cancer even after controlling for smoking behavior. Composing the causal effects at each stage, we can then calculate the indirect causal effect of smoking on lung cancer. If this suffixes to explain the correlation, then that rules out the alternative genetic explanation for the correlation.
Of course, we can always propose ad-hoc further hypotheses that complicate the analysis: maybe the correlation between smoking and tar deposits is itself non-causative, etc.
This only goes to show that scientific inquiry must be done with judgment and with expert domain knowledge, testing plausible hypotheses in good faith. But that’s true for detecting mere correlations too — we can always doubt our instruments, or claim the data is a statistical fluke. And it’s true in randomized controlled trials: it’s conceivable we didn’t properly randomize, for example.
* This (causation as correlation) revelation was highlighted by Hume and this and other work by him had profound influence on Kant (famously awaking him from his "dogmatic slumbers") and scientists like Darwin and Einstein - the latter obviously in a more healthy scientific age when those at the forefront of physics were not so disdainful of philosophers. “
“Trust the science” in the age of Covid is more or less a euphemism for “Fall in line and don’t question what the ’experts’ say”. When you look at what has happened to people who have questioned things such as lockdowns and mask wearing, it makes it even less likely that more will. Some have been fired from their jobs, banned or censored on social media, demonetized on YouTube, etc. We should always encourage people to question things and think outside the box because that is the only way we make progress. The speed at which people shoot down competing ideas and ideas they don’t like in this day and age is very dangerous especially when the “experts” we are listening to often have financial incentives to keep things working the way they are.
This article is pretty good on the surface, but I wanted to point out that terms the author uses such as “climate change denialism” and “anti-vaxxer” are themselves derogatory terms meant to attack and demean people who question official established scientific narratives. For example, Robert F. Kennedy was recently banned from Instagram for his views on vaccines. It is the mainstream consensus that he is an “anti-vaxxer”, but if you actually read what he writes and watch videos where he talks, all he wants is transparency and accountability for big pharmaceutical companies who have rushed Vaccines to market with minimal testing, have legal indemnity against lawsuits due to emergency use authorizations, and stand to make many billions of dollars in profits. I urge people to read this post from him:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/robert-kenney-jr...
I hope one day we will be able able to speak our minds once again without worrying about the repercussions
This article is pretty good on the surface, but I wanted to point out that terms the author uses such as “climate change denialism” and “anti-vaxxer” are themselves derogatory terms meant to attack and demean people who question official established scientific narratives. For example, Robert F. Kennedy was recently banned from Instagram for his views on vaccines. It is the mainstream consensus that he is an “anti-vaxxer”, but if you actually read what he writes and watch videos where he talks, all he wants is transparency and accountability for big pharmaceutical companies who have rushed Vaccines to market with minimal testing, have legal indemnity against lawsuits due to emergency use authorizations, and stand to make many billions of dollars in profits. I urge people to read this post from him:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/robert-kenney-jr...
I hope one day we will be able able to speak our minds once again without worrying about the repercussions
When you politicize truth in discourse bad things tend to happen.
Science should have nothing to do with "trust".
Tangentially related, political science is not science.
different paradigms -> different results
see: "Will COVID-19 be evidence-based medicine’s nemesis?" (June 30, 2020)
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
"Once defined in rhetorical but ultimately meaningless terms as “the conscientious, judicious and explicit use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” [1], evidence-based medicine rests on certain philosophical assumptions: a singular truth, ascertainable through empirical enquiry; a linear logic of causality in which interventions have particular effect sizes; rigour defined primarily in methodological terms (especially, a hierarchy of preferred study designs and tools for detecting bias); and a deconstructive approach to problem-solving (the evidence base is built by answering focused questions, typically framed as ‘PICO’—population-intervention-comparison-outcome) [2].
The trouble with pandemics is that these assumptions rarely hold. A pandemic-sized problem can be framed and contested in multiple ways. Some research questions around COVID-19, most notably relating to drugs and vaccines, are amenable to randomised controlled trials (and where such trials were possible, they were established with impressive speed and efficiency [3, 4]). But many knowledge gaps are broader and cannot be reduced to PICO-style questions. Were care home deaths avoidable [5]? Why did the global supply chain for personal protective equipment break down [6]? What role does health system resilience play in controlling the pandemic [7]? And so on."
...
"It is surely time to turn to a more fit-for-purpose scientific paradigm. Complex adaptive systems theory proposes that precise quantification of particular cause-effect relationships is both impossible (because such relationships are not constant and cannot be meaningfully isolated) and unnecessary (because what matters is what emerges in a particular real-world situation). This paradigm proposes that where multiple factors are interacting in dynamic and unpredictable ways, naturalistic methods and rapid-cycle evaluation are the preferred study design. The 20th-century logic of evidence-based medicine, in which scientists pursued the goals of certainty, predictability and linear causality, remains useful in some circumstances (for example, the drug and vaccine trials referred to above). But at a population and system level, we need to embrace 21st-century epistemology and methods to study how best to cope with uncertainty, unpredictability and non-linear causality"
"In a complex system, the question driving scientific inquiry is not “what is the effect size and is it statistically significant once other variables have been controlled for?” but “does this intervention contribute, along with other factors, to a desirable outcome?”. Multiple interventions might each contribute to an overall beneficial effect through heterogeneous effects on disparate causal pathways, even though none would have a statistically significant impact on any predefined variable [11]. To illuminate such influences, we need to apply research designs that foreground dynamic interactions and emergence. These include in-depth, mixed-method case studies (primary research) and narrative reviews (secondary research) that tease out interconnections and highlight generative causality across the system [16, 17]."
....
"In the current fast-moving pandemic, where the cost of inaction is counted in the grim mortality figures announced daily, implementing new policy interventions in the absence of randomized trial evidence has become both a scientific and moral imperative. Whilst it is hard to predict anything in real time, history will one day tell us whether adherence to “evidence-based practice” helped or hindered the public health response to Covid-19—or whether an apparent slackening of standards to accommodate “practice-based evidence” was ultimately a more effective strategy."
see: "Will COVID-19 be evidence-based medicine’s nemesis?" (June 30, 2020)
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
"Once defined in rhetorical but ultimately meaningless terms as “the conscientious, judicious and explicit use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” [1], evidence-based medicine rests on certain philosophical assumptions: a singular truth, ascertainable through empirical enquiry; a linear logic of causality in which interventions have particular effect sizes; rigour defined primarily in methodological terms (especially, a hierarchy of preferred study designs and tools for detecting bias); and a deconstructive approach to problem-solving (the evidence base is built by answering focused questions, typically framed as ‘PICO’—population-intervention-comparison-outcome) [2].
The trouble with pandemics is that these assumptions rarely hold. A pandemic-sized problem can be framed and contested in multiple ways. Some research questions around COVID-19, most notably relating to drugs and vaccines, are amenable to randomised controlled trials (and where such trials were possible, they were established with impressive speed and efficiency [3, 4]). But many knowledge gaps are broader and cannot be reduced to PICO-style questions. Were care home deaths avoidable [5]? Why did the global supply chain for personal protective equipment break down [6]? What role does health system resilience play in controlling the pandemic [7]? And so on."
...
"It is surely time to turn to a more fit-for-purpose scientific paradigm. Complex adaptive systems theory proposes that precise quantification of particular cause-effect relationships is both impossible (because such relationships are not constant and cannot be meaningfully isolated) and unnecessary (because what matters is what emerges in a particular real-world situation). This paradigm proposes that where multiple factors are interacting in dynamic and unpredictable ways, naturalistic methods and rapid-cycle evaluation are the preferred study design. The 20th-century logic of evidence-based medicine, in which scientists pursued the goals of certainty, predictability and linear causality, remains useful in some circumstances (for example, the drug and vaccine trials referred to above). But at a population and system level, we need to embrace 21st-century epistemology and methods to study how best to cope with uncertainty, unpredictability and non-linear causality"
"In a complex system, the question driving scientific inquiry is not “what is the effect size and is it statistically significant once other variables have been controlled for?” but “does this intervention contribute, along with other factors, to a desirable outcome?”. Multiple interventions might each contribute to an overall beneficial effect through heterogeneous effects on disparate causal pathways, even though none would have a statistically significant impact on any predefined variable [11]. To illuminate such influences, we need to apply research designs that foreground dynamic interactions and emergence. These include in-depth, mixed-method case studies (primary research) and narrative reviews (secondary research) that tease out interconnections and highlight generative causality across the system [16, 17]."
....
"In the current fast-moving pandemic, where the cost of inaction is counted in the grim mortality figures announced daily, implementing new policy interventions in the absence of randomized trial evidence has become both a scientific and moral imperative. Whilst it is hard to predict anything in real time, history will one day tell us whether adherence to “evidence-based practice” helped or hindered the public health response to Covid-19—or whether an apparent slackening of standards to accommodate “practice-based evidence” was ultimately a more effective strategy."
I read:
> We might require that they have reasonable arguments concerning the theory or data’s flaws that do not presuppose, as some anti-vaccine arguments do, the existence of a large-scale conspiracy to distort the truth.
Fair enough. Then the _very next sentence_, I read:
> And we would be well within our rights to demand that they argue in good faith and not...as professional water-muddiers, following a playbook first written by cigarette companies attempting to obfuscate a known connection between smoking and cancer.
Wait, we're not allowed to muddy the waters with allegations of conspiracies, and yet, it is admitted that conspiracies exist? I mean, not just the tobacco industry, but HN just discussed a conspiracy by the sugar industry. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126183)
I understand that strong allegations require strong evidence. But to say that strong allegations will be dismissed even though the evidence is strong is an admission of being disingenuous.
Also, "science" is the process, not the body of Knowledge or the consensus. (https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/)
On top of that, people will often test only one factor, such as the effectiveness of double masks in blocking aerosols, and then claim that since double masks are better, we should all wear two masks. But that ignores the other factors. In science, _true_ science, all factors matter! (https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...) They matter even if they don't because you _never know_ if they actually matter until you test them.
And to go even further, why in the world should we trust the scientific consensus when in the face of all of the scandals in the scientific community? Besides the outright (admitted) lies, or the failure of "experts" or "scientists" to be apolitical, there are two more scandals: the Replication Crisis and the Retraction Crisis. (https://gavinhoward.com/2019/12/replication-and-retraction-c...)
"Trusting the Science" is not complicated; it's impossible. Trusting the _process_ of science, going so far as to learn statistics, how to read scientific papers, and to test hypotheses for yourself, is hard but not too complicated. And it is what I do.
> We might require that they have reasonable arguments concerning the theory or data’s flaws that do not presuppose, as some anti-vaccine arguments do, the existence of a large-scale conspiracy to distort the truth.
Fair enough. Then the _very next sentence_, I read:
> And we would be well within our rights to demand that they argue in good faith and not...as professional water-muddiers, following a playbook first written by cigarette companies attempting to obfuscate a known connection between smoking and cancer.
Wait, we're not allowed to muddy the waters with allegations of conspiracies, and yet, it is admitted that conspiracies exist? I mean, not just the tobacco industry, but HN just discussed a conspiracy by the sugar industry. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126183)
I understand that strong allegations require strong evidence. But to say that strong allegations will be dismissed even though the evidence is strong is an admission of being disingenuous.
Also, "science" is the process, not the body of Knowledge or the consensus. (https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/)
On top of that, people will often test only one factor, such as the effectiveness of double masks in blocking aerosols, and then claim that since double masks are better, we should all wear two masks. But that ignores the other factors. In science, _true_ science, all factors matter! (https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...) They matter even if they don't because you _never know_ if they actually matter until you test them.
And to go even further, why in the world should we trust the scientific consensus when in the face of all of the scandals in the scientific community? Besides the outright (admitted) lies, or the failure of "experts" or "scientists" to be apolitical, there are two more scandals: the Replication Crisis and the Retraction Crisis. (https://gavinhoward.com/2019/12/replication-and-retraction-c...)
"Trusting the Science" is not complicated; it's impossible. Trusting the _process_ of science, going so far as to learn statistics, how to read scientific papers, and to test hypotheses for yourself, is hard but not too complicated. And it is what I do.
Many of the big society-level issues that we grapple with are more properly questions of economics than science. It's more about how we choose to value various courses of action and potential consequences against each other, and there's rarely a clear, obvious, or simple answer. "Science" can only give us an estimate of what the results of a particular course of action might be, it cannot compare once against another and tell us with certainty which one is better.
"Trust the science" is usually a rhetorical weapon used by a side that is attempting to show one particular potential outcome as the worst thing imaginable that must be avoided at all costs, but in reality there are rarely things that bad. I'd like to have a world where we can look at the actual science and economic costs of all choices and rationally debate exactly which road to take, but it sure feels like we're only moving further away from that world.