
Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science - zeynel1
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/mf_qa_singh/
======
zeteo
'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.'

Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X
because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often
disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper
that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous
to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly trust X's assertions.

The other way for the layperson to judge specialists is to learn enough about
their field in order to evaluate their predictions. Granted, this involves
much, much more effort than lazily following the reputation talk. But it also
makes it much safer to trust the people involved, and to maybe stop trusting
them if they go astray at some point.

To bring forth examples, evolution is quite easy to verify after reading a bit
of biology. For example, DNA analysis comes in a full century after the
"Origin of Species" and shows us how amazingly related all living things are,
deep within; thus giving precise shapes to the "trees of life" that Darwin
first sketched in his notebooks. And there are many, many other predictions of
the theory of evolution that can be easily checked by the unprejudiced
amateur. You'll rarely find articles that say "Dawkins believes in evolution,
and Dawkins is a great scientist, therefore evolution is true".

On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely
much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support. If some
prominent climate scientist had predicted in the 90's that "average
temperature in the 2000-2010 decade, as indicated by methodology X, will be
1.4 plus or minus 0.1 degrees Celsius warmer than in the 1990s", I would have
a much easier time trusting his or her claims now. But things seem to be
moving in the opposite direction with this field, e.g. as witnessed by the
very replacement of "global warming" (somewhat verifiable) with "climate
change" (unfalsifiable), and the popular attribution of all kinds of
meteorological phenomena to this cause, in the same non-comprehending way
that, not so long ago, they were ascribed to the god of thunder.

~~~
nanairo
I see what you mean but I think you are overlooking how easy it is to muddy
the waters. You come up with a good evidence of evolution. Great: but it will
take the anti-evolution just one guy that makes a somehow plausible
alternative scenario, or finds one whole in your argument and suddenly people
are back to square one.

Despite we are _not_ back on square one. Between a theory that almost works
(like evolution) and one that is pure conjecture, the fact that there's a
whole in the former all it shows is that we need to improve the theory.

It is the same thing in climate modelling. It takes a nobody to say something
which sound somehow plausible for the scientist to need to prove themselves
again, often taking several years and a lot of effort. Most scientist,
including at the IPCC, do describe hypothetical scenarios with all their
doubts, including error bars etc... They also state all their assumptions, and
their full method.

Then one guy says: "Hey, it's been crazy cold in England this winter... so
much for global warming", or "between 2001-2002 the global temperature went
down" and suddenly everyone feel they are back to "we don't know". But why?
The data from the IPCC is the result of many different models, with many
different assumptions. The opposition has provided no better model: all they
need to do to keep the status quo is point out some small unknown or flaw.
That's WRONG!

And btw, climate science is possibly one of the hardest disciplines around:
you are making a prediction in the future of a chaotic system. But the anti-
science groups can find objections just as easily to pretty much any bit of
science they dislike.

~~~
zeteo
It's true that there's a certain amount of fuzziness, but also there's a
gradient of trust between 100% and zero. Predictions that consistently come
true start to dwarf alternative explanations after a while. Darwin said that
the great apes are our closest living relatives, and 150 years later research
finds the genetic code similarities in the 90+% range. That's pretty strong.

On the other hand, it is indeed possible that the field of study is a chaotic
system, and accurate predictions impossible. But then I will argue that's not
a branch of natural science, but rather of history. A good historian can tell
you in small details the reasons why Lincoln got elected in 1860, but is as
clueless as the next guy as to the next presidential election. Would you trust
him if he said Republicans are always best?

Similarly, there's a lot of great work done in historical climatology, with
pollen analysis, ice cores etc. and we can find out a great many things about
the past. Computer models can be built to fit this history perfectly (as I'm
sure that even I can code some curve that spits out the order of Democrat and
Republican presidents, or even last year's Dow Jones). But unless we see these
models also making verifiable and accurate predictions (without 50% margins of
error! what if chimp genome turned out to be 49% identical to ours?), it might
well be that the system is inherently chaotic and muddy. Then it might simply
not lend itself to scientific analysis, at least not with our present methods.

~~~
nanairo
Indeed I agree that there exist a gradient of trust. But it is this that seems
to be so difficult for the non-scientific literate to understand. In part I
think it's a problem that society seem to use "shown scientifically" for "it's
true". If there is one thing that people should learn at school is statistics
and the scientific method: a LOT more useful than trigonometry nowadays!

However my point is that it's not enough to have consistent predictions to
show you are right. The examples of alternative medicine or even evolution are
a good case. In the former we can do new tests, and we have: a lot of money
has been spent trying and trying again different studies on homeopathy and
friends. However the alternative practitioners always come up with an excuse
why the scientist is wrong, or his result not meaningful. Their answers are
not scientific in any way, but they can muddy the water enough that the
audience feels they can't know either way.

As for climatology, I agree with you that it's hard to call those predictions.
Partially I think the very clear statements of the scientists get lost and
simplified through different layers of repetitions so that when you read it in
the mainstream newspaper you get a very partial version.

There is also a problem that part of IPCC was _not_ strictly science. The IPCC
has 3 panels from what I remember: the scientific stuff, the effect these will
have on society, and ways to prevent them. The former gives proper scientific
assessment but the later two less so. One of the problem of the IPCC is that
many of its complains came from mistakes in the latter two groups, but they
cast a shadow of doubt to the first one (the scientific one) despite the three
groups have little connection to each other. (the stuff about the Himalaya
melting, for example was something added by the second group, not the first
one).

I am not sure how easy it is to predict climate. We do better than random
guesses, so I guess there's some help there, but it's not great so it
shouldn't be reported as such. (of course if people knew what error bars and
standard deviation were it wouldn't be so difficult).

One problem though with chaotic systems is how difficult is to "fix" them.
Maybe you can increase a variable (say pollution) up to 1000 (in an arbitrary
scale) without any effect. Then if you take it that extra 10 points the whole
system goes bad. People seem to think that in that case we can simply fix it
by lowering the variable again, but that's not how it works. If your system
moved from one attractor to another (in state space) it may be extremely hard
to move back. This is why I think our best bet by far is to keep things as
they are: better to err on the side of caution. (of course those are just my
opinions: scientist should make predictions, but then it's society that decide
what to do with them ^_^).

~~~
zeteo
I agree with most of your points, and the info about the IPCC's inner workings
is particularly interesting. And yes, we can't expect the larger part of the
public to become sufficiently informed to properly evaluate even the bases of
scientific discourse (at least until, as you point out, the educational system
changes considerably).

My point was directed more at the _intellectually curious_ laypersons (which
is, I believe, a superset of HN's readership). It's practically impossible, in
this age of extremely specialized science, for outsiders to understand exactly
how various scientific conclusions are arrived at. Fortunately, the task of
verification is much easier, and with a small amount of self-training it is
possible, I believe, to judge whether or not a certain set of scientists
consistently make verifiable predictions that come true.

~~~
nanairo
If you are interested to know more about the IPCC inner workings and exactly
what was wrong, here it's an article from a British newspaper (Guardian) from
one of its members: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-
error...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-errors-facts-
spin)

The crucial bit: "The IPCC does not carry out primary research, and hence any
mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is
wrong. A reference to a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors
obviously does not undermine climate science. Doubting basic results of
climate science based on the recent claims against the IPCC is particularly
ironic since none of the real or supposed errors being discussed are even in
the Working Group 1 report, where the climate science basis is laid out."

and about the Himilayan glaciars mistake:

"This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline,
which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly
valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors
including leading glacier experts"

------
ErrantX
Singh has, I think, won the first battle in two very long wars.

The first is, of course, the science one. The other being our idiotic libel
laws.

From this it's clear he's very switched on too (well, that was probably not in
doubt but still). This, in particular, is an important point we face:

''Scientists aren’t necessarily good communicators, because they aren’t
trained to be good communicators. A researcher could be doing really important
work on global warming, and then somebody writes a column in a national
newspaper that completely undermines what they’re saying.''

~~~
nanairo
About your last quote, I think what we need is to have scientist dedicated to
the communication side of science: aka scientific journalists. I know there
are a few, but we need a lot more, and like many bits of science they'll need
to be sometimes paid with public money.

This seems to me the only way that you can keep the scientist working on the
science, and still answer all the questions that people have. Basically large
groups need their own public relation department. :)

------
SandB0x
Ben Goldacre is another good scientific crusader. It's worth reading his book
Bad Science for his rants against the ridiculous poop-inspecting TV
nutritionist "Dr" Gillian McKeith, and the more serious issue of quack
medicine and its propaganda war against HIV/AIDS medication in South Africa.

Here's a taster, from his Guardian column:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/03/badscience.ukn...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/03/badscience.uknews)

~~~
Nekojoe
Don't forget to mention Ben Goldacre's own website too which has more of the
same stuff - <http://www.badscience.net/>

------
alexandros
I fear that as the scientifically correct action keeps getting further and
further divorced from the 'common sense' action on any given issue, the two
worlds will continue to divide, and as the distance increases, science will
get harder and harder to follow.

The bridging has to be done by cultural evolution, so that the prejudices that
form by 18 are not as counter-science as they are now, but even so, they
cannot be adapted to future science when it's not yet in existence.

So we need a culture based on constant learning and adapting our views to
evidence. Based on the amount of cognitive bias we have built-in, the
'uncoolness' of rationality, and the speed of scientific progress, I'm not
hopeful save for deep de-biasing interventions on our hardware.

Let's see what 'anti-' movement that's going to raise.

~~~
cstuder
If you're interested in Science Fiction, you might want to read Neal
Stephensons 'Anathem'. It plays exactly with your scenario: Scientific groups
isolating themselves intentionally from the 'secular' world.

Funny enough, their scientists look like priest to the common people. And the
common people are basically required to blindly accept what these priest...
well... preach. Science turns into religion.

It's always something I think about, when I see another survey whether you
'believe' in evolution or climate change.

~~~
kd0amg
And for a rather different take on science-as-religion, try A Canticle for
Leibowitz.

------
nanairo
I think this is one of the most important points:

"That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream
media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it’s
often misleading. The media thinks that because one side says climate change
is real and dangerous, the other view is that it’s not real and not dangerous.
That doesn’t reflect the fact that something like 98 percent of climate
scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous. And this happens
with everything from genetically modified foods to evolution."

It is not just in science. It is in everything, including politics. The
(modern) concept of the unbiased view has turned into a "ask both sides of the
argument". Which can work when (say) you are in an election campaign. But take
a scientist and a charismatic charlatan: the scientist tries to give the right
view (with all the ifs and buts) and the charlatan gives a appealing and
simple to understand story... though completely wrong. I don't blame the
reader/viewer for not being persuaded by the scientist.

The idea that, for example, a group of us could join forces and argue that the
oil spill is really a good thing for the biology of the mexican gulf, and we
would be given equal time with the guy who's done 10 years of study in it...
that does not help the viewer.

The journalist seem to have forgotten their role of gatekeepers, and fact
checking. They seem to be just there repeating verbatim what he or she says:
sure, it makes their job easier, but it really doesn't help their readership.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Given CNN's new behavior of reporting news as defined by their viewers on
Twitter, this is not too surprising.

It would be nice if news organizations went back to being cost centers
separated from the organization's entertainment center.

------
dean
Why did Singh have to pay $200,000 of his own money to defend himself? Where
was The Guardian in all of this?

Edit: typos.

~~~
olliesaunders
The Guardian has no doubt protected itself from legal responsibility of
certain writers: probably those which aren't direct employees. So I imagine
the 200,000 comes from legal fees.

------
RyanMcGreal
Singh is a very talented science writer. _The Code Book_ still ranks as one of
the most engaging nonfiction books I've read. He managed to make a history of
encryption into something of a gripping page-turner.

------
Towle_
I hope everyone realizes the "War on Science" is being marketed to a specific
demographic the same way the "War on Christmas" was. If you rolled your eyes
then...

~~~
olliesaunders
I'm not familiar with the War on Christmas. Can you elaborate.

~~~
Towle_
Several years ago in the U.S., many of the Religious Right-oriented media
outlets complained of stores putting up "Happy Holidays" signs instead of the
traditional "Merry Christmas" signs. Despite the fact that this had already
been relatively common practice for some time. Nonetheless, the "issue" was
_created_ and lots of people decided to be outraged about it. Everyone else
rolled their eyes.

------
alok-g
>> Antiscientific and pseudoscientific attitudes will get corrected; it’s just
a question of how painful that process is going to be.

Not necessarily true.

Things like astrology, alternative healing, etc. have been there for thousands
of years and they just don't seem to be going away.

Roger Penrose makes some very interesting remarks on origins of these in his
book "The Road to Reality". He says that ancient humans observed the influence
the Sun had on their lives (day/nights, seasons, etc.) and also of the moon
(tides, etc.). And there came a wrong inference that "all" heavenly objects
have such an influence (astrology). He also speculates ancient humans figuring
out geometrical shapes and finding naturally occurring crystals having those
perfect shapes. And there came another wrong inference that such perfect
natural objects must have powers to cure all that is not perfect (crystal
healing).

More than a few thousands of years later, going from development of first
scientific thought process in human beings (e.g.: astronomy) all the way to
today, plenty of people still believe in these things (e.g.: astrology).

The third thing Penrose mentions amongst some of the first things humans
learned is earth being flat, which again was a wrong inference (looks flat at
human scales, must be flat at larger scales too). It took so much pain to fix
this and that could only be done because a very simple evidence could
ultimately be produced that everyone could see and understand by seeing a
single photograph (of the round earth taken from the space). (Aside: And now
humans wonder if the universe is flat. Penrose has beautifully connected some
most ancient things in the human thought process to the most modern ones.)

I doubt such simple evidence is ever going to come against astrology and
alternative healing, for one that it would be a lack of evidence instead. What
was a "photograph" of a "round" earth there, would here be a "plot" of an
uncorrelated variable (say improvement in health) against dependent variable
(use of crystals) showing a "round" blob (no correlation) instead of a round
earth. Just that this time, majority of humans are not able to follow (what
some of us call) such simple a plot!

------
viggity
I think the most important metric on whether or not to trust someone is there
research methodology. Everything regarding MMR has been tested via a double
blind study (ie the people analyzing the data are different and separated from
the people collecting the data).

The "evidence" about a link between chiropractic care and asthma was not
tested with such rigor. Similarly, virtually all of the evidence suggesting
anthropogenic global warming is published by the same people who collect the
data. They willfully ignore counter evidence and they rely on loads of proxy
data that can easily be manipulated. If you haven't read Michael Crichton's
essay on global warming, I highly recommend it.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html>

------
cs2010
"You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe."

~~~
pradocchia
This cuts both ways. In the States, many people have lost their trust in the
integrity of scientific research and the integrity of regulatory bodies. So
the CDC might recommend something, or the FDA might approve some drug, and to
people that trust these organizations, that's the golden stamp of approval.
For others, any such recommendations are inherently suspect.

This goes deeper than education, intelligence, etc, and you can't solve it
though more education per se, unless that education addresses the source of
the distrust.

In areas where scientific research _has_ been compromised by non-scientific
interests, what can you do? Education is no longer education but propaganda,
further deepening people's distrust.

~~~
PhilipM
Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should be
defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad? Defund congress, the
presidency, economist liars, education bureaucrats, and especially the thieves
that make up academia with its 50k a year tuitions and grad student slave
labor. But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of
things. Cars are not the issue, global warming is man made only to the degree
pigs can fly and that you believe that a functionaly retarded government
buraucrat should randomly assign 20% of your money to various propaganda
projects.

Chiropractors are quacks, but regular doctors are even bigger quacks. And
least the chiropractors do something mildly positive for your money. Surgeons
are ok, but they are very deficient in whole body well being.

I support the right of chiropractors to say that singh is an idiot and that of
signh to say they are liars. Both viewpoints are correct and they should argue
for 10s of years. The only reason 200k had to be spent was because of the
corrupt laws of the fascist government of britain. The parties should have
argued without money or lawyers.

Don't trust anyone, and don't let anyone hold your nice money. The sucker
MBAs/politicians will rob you blind every time the second you trust them with
any amount of money.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
I think your tinfoil hat is on a little tight...

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
I wouldnt quite say so. Perhaps, it appears that way with some of those
lines...

\---Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should
be defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad?---

Good point. There was an idea that voters should number from 1 to N the
importancy of their money going to that department. And after the votes
tallied, the % of the national budget would go proportionately to those
departments.

\---Defund congress, the presidency, economist liars, education
bureaucrats,---

Pointless. But the next part:

\---and especially the thieves that make up academia with its 50k a year
tuitions and grad student slave labor.

I believe e just had some interesting conversations about "How to Fail a PhD"
that described the situation with upper academia. One person even alluded that
the upper tiers are the last holdouts of the ancient guild system, a view I
agree with. And especially, with public universities, there's no reason the
exorbitant price on said degree. But he hit this one squarely.

\---But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of
things. Cars are not the issue, global warming is man made only to the degree
pigs can fly and that you believe that a functionaly retarded government
buraucrat should randomly assign 20% of your money to various propaganda
projects.---

When I was reading American Scientist, I paid close attention to the "Sigma XI
UN Global Warming Report". It has detailed factoids of when this happens or
why and such and such. And of course, the doom and gloom of (shudder) GLOBAL
WARMING.

And the 2nd paragraph, not quite in the paper, but skewed aside the main
article was a note saying that no test was made to determine the effects of
humans.

Hmm, back up there. I can tentatively accept that GW is haappening. However,
we do not know the causes. And we're arrogant enough to believe we can solve
it without scientific proof of why? And some of these ideas are "Dump lime in
the ocean"??

\---Chiropractors are quacks, but regular doctors are even bigger quacks. And
least the chiropractors do something mildly positive for your money. Surgeons
are ok, but they are very deficient in whole body well being.---

Id agree. I've never been to a chiropracter, but have been to GP's before.
Most of them aren't worth a damn except for the pills they push. Heck, even
the doctor I was going to for my shoulder surgery was a narco-pusher. I needed
them, and he provided. He would have done it over the phone, but DEA says they
cant.

The fact is, yes, they have medical experience, but I know my body better than
they do. And for the longest time, doctors did not listen. I, instead, found a
malleable doctor and bend him to my will. If I need drugs, I get drugs. If I
need tests, he finds a way to push it through insurance.

\---I support the right of chiropractors to say that singh is an idiot and
that of signh to say they are liars. Both viewpoints are correct and they
should argue for 10s of years. The only reason 200k had to be spent was
because of the corrupt laws of the fascist government of britain. The parties
should have argued without money or lawyers.---

A damn true statement.

\---Don't trust anyone, and don't let anyone hold your nice money. The sucker
MBAs/politicians will rob you blind every time the second you trust them with
any amount of money.---

Same as above. Still true.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
I was chatting with Simon about this a few weeks ago. He's definitely in this
for the long haul, but is really looking forward to getting back to writing
about science, not libel.

~~~
smackfu
Nice to hear. I own all three of his science books and they are excellent. I
wish someone else had spent five years fighting libel charges, and he had
spent five years writing new books.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Three? Which are you missing?

The Code Book, Fermat's Last Theorem, Big Bang or Trick or Treatment (with
Edzard Ernst)?

~~~
smackfu
Trick or Treatment, because I don't need a book to tell me that is BS.

------
chadmalik
I think what he is saying make sense. For instance there is a huge mountain of
evidence for anthropogenic global warming and the need to cut down our
emissions. I'd say on 9/10 things I probably agree with the scientists, with
the exception of GMO foods which to me are a really bad idea with potentially
catastrophic consequences.

However, I have a problem with laymen needing to sit down and accept whatever
scientists say for the simple fact that science is not some pristine
incorruptible institution dedicated only to truth. Scientists are PEOPLE and
are subject to the same political issues, careerism, bias to not make funders
angry, etc. that everyone else is.

Science is subject to a lot of influence from the people holding the purse
strings, which are often industry. Take the recent story that came out of
Harvard Medical School about how pharma has been influencing the ways that
drugs are being prescribed:
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-
co...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-
doctorsa-story-of-corruption/) \- should we non-scientists not question
scientists, physicians, and other "authorities" when this type of thing is
happening?

It is a GOOD thing when people question what scientists say. What is needed
are better ways for scientists and non-scientists to engage in dialogue, and
more often. Believe it ot not there might be a few things scientists can learn
from the non-scientists.

I think that a lot of this gets discussed by regular people on broadcast
channels (talk radio, cable news) that are really terrible mediums for
communicating complex ideas. It would be nice if TV and radio weren't so
cluttered with advertising, which makes it almost impossible to do more than
make short statements. The exceptions that are good for communiating ideas
through broadcast (such as Michio Kaku's radio show) prove the rule by being
commercial-free.

Another note, scientists have to understand how political discourse and
beliefs work. The domain is NOT based on rational inquiry and peer review.
There is no "correct answer" as to whether Social Security should be
privatized or if the US should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The work
of George Lakoff is a must-read on this topic; we form much of our political
beliefs based on non-rational moral frameworks that stem from our childhood
and our ideas about the family (strict father vs. nurturant parent morality),
and mapping our ideas about how the family should work onto the "nation as
family" morality.

~~~
nanairo
I agree that scientist are not above human mistakes and bias like everyone
else. But there is a way to tackle that. The scientific method tries to
minimise the errors cause by bias and human mistakes. That's why we can
eventually decide that the tobacco industry's results were wrong: because they
had to show all their procedure and some other scientist could explain where
they went wrong.

But when you take statements from alternative medicine, which are: a) not
based on any scientific theory, b) often only defended by anecdotal evidence,
c) their speaker is charismatic and a proficient PR, then it gets really
really hard.

You may point out to research showing that homeopathy doesn't work. To avoid
being branded as hiding data or such, you say everything very carefully,
explaining anything you know and you don't know, and the uncertainty in the
results and so. The other then replies: "You can give me all the numbers you
want, but I've _seen_ cases of people who got a lot better." and then show you
a few photos of before and after: "Why---he concludes---do you not want the
audience to have access to the most effective treatment?".

The former was boring, hard to understand, and objective/dry. The latter spoke
straight to the heart, and show evidence.

And remember that a lot of problem arise because people _want_ to believe the
charlatan. They want to believe that the incurable cancer that the doctor
prescribed can be cured, or that they can keep their lifestyle without
destroying the world, or that the religion the believed for for so long is
correct an we humans are special.

------
josefresco
I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views
but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-
balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists
because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement
in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or
not something is in fact true.

I do agree that the "media" and "common sense" assumptions give more
legitimacy to seemingly crazy ideas or counter-ideas. But simply dismissing
all opposing viewpoints because they don't fit your scientific model is
insane.

I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe
another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact.

Also, he's a great example of why _average_ people dislike academics. Just
being smarter is not enough to convince people. You actually need to listen to
them, and learn to communicate with them in order for them to trust you. And
isn't that what Simon wants?

~~~
praptak
_"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced
degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an
unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true."_

I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use
controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a
different thing than trusting them based on authority.

~~~
adolph
From the interview: _Don’t come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with
it, and then say, “Look at this, I must be right.” Start off by saying, “Who
do I trust?” On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate
experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science
journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to
believe._

It sounds like he is advocating a trust system based on titles, organization
membership, etc. How is this different from trusting them based on authority?

~~~
nanairo
What's wrong with that? I mean it's not like you get a noble prize by winning
the lottery! You take random wacko on TV and noble laureate, each tells you
their theory, and you (so far) don't know anything else. Who do you trust?
Why?

I think the title _does_ mean something: it was neither bestowed upon him
randomly nor inherited by blood.

Let me ask you another question: who do you think runs faster, a random guy I
pick you see in the street, or a guy who won an olympic medal in athletic?
Most people somehow feel winning an olympic medal is all about merit, but
getting a Noble isn't!!!

~~~
adolph
Chill out. There is nothing in my comment to imply that there is anything
wrong with title, or authority, or pink ponies. The author of the proceeding
comment wrote " _Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment,
peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting
them based on authority._ " The purpose of my comment is to say that the words
attributed to Singh indicate trust based on authority indicated by title,
membership, etc.

~~~
nanairo
No worries: I wasn't angry or shouting. Sorry for coming too strongly. :)

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that those two are in
science a lot closer than you seem to suggest. Titles (such as a noble prize)
are won thanks to reputation gained from those experiments and peer reviews.
If your karma system is based on what you published and that is subjected to
peer review and scientific methodology, then your reputation (i.e. your karma)
are a good hint that the person knows what they are talking about.

In other words: trust scientist --> high authority --> gained by good
experiments and subjected to peer review

