Mod+ Why you, me, and our neighbors have a distrust of science and New York Times science journalists

As mentioned, that "@" tag would be more than enough courtesy and leaves it up to him to engage or not. But mocking him knowing that he never enters this section is not exactly classy.

I didn't think that @ tag works. I can't remember if it was on this forum or the old one but awhile back I tested it and it didn't seem to do anything. Do me a favour and tag me in reply. I'm curious if something happens.

I think your suggestion is reasonable if the feature works. That said, don't be surprised if Alex responds that he's not interested in being alerted to any of our posts.
 
It has little to do with malf questioning why I alerted Alex of this thread

I didn't question that at all. I just wondered what you meant by "enjoying a field day". Some members can only discuss Skeptiko content in this subforum.


As mentioned, that "@" tag would be more than enough courtesy and leaves it up to him to engage or not. But mocking him knowing that he never enters this section is not exactly classy.

Really? I don't see the any mocking. It's not like anyone in this thread has accused him of being "stuck on stupid", for example.
 
If you are going to talk about someone and try to pry open his motives behind his back (everybody knows that he never ventures down here), at least have the decency of tagging him, it's easy: @Alex

Otherwise, don't complain when someone else alerts that person.
I didn't complain. Of course, Alex is welcome here. It's hardly behind his back - this is his forum and the thread title makes it obvious that it is about his article. My question is sincere (nor is it meant to be mocking), and I would welcome his answer (as well as anyone else's).

Linda
 
This is an interesting question and I am finding it very challenging to come up with an answer. I feel like intuition or some sort of "BS meter" helps to guide me, perhaps in a servomechanistic way (i.e. with errors along the way), but that is an unsatisfying answer. What goes into this feeling of intuition?

I think that there are likely many factors that go into deciding what to believe to be true or not. Obviously evidence can play a major role, but what happens when both sides claim evidence? We would have to look at the evidence that both sides presents. Are there any obvious logical problems? Does the evidence actually support what is being claimed? Does the evidence have any potential concerns such as conflicts of interest? How many sources are there? How reputable are the sources? Who are making the claims? Do the claims contradict any other things that seem to be grounded on solid evidence? Obviously, none of these individually would be very convincing one way or the other, but I think when many of these questions are considered it starts to build a picture. In a way, it would be like updating your prior probability based on all of these factors. While this would not establish certainty, but it would seem to me to increase the liklihood of avoiding major error.

Don't both sides claim evidence, though? After all, doing as you suggest and applying my knowledge and experience to health issues (I'm a physician) lands me squarely on the clueless idiot side, according to Alex. So what am I doing wrong?

Linda
 
Don't both sides claim evidence, though? After all, doing as you suggest and applying my knowledge and experience to health issues (I'm a physician) lands me squarely on the clueless idiot side, according to Alex. So what am I doing wrong?

Linda

Well the questions I mentioned regarding the evidence should help in most situations, no?
 
I didn't think that @ tag works. I can't remember if it was on this forum or the old one but awhile back I tested it and it didn't seem to do anything. Do me a favour and tag me in reply. I'm curious if something happens.

I think your suggestion is reasonable if the feature works. That said, don't be surprised if Alex responds that he's not interested in being alerted to any of our posts.

The theme's sofware has the feature, so it should be functional unless disabled by a sysop. Let's test it out then, @Arouet

I didn't question that at all. I just wondered what you meant by "enjoying a field day".
Which was already explained.

Really? I don't see the any mocking. It's not like anyone in this thread has accused him of being "stuck on stupid", for example.

No, I'm sure that implying that someone is pushing clickbait is entirely normal. I am, however, curious why you quote that particular insult, he uses it (AFAIK) against skeptical "scientists", "media" or whatever he is criticizing as a generalization. You guys are actually talking about him, by name, so the scenario is entirely different.

I didn't complain. Of course, Alex is welcome here. It's hardly behind his back - this is his forum and the thread title makes it obvious that it is about his article. My question is sincere (nor is it meant to be mocking), and I would welcome his answer (as well as anyone else's).

I only informed him about the thread, but the issue has already been addressed in the previous posts, you should not start a thread about his views in a section that he never enters without having the courtesy of letting him know. We browse most sections, he doesn't. Also, the mocking did not come in the intial post, but you should probably talk to Craig about Mod+ing this section as mentioned above. Your Mod+ thread sticks out like a sore thumb in the list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Alex has offered an article which attempts to answer the above question.

http://www.skeptiko.com/why-you-me-...ience-and-new-york-times-science-journalists/

My question is, how does one tell beforehand which is the science writer to trust?

That is a fair question.

You start by looking for suggestive evidence. All of the following are suggestive:

1) Formerly senior scientists are backing the case that something has gone wrong with their area of science.

2) Those same individuals are attacked with Ad Hominems, excluded from speaking at conferences, and find it hard to publish in peer review journals.

3) There is too much financial pressure coming from organisations that are benefiting from the status quo.

4) Those supporting the orthodox position refuse to debate with those they call 'science deniers' and thus make it hard for journalists to get at the truth.

Also you need to change the rules a bit:

a) Insist that scientists involved in let us say AGW, don't also play a role in campaigning to alter public policies. When people take on both roles like that, there is an awful temptation to egg the science in order to have a better story to sell to the public.

b) Require that scientific work that is primarily statistical - again AGW is an example - be evaluated and signed off by an independent, qualified statistician. This would require him to spend some time on the project - evaluating the software, etc, and also listen to those who doubt the competence of the research.

David
 
Well the questions I mentioned regarding the evidence should help in most situations, no?
I don't see how they can. Both sides claim to be asking these questions/applying these processes, do they not? Certainly when I apply those questions/processes to vaccination and fluoridation and statins, etc. I don't come up with autism, toxic water, and harmful side effects, like I'm supposed to.

For example, were you to give me a novel problem to consider (i.e. one I don't recall anyone weighing in on here) - let's say "is secondhand smoke harmful?" - the only way I can think of to guess at which answer represents "following the data" and which answer represents "PR scheming" is to look at which answer is supported by scientific consensus and pick the other one. It seems to me that "scientific consensus" = "following the data". So once it has been proposed that this is wrong, I'm left at a bit of a loss as to how these judgements are made otherwise, especially (as we so often find) when facing a field in which one lacks knowledge and experience. One can claim to do a better job of "following the data" than those people who seemingly are in the better position, with knowledge and experience, to do so. But I've never actually seen an example where this claim has turned out to be valid, so I'm a bit reluctant to embrace it.

Linda
 
That is a fair question.

You start by looking for suggestive evidence.

Suggestive evidence of what?

All of the following are suggestive:

1) Formerly senior scientists are backing the case that something has gone wrong with their area of science.

2) Those same individuals are attacked with Ad Hominems, excluded from speaking at conferences, and find it hard to publish in peer review journals.

3) There is too much financial pressure coming from organisations that are benefiting from the status quo.

4) Those supporting the orthodox position refuse to debate with those they call 'science deniers' and thus make it hard for journalists to get at the truth.

Do you have any evidence that these criteria are valid - i.e. that they distinguish between ideas which are false and ideas which are true? Can you give examples of both?

Also you need to change the rules a bit:

a) Insist that scientists involved in let us say AGW, don't also play a role in campaigning to alter public policies. When people take on both roles like that, there is an awful temptation to egg the science in order to have a better story to sell to the public.

How do I know when the rules should be changed, beforehand? For example, does this mean that medical bodies should have stayed silent on the issue of disease and death caused by smoking tobacco given that they campaigned to alter public policy?

b) Require that scientific work that is primarily statistical - again AGW is an example - be evaluated and signed off by an independent, qualified statistician. This would require him to spend some time on the project - evaluating the software, etc, and also listen to those who doubt the competence of the research.

David

Same question as above. Does this mean that parapsychology research also be signed off on, such as statisticians have done here?

http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~gfrancis/Publications/GFrancis-R1.pdf
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Rouder2013Bayes.pdf

Linda
 
I always thought the issue with water flouridation was that those opposing such a thing argue governments shouldn't be drugging water supplies, especially with a chemical meant to be used topically rather than ingested and systemically. Anyone arguing in favor of flouridation is clearly a fucking moron. It wouldn't matter if it was magical ferry dust. That's beyond the point.

Furthermore, with vaccines, I think the point is, as with flouride, that these things should be studied sufficiently before they're used (or even forced) upon populations. And those studies should be performed by independent third parties not profiting from the sale and manufacture of the substances.

Linda is a fascist. It's scary that robots like her are so prevalent in modern society.
 
I don't see how they can. Both sides claim to be asking these questions/applying these processes, do they not? Certainly when I apply those questions/processes to vaccination and fluoridation and statins, etc. I don't come up with autism, toxic water, and harmful side effects, like I'm supposed to.

For example, were you to give me a novel problem to consider (i.e. one I don't recall anyone weighing in on here) - let's say "is secondhand smoke harmful?" - the only way I can think of to guess at which answer represents "following the data" and which answer represents "PR scheming" is to look at which answer is supported by scientific consensus and pick the other one. It seems to me that "scientific consensus" = "following the data". So once it has been proposed that this is wrong, I'm left at a bit of a loss as to how these judgements are made otherwise, especially (as we so often find) when facing a field in which one lacks knowledge and experience. One can claim to do a better job of "following the data" than those people who seemingly are in the better position, with knowledge and experience, to do so. But I've never actually seen an example where this claim has turned out to be valid, so I'm a bit reluctant to embrace it.

Linda

In your example, if you look for which answer is supported by scientific consensus and pick the other one, then you are not following the questions that I suggested. If you come up with a different answer than Alex using the questions I ask, then it could be that you are correct, or at the very least, you would seem to have a justification for your position until there is further evidence that may possibly change your position.

Scientific consensus does not equal following the data. Major scientific progress usually involves going against the consensus. Science is full of examples of what we now see as discoveries being suppressed, rejected, ridiculed, etc., since it went against the scientific consensus at the time. The people that were supposedly in the best position to assess the data were mired by sociological factors. That doesn't automatically make one side or the other correct or wrong in and of itself.

Since you're a physician, perhaps look into the detailed sociological history of the western germ theory, where it was suppressed, rejected, and ridiculed for quite a while by the doctors in a "seemingly better position," all at the expense of thousands of lives.
 
That is a fair question.

You start by looking for suggestive evidence. All of the following are suggestive:

1) Formerly senior scientists are backing the case that something has gone wrong with their area of science.

2) Those same individuals are attacked with Ad Hominems, excluded from speaking at conferences, and find it hard to publish in peer review journals.

3) There is too much financial pressure coming from organisations that are benefiting from the status quo.

4) Those supporting the orthodox position refuse to debate with those they call 'science deniers' and thus make it hard for journalists to get at the truth.

Hmm, wouldn't 1, 2, and 4 apply to, say, a physicist supporting intelligent design? If I were to use these criteria, I would be led to think that intelligent design may be correct, but I do not think that would be a correct conclusion.
 
Hmm, wouldn't 1, 2, and 4 apply to, say, a physicist supporting intelligent design? If I were to use these criteria, I would be led to think that intelligent design may be correct, but I do not think that would be a correct conclusion.
Well they might apply to people whose views you support, but maybe that should make you think. I don't think evolution by natural selection - particularly the all-important pre-life phase - is very believable, for reasons that have been well discussed on this forum.

The whole idea of using a set of subject-independent criteria is to make people think.

David
 
In your example, if you look for which answer is supported by scientific consensus and pick the other one, then you are not following the questions that I suggested.

Right. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't think following the questions you suggested helps you to understand, at all, how to predict beforehand which opinions Alex and others will hold. I've floated the suggestion (which is the only one which seems to work to distinguish views held by proponents from views held by skeptics) that judgements are based on whether or not something is anti-scientific establishment. This does seem to enable me to predict which opinions will be regarded as "following the data" and which will be mere "PR scheming".

If you come up with a different answer than Alex using the questions I ask, then it could be that you are correct, or at the very least, you would seem to have a justification for your position until there is further evidence that may possibly change your position.

Did you read Alex's article? There doesn't seem to be any room for this in his stance.

Scientific consensus does not equal following the data. Major scientific progress usually involves going against the consensus. Science is full of examples of what we now see as discoveries being suppressed, rejected, ridiculed, etc., since it went against the scientific consensus at the time. The people that were supposedly in the best position to assess the data were mired by sociological factors. That doesn't automatically make one side or the other correct or wrong in and of itself.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you give a modern example of this - say from the last fifty years or so - where people were ridiculed or findings suppressed once there was evidence for an idea (please note that when I say "evidence", I am talking about its scientific use with respect to validity and reliability and whether or not the data makes an idea more or less likely to be true or false)?

Since you're a physician, perhaps look into the detailed sociological history of the western germ theory, where it was suppressed, rejected, and ridiculed for quite a while by the doctors in a "seemingly better position," all at the expense of thousands of lives.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Alex isn't trying to dispute pre-scientific or folk science ideas. We're talking about the modern practice of science and modern theories.

Linda
 
Does this mean that parapsychology research also be signed off on, such as statisticians have done here?

http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~gfrancis/Publications/GFrancis-R1.pdf
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Rouder2013Bayes.pdf

Linda

Ideally this would apply to all research, but since it would be expensive, it would initially be applied to research that was relevant to public policy.

Note that the idea would not be that individual statisticians would offer to review a piece of work (otherwise you might end up with pro-AGW and anti-AGW (say) enthusiasts simply publishing against each other), but that they would be picked from a pool and asked to review all relevant research work using similar principles. Ideally they might be involved during the work - long before publication.

How would you solve the problem - or is it your opinion that there isn't a problem to solve?

David
 
I have seen myself tagged in posts but I had no associated alert.
Run your cursor over the tag with your name on it on the top right of the window, and click "Alert preferences" - you probably need to click a check box or two in there.

David
 
Run your cursor over the tag with your name on it on the top right of the window, and click "Alert preferences" - you probably need to click a check box or two in there.

David

I had alert when tagged checked and it still didn't work. An admin may need to set user's privileges to allow tagging to make it work.
 
Back
Top