
Covering Science at Dangerous Speeds - Anon84
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/pandemic-science-publishing-journals-how-to.php
======
darkerside
This is such an important discussion. There are clear pros and cons to
enforcing speed limits on science. How do we decide what those limits should
be and how we enforce them?

In principle, I'm a believer that the cure for misinformation is more
information. If people don't realize that, prepublication study websites are
exactly that, you fix it by telling them. Not by omitting reporting on them
completely.

What's missing is the assessment of probability. What does the scientific
process look like, where in it is this piece of information, and based on
that, how likely is it to be accurate and impactful?

We cover sports in a way that allows educated and casual observers to enjoy
them and learn extreme amount of nuance. How do we apply the same lessons
here?

~~~
dawg-
>I'm a believer that the cure for misinformation is more information.

The idealist in me agrees with this wholeheartedly. I think it's true for
people with a certain discipline in their thinking(i.e. scientists, academics
and the like), who will always keep their convictions open to new information.
But the vast majority of people don't operate that way. People get a certain
narrative stuck in their head, and then they filter information to fit that.

Plus, we have access to more information right now than any humans in history,
yet the state of human knowledge is still dominated by rumors, myths, tall
tales, and mystery. We have all this quasi-religious cognitive machinery and
thousands of years of oral culture behind the evolution of our brains. Maybe
rational scientific decisonmaking is an anomaly in human history, or even
worse, just another myth?

>We cover sports in a way that allows educated and casual observers to enjoy
them and learn extreme amount of nuance. How do we apply the same lessons
here?

This is an interesting thought. The average American can watch a football play
and break down incredibly complex concepts of what just happened. Arguments
over what constitutes a "catch" during instant replay often spiral into
downright philosophical territory. The difference is that sports happen really
fast - and you can watch them live while drinking beer. Maybe we should turn
science into a team sport and have them do it in an arena in front of 80,000
people. Bring out some cheerleaders, air all the pickup truck commercials, and
Shakira can perform at halftime. The winner gets a big trophy.

~~~
darkerside
> We have all this quasi-religious cognitive machinery and thousands of years
> of oral culture behind the evolution of our brains. Maybe rational
> scientific decisonmaking is an anomaly in human history, or even worse, just
> another myth?

Or maybe, we've made tremendous progress over the past thousands of years, and
will continue to do so. Give it time. Extend your time horizon. In a few more
millennia, we may be much more enlightened than we are today.

------
ImaCake
The author of this is a cofounder of retraction watch. Which is an invaluable
source of information in research. Not just for the press, but for scientists
themselves! I once used retraction watch posts to figure out why a prominent
pair of papers in my field was withdrawn. Turns out it was a number of flaws.

------
tqi
While advice on how to cover the research more accurately, I feel like this
article misses the bigger point: is all this breathless coverage necessary?
What possible benefit could the general public derive from reading endless
articles about poorly vetted research...

