Hacker News Reader

Comment by imjustsaying | Hacker News Reader

I am looking for evidence so that humans can draw wise conclusions.

I point out that a group of people who are employed primarily by a single source are going to generate opinions that are favorable to that source.

If they don't, they are handicapping their ability to put food on the table. Work can still be found without catering to the primary source, but it's not as financially beneficial to do so.

View on HN

Most scientific studies are not funded to give those that paid for it false information to make them feel good. It is to get actual scientific data. You can lie to yourself in a bubble for much cheaper than paying teams of scientists to make up a fake reality for your own ego.

True, but there is a significant risk of false information if the sponsor then can financially gain. For example, if the U.S. government felt that belief in climate change would be economically advantageous, they could pressure local researchers to find in favor of climate change. It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would have a mechanism to issue U.S. grants, however.

This happens all the time in marketing. Although, to be fair, those studies are often preceded by a number of more accurate private studies, and only the publicized one is suspect.

The U.S. government decidedly does NOT think climate change is economically advantageous, and they have fought any measures against it tooth and nail.

If so, that would be a good explanation for some of the publicly funded research that finds climate change nonexistent or unimpactful.

By that logic, consensus should be the only thing you would trust. Paying people for new findings disincentivizes consensus, unless perhaps those people have several avenues to explore and are willing to close off some of the less promising ones - again in favor of consensus being trustworthy.

there is no evidence that you are looking for evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com