undefined | Better HN

0 pointsethbr12y ago0 comments

> [...] but if we ignore all science from the past 20 years, we're still left with pretty good science

But what if the people of 20 years ago had made that same choice? And the people 20 years before then? Etc.

It's not a tenable long-term position.

> Popular media runs with it. People make products based on it. The underlying science is nonsense.

This has always been the case, though. A majority of people are dumb and/or lazy. Consequently, the quickest way to make a buck off them is the above.

But that trash science gets popularly communicated doesn't opine on the advancement of the academic practice.

> And for all the anti-vaxxers and flat earthers, those are still minorities since recognizing established science is actually not especially hard.

This feels like something we degree pretty strongly on.

(1) I don't think it should ever be easy to tell bad science, (2) I certainly don't think established science should hold an especially privileged place (heliocentrism!), & (3) I do think that the anti-vaxxers and flat earthers deserve a place in any true scientific practices (there's a myriad of ways they generally demonstrate their ineptitude, but ideas should not be verboten).

0 comments

frognumber2y ago

It's a perfectly tenable long-term position. You're missing two points:

1) People aren't uniform. I read all the papers in my narrow field and evaluate them. On the other hand, in 99% of fields, you and I are a popular audience. We should rely on established science. And in my field, you should also not rely on hot-off-the-press because most of it is nonsense.

2) Science becomes established -- over decades -- when you have multiple corroborating results, replicated, with multiple methodologies. We know the earth isn't flat because we e.g. sent a man to the moon. That's a very different standard of knowledge than Viagra and Alzheimers. Before acting on this, let experts in this field do their thing for another decade and understand the pathways, do an RCT, etc. At that point, it will be 20-year-old fact. Or perhaps it will turn out to be a correlation / causation issue, and you'll never hear about it again. Either way.

TL;DR: It takes a long time to bake good science.

ethbr1OP2y ago

I'd say the method that science becomes established is one of the problems, because a big chunk (50%?) of that process is non-scientific (political people processses).

I'd feel a lot better if "established" meant something more like well-replicated (with an economic/academic model to support that).

frognumber2y ago

That's a big part of why waiting helps. 2024 politics are different than 2004 than 1984.

It's easier to be objective looking back, and all the entrenched interests hyping things or slandering things are usually gone or different.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsethbr12y ago0 comments

> [...] but if we ignore all science from the past 20 years, we're still left with pretty good science

But what if the people of 20 years ago had made that same choice? And the people 20 years before then? Etc.

It's not a tenable long-term position.

> Popular media runs with it. People make products based on it. The underlying science is nonsense.

This has always been the case, though. A majority of people are dumb and/or lazy. Consequently, the quickest way to make a buck off them is the above.

But that trash science gets popularly communicated doesn't opine on the advancement of the academic practice.

> And for all the anti-vaxxers and flat earthers, those are still minorities since recognizing established science is actually not especially hard.

This feels like something we degree pretty strongly on.

0 comments

frognumber2y ago

It's a perfectly tenable long-term position. You're missing two points:

TL;DR: It takes a long time to bake good science.

ethbr1OP2y ago

I'd say the method that science becomes established is one of the problems, because a big chunk (50%?) of that process is non-scientific (political people processses).

I'd feel a lot better if "established" meant something more like well-replicated (with an economic/academic model to support that).

frognumber2y ago

That's a big part of why waiting helps. 2024 politics are different than 2004 than 1984.

It's easier to be objective looking back, and all the entrenched interests hyping things or slandering things are usually gone or different.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse