7 ms·

Consensus should be determined by science, not the other way around. Otherwise, what is the point of science? edit: "Please don't post comments saying that HN

Consensus should be determined by science, not the other way around. Otherwise, what is the point of science? edit: "Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills." t. redditadmin.txt

jmcgough 6y ago
This isn't just about science. Conspiracy theorists and unethical people with agendas use documents like this to support their beliefs, and it becomes impossible to refute them. In the age of social media, misinformation and conspiracy theories can cause real damage.
- nodamage 6y ago
  As a recent and somewhat topical example of this, there is an article circling around the internet right now that cites about a dozen studies proving that "masks don't work". If you actually read through the quoted studies you quickly realize that they don't actually support the author's conclusion at all. But that didn't stop the author from taking a bunch of out of context quotes to make an argument that sounded vaguely scientific - scientific enough for people with a particular agenda to parade it around as if the science was on their side. I started writing a rebuttal to this article, but as I was carefully reading through the details of the nth study to see if it actually matched what the author claimed, I realized I was just massively wasting my own time. The people spreading the article around don't actually care, they never read those studies and they never will. They just wanted something scientific-looking to cite that backs up their pre-existing opinions.
- theknocker 6y ago
  It wouldn't be impossible to refute them if ostensible authority cared enough about credibility to have any, e.g. if, for the purposes of "public discourse," reality determined consensus and not the other way around. edit: I was forced to wait like an hour to post this reply.
- etangent 6y ago
  > Conspiracy theorists and unethical people with agendas use documents like this to support their beliefs, and it becomes impossible to refute them This should give you a very hard pause and rethink. If it becomes impossible to refute unethical people because they have sources to back them up how do you know that anyone who has ever used scientific evidence in any shape or form was doing it ethically? Maybe they were just very good at citing sources? Secondly, most ethics (except perhaps honesty) is fundamentally consensus driven. Science is supposed to be orthogonal to consensus. Thus, if one wants to be an honest scientist, one must accept possibility that one's work might be used for unethical ends. And honesty, to remind you, is an ethical position.
DarthGhandi 6y ago
Is there any real reason you created this account solely for this post? I find it hard to believe you're an epidemiologist trying to stay anonymous here.
- theknocker 6y ago
  I was paid by George Soros to shill the idea that reality exists.

jmcgough 6y ago

This isn't just about science. Conspiracy theorists and unethical people with agendas use documents like this to support their beliefs, and it becomes impossible to refute them. In the age of social media, misinformation and conspiracy theories can cause real damage.

nodamage 6y ago
As a recent and somewhat topical example of this, there is an article circling around the internet right now that cites about a dozen studies proving that "masks don't work". If you actually read through the quoted studies you quickly realize that they don't actually support the author's conclusion at all. But that didn't stop the author from taking a bunch of out of context quotes to make an argument that sounded vaguely scientific - scientific enough for people with a particular agenda to parade it around as if the science was on their side. I started writing a rebuttal to this article, but as I was carefully reading through the details of the nth study to see if it actually matched what the author claimed, I realized I was just massively wasting my own time. The people spreading the article around don't actually care, they never read those studies and they never will. They just wanted something scientific-looking to cite that backs up their pre-existing opinions.
theknocker 6y ago
It wouldn't be impossible to refute them if ostensible authority cared enough about credibility to have any, e.g. if, for the purposes of "public discourse," reality determined consensus and not the other way around. edit: I was forced to wait like an hour to post this reply.
etangent 6y ago
> Conspiracy theorists and unethical people with agendas use documents like this to support their beliefs, and it becomes impossible to refute them This should give you a very hard pause and rethink. If it becomes impossible to refute unethical people because they have sources to back them up how do you know that anyone who has ever used scientific evidence in any shape or form was doing it ethically? Maybe they were just very good at citing sources? Secondly, most ethics (except perhaps honesty) is fundamentally consensus driven. Science is supposed to be orthogonal to consensus. Thus, if one wants to be an honest scientist, one must accept possibility that one's work might be used for unethical ends. And honesty, to remind you, is an ethical position.

DarthGhandi 6y ago

Is there any real reason you created this account solely for this post? I find it hard to believe you're an epidemiologist trying to stay anonymous here.

theknocker 6y ago
I was paid by George Soros to shill the idea that reality exists.