
The easiest way to undermine good science is to demand that it be made “sound” - rectang
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-easiest-way-to-dismiss-good-science-demand-sound-science/
======
rndmize
> Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used.
> The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, is another
> example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of
> transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals.

Master of darkness, we meet again.

> He sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Protecting Children
> From Internet Pornographers Act (PCIP).

> As the _Head of the House Science Committee_ , Smith has been criticized for
> promoting climate change denial, baselessly attacking scientific outlets and
> researchers, and receiving funding from oil and gas
> companies.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart
> News.[8]

I can only hope that next year after he retires, his district manages to pick
someone who isn't even worse.

~~~
evo_9
Unfortunately this is a losing battle because no matter what is said a laymen
will latch on to any uncertainty presented to them regarding scientific
discussion(s), be that evolution or climate change.

They don't understand that scientist by nature prefer to never say something
is 100% one way or another. This is because we all know over a long enough
timeline just about every conceivable outcome will occur and so scientists,
rightly, try to be accurate when they talk about this stuff.

Politics isn't about presenting honest clear facts but rather wordplay meant
to serve their donors.

~~~
dwaltrip
To add to your point, one way to view this is that it reflects the immense
difficulty of deeply understanding and discerning the difference between 90%,
99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, and so on.

These inherent difficulties make it very easy to spread confusion and mislead
the layman.

~~~
evo_9
Esp. if you are actually trying to spread confusion.

It's a depression ass state of affairs no matter how you slice it.

I sometimes wonder if a truly impartial AI 'judge' can solve this; but even if
we achieve some form of advanced AI that could act as that judge I can imagine
some people would still fighting tooth and nail because, of course, the
creators of the Ai have somehow influenced it's 'thinking' and therefor it is
invalid to them.

~~~
dwaltrip
I don't think it will ever be solved. It will be a continual effort.

Some of the best tools I can think of:

* cultivating a culture of critical thinking and strong opinions weakly held

* increased awareness of cognitive biases and how to reduce them

* educating people how to evaluate evidence and understand how theories develop [1]

* open and honest discussion

* shaming intellectual dishonesty

* constant vigilance

[1] I've been watching the Ring of Truth on YouTube. It's fantastic. We need
more content like this. Link:
[https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MvlS2uHDjhadiMNqqTtZN...](https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MvlS2uHDjhadiMNqqTtZN7cD8IAD7dJ)

------
sampo
> _in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle_

Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to
cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO
crops are safe.

And after Fukushima, Germany decided to abandon nuclear power, although
tsunamis are not really a thing in Germany. This has made Germany resort to
burning more coal for energy and caused Germany's carbon dioxide emissions to
increase.

These are cases where sticking to the precautionary principle has caused way
more harm than good.

~~~
barrkel
> GMO crops are safe

My objections to GMO crops are more around an aversion to industrial scale
farming, monocultures, corporate-controlled seed stocks, and ultimately
authenticity in the food I eat - not the health effects of the food itself.

So I'll vote to oppose GMO crops, and I think it's right for politicians to
reflect that opinion. Little to do with science, much more to do with the kind
of life I want to live and the world I want to live in.

~~~
goialoq
"authenticity in food" is a massive myth. The foods you eat have been
genetically modified for centuries via breeding techniques.

"monocultures" and "industrial scale farming" are separate from GMO, and will
exist without GMO, as they existed before GMO.

DRMed seeds and health precaution are they only relevant aspects of GMO.

~~~
colemannugent
> _The foods you eat have been genetically modified for centuries via breeding
> techniques_

This is my go-to whenever people start talking about organic products. This
article does a good job showing what crops used to look like:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/what-foods-looked-like-
before...](http://www.businessinsider.com/what-foods-looked-like-before-
genetic-modification-2016-1/#wild-watermelon-1)

~~~
eecc
That’s disingenuous and straw-man’y. Selective breeding consists of favoring
individuals with desirable naturally occurring variations in characteristics.
Outright genetic engineering consists of cobbling together genes of totally
unrelated species - if not kingdoms - to make something invulnerable to
otherwise toxic amounts of poisons to increase production yield.

I’ll keep my breeding any time thank you..

~~~
colemannugent
> _...favoring individuals with desirable naturally occurring variations in
> characteristics..._ > _...cobbling together genes of totally unrelated
> species..._

Both of these statements describe genetic engineering. But you're right, there
is a big difference between them: one is basically just throwing things at the
wall to see what sticks and the other is a scientific process backed by
hundreds of years of research.

The reason why people assign a lower risk to selective breeding is that the
amount of physiological change present in one or a few generations is small.
You don't worry that the rice you eat had a trascription error and may be
genetically altered because it is invisible to you. But when you look at
genetic engineering you see the big changes in a short amount of time and you
feel it is more unsafe even though those alterations are being performed by
some of the most intelligent minds of our generation.

You talk of scientists _" cobbling together genes of totally unrelated
species"_ as if they were nice modular pieces that you can rearrange in any
order. Just the mechanism by which genes are edited is a choreographed
sequence of tools that make the steady hands of the worlds best surgeon look
bad.

I am not nessesarily 100% pro-GMO though, I just dislike the FUD that people
use to demonize it as something radically different that what humans have been
doing for millenia. The only thing different is that now we have a clue what
we are doing. Will some people abuse it to benefit themselves? Yes, of course,
but that is independent of the methods by which they screw people over.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
When you have to judge papers/findings by the motives and qualifications of
the authors rather than by the data, you no longer have _science_ you have
_opinion_.

When the theory of relativity was introduced by Einstein, it did not matter
what you thought about Einstein's qualifications or motivations. Einstein
himself gave several ways the theory could be tested independently.

Because of the prestige that science garnered - it gave us airplanes, radio,
tv, internet, landed a person on the moon, etc, many knowledge disciplines
branded themselves as "x science". Thus, has the word "science" become
devalued.

~~~
rayiner
Do you understand the math of climate modeling? Have you checked the
equations, data, and made your own measurements? If not, why do you believe
climate change is happening? And why do you believe the scientists that say it
is happening versus the ones that say it is not happening?

~~~
fleitz
I understand the math, they have a bunch of simulations that produce wildly
different results, they average these and make predictions based on a number
of models running a number of simulations. The predictions have so far yet to
have come true. (Although temp is rising, it's not to the degree predicted by
the average of the models, despite there being more CO2 than the models were
given input for, obviously the average of models are inaccurate. )

I believe it's not happening to the degree the IPCC said it was in 1992 which
is why in the 2000s they observed a warming 'hiatus'. This is why people talk
about consensus rather than data, or falsifications of the null hypothesis.

~~~
forapurpose
What were the predictions in 1992 and what level of confidence was assigned to
them (the IPCC reports are very careful to assign confidence levels)? Also,
there have been many generations of reports since then; why focus on 1992, 25
years ago? As far as I know, their predictions have been pretty good - though
not perfectly accurate, of course.

There is so much nonsense posted about climate science; it would be great if
someone could back up claims, perhaps by citing the IPCC reports or some
serious analysis of them (i.e., in a prominent journal).

~~~
fleitz
1992 because it's the first report.

Here's a decent summary:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus)

'climate is classically averaged over 30-year periods.[5]'

'Publicity has surrounded claims of a global warming hiatus during the period
1998–2013. The exceptionally warm El Niño year of 1998 was an outlier from the
continuing temperature trend, and so subsequent annual temperatures gave the
appearance of a hiatus: by January 2006, it appeared to some that global
warming had stopped or paused.[2] A 2009 study showed that decades without
warming were not exceptional,[6] and in 2011 a study showed that if allowances
were made for known variability, the rising temperature trend continued
unabated.'

Essentially in 5 years we'll have enough data to confirm / deny the 1992
predictions, currently it's an unproven theory because of a lack of forward
data. We're essentially using consensus as a proxy for a falsification of the
null hypo

------
eanzenberg
Openness in science is a good thing that scientist should be striving toward.
It's hard not to sympathize with "(o)nly studies whose raw data and computer
codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration" from the
EPA. It's easier in some fields than others, but I believe it's a truly noble
goal.

------
gordaco
Just yesterday I finished Merchants of Doubt (the book; I didn't know there
was also a documentary). It's a really good book, and very informative. Side
effects include uncontrollable anger and hate towards certain industries.

------
whatshisface
> _For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate
> pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and
> demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had
> promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the
> evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The
> reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process
> of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost
> researchers time and money._

If the data had been open from the start, this wouldn't have been a problem.

Also, why don't we just sow an equal measure of uncertainty in the studies
showing that these drugs/chemicals/externalities are safe? I bet if you
demanded that the pro-industry studies should be "sound," you would discover a
lot.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> > including records that researchers had promised participants would remain
confidential_

 _> If the data had been open from the start, this wouldn't have been a
problem._

I mean, it sounds like there were serious legal obstacles going beyond "shit
what did I do with that .csv file". And maybe the science wouldn't have
existed at all if you demanded open access a priori.

------
nlperguiy
I've always wondered why data for some huge meta-analysis studies isn't
availabe. If you're not a researcher you can practically never verify the
result that there's no link between vaccines and autism, or any other similar
studies.

Most of these are just number crunching (increased risk of diet influencing
disease, intervention experiments in psychology, medicine etc.), yet the
number crunching is concealed and the numbers are the only thing presented,
and I should trust the researchers that they didn't play with the numbers.

------
anigbrowl
Not only is spurious doubt manufactured for commercial gain, as in the tobacco
example, it's also dragging us down a path of environmental ruin, which is now
widely acknowledged to be killing off the majority of other species on the
planet, and yet the climate skepticism industry keeps churning out sunny
articles offering various reasons not to worry about it.

Take for example this gem, which _admits_ we're ruining the environment but
says it's cool because it's natural:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-
save-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-
endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-
evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html)

There's a soberly-worded climbdown on his own page at the university where he
teaches, but guess which of these articles is going to be more useful for
climate sleptics to cite: [https://biology.columbian.gwu.edu/r-alexander-
pyron](https://biology.columbian.gwu.edu/r-alexander-pyron)

This is the problem with the much-vaunted 'free market of ideas' \- as
scientific endeavor moves outside the boundaries of scientific community into
a subject of general interest, peer review and professional integrity are
easily corrupted by marketing, to the severe detriment of the general public.

------
skadamat
Some good ideas here, but we have to aim much higher than this.

I like some of the ideas Bret suggested in his call for climate change:
[http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#media](http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#media)

------
AcerbicZero
The easiest way to dismiss most nuanced discussions is to relabel one or both
positions with broad emotionally appealing words.

Some good examples would be the "death" tax, the "Patriot" act, "Common sense"
gun control, etc.

------
oconnor663
Relevant: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-
demands...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-
rigor/)

------
ghostcluster
> These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that
> was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has
> struck some fields of science.

Because social scientists continue to make giant claims that fail to be
supported by the evidence, and those claims are used to enact sweeping
policies based on quackery.

[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-
pr...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem.html)

Stereotype Threat. The Implicit Association Test. The Bystander Effect. Power
Posing. These are examples of "science" that is based more on rhetoric and
emotion than reality. But it is having real effects on policy.

If your claims are made up and based on shoddy principles, they deserve
scrutiny.

> objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies.

This article is literally trying to build a case of "feels" over "reals".
Transparent objective facts should guide the debate, not twisted political
rhetoric masquerading as "science". If your position is incorrect and does not
match reality, it must be dropped, even if you would prefer it to be true to
push a point.

I can't believe this kind of garbage is coming out of 538

~~~
throwawayjava
You fundamentally mischaracterize the article's central thesis; you're
attacking a straw-man.

The article goes on, _immediately following your quoted sentence_ , to draw an
important distinction:

> But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to
> make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science
> in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on
> “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it.

> What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the
> “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and
> robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify
> uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten
> their interests.

And goes on to discuss how the term "sound science" was invented (or at least
popularized) as FUD by Phillip Morris to discredit medical science on the
health effects of second-hand smoke.

~~~
ghostcluster
> undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests.

Scientific discoveries aren't scientific or "discoveries" if they don't
reflect reality. If you can't defend the fact that your results don't
replicate, or that your methodology is flawed, or your math is wrong, then you
can't continue to promote your "discoveries" as if they are true.

~~~
throwawayjava
Again, you completely miss the point of the article.

The article is not about Science! The article is about public perception of
science. About how very valid criticism of bad science can be used to paint
with an overly broad brush, and about how that rhetorical trick works well
when convincing voters and/or policymakers to ignore good science.

BTW, the piece quotes Steven Goodman -- one of the "good guys" leading the
charge against unproducible social science -- making exactly this point.

No one is making the case for letting bad science slide, least of all Steven
Goodman.

The things you are saying are true. But they have absolutely nothing to do
with the article that they're attached to.

~~~
ghostcluster
There is a whole paragraph from someone who "who researches the sociology of
technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a
2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve
environmental controversies"

> These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and
> acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive
> debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking
> evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points
> to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are
> using to assess the evidence.

This is pushing the idea that the facts don't matter. What matters is "values"
and emotions. It's an elaborate setup to push a view from certain segments of
the humanities and social sciences to dismiss the epistemology of science and
an "objective reality" entirely.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> This is pushing the idea that the facts don't matter_

Yes, but you seem to have confused the author's _positive_ statement as a
_normative_ statement.

The author of that quote is not saying that's how the world should ideally be.
He's saying _that 's how the real world really fucking works_. In other words,

"The distinguished representative from Texas doesn't give a shit about
science; he's made up his mind on climate change because there's a shitload of
money at stake. If he can discredit good study X to weaken his opponent's
point, or marshall shitty study Y to strengthen his own point, he'll do so.
Because winning the political battle is more important than being 'correct'.
So you're not going to convince him to change his mind by throwing science in
his face."

The author is _NOT_ defending the not-so-hypothetical distinguished
representative from Texas. He's just observing the fact that this is how
certain people process scientific claims. Not as scientists, but as motivated
reasoners and political operatives with a priori agendas.

See also the discussion of the precautionary principle above for a less cut-
and-dry example -- what's happening, in that case, is basically that two
groups with different values are making different default assumptions about
the level of confidence necessary to justify a decision. I.e., they have
different values, and those values color the way in which they interpret the
confidence intervals in studies on e.g. GMOs.

You're confusing a description of the status quo for a defense of the status
quo. This is a ridiculous straw-man.

 _> What matters is "values" and emotions_

Again, the claim is not "values/emotions are objectively more important than
science".

The claim is "voters/lawmakers are more likely to be swayed by values/emotions
than by science".

Those are two _very_ different claims.

 _> It's an elaborate setup to push a view from certain segments of the
humanities and social sciences to dismiss the epistemology of science and an
"objective reality" entirely_

That's quite the conspiracy theory, given that the overall tenor of the piece
is decidedly pulling in the other direction.

