Science vs. Soyence | Hacker News Reader

Science vs. Soyence

lukesmith.xyz

48 pointslven32 comments

> Science journalists, much like journalists generally, are people too incompetent and emotional to work in the private sector, too dumb to be academics (and the standards are abysmally low these days), too full of themselves to work in charity and too bumbling, weak and arrogant to work in a blue collar or manual occupation. Journalism is an attractive career to many because it demands the least rigor and honor and promises the greatest power and influence.

Harsh words towards journalists but I do think something has changed with journalism. It's much more narrative driven and attracts people who think they're doing missionary work. It's increasingly homogenous group of people who have the same politics, went to the same school and even date in the same circles. Was it always like this?

The weirdest one to me is the modern tech journalist, who ... hates tech? Here's NYT tech journalist Greg Bensinger's last articles (not cherry picked):

- OPINION How Illinois Is Winning in the Fight Against Big Tech

- EDITORIALS Twitter Under Elon Musk Will Be a Scary Place

- OPINION Spotify Backs Joe Rogan’s Disinformation Machine

- OPINION Why Uber Won’t Call the Police

I get it, they're editorials. But every article is a reiteration of tech bad. He never worked in tech. He's been a journalist his whole life. They're all like this. Here's the NYT op-ed columnists:

Ezra Klein: Worked for Howard Dean campaign and interned at Washington Monthly after graduating with a political science degree from University of California. Klein is married to a journalist

Jamelle Bouie: Worked at American Prospect shortly after graduating in political and social thought and government from University of Virginia

Michelle Goldberg: Worked at Salon after a masters in journalism from University of California

Paul Krugman: Career academic with a brief stint serving on Council of Economic advisers for Regan administration.

Gail Collins: Started writing for Connecticut publications after a bachelors in journalism and a masters in government

that's not actually what journalism is today

that's what reading reddit and facebook is

Headlines are not articles. They're ads.

Opinion pieces are not journalism.

While that's true, I'd argue that the majority of the population isn't informed/intelligent enough to know the difference, which in my mind is the issue. Most will read an opinion piece and go off and parrot its contents as if they're fact.

That's a very ivory towerish take. Most people know full well what the difference is between opinion and fact. They just choose to ignore it as it suits their purposes better. The big difference in terms of left and right politically in the US is that the right will buy into abhorrent behavior if it ultimately gets them what they want, while the left would still rather lose even if it costs real lives to pass their purity test.

Headlines these days are made to get people to click and the narrative ones or the ones that say something controversial get more people to click and read the article.

Most "tech" journalists are trying to appeal to a mass audience now. It is absurd.

In addition to what other replies have said, there's a huge difference between being against technology and being against big tech companies.

I am a wholehearted proponent of technology.

I am also very strongly against the trajectory over the past decade or so of Facebook and Google, the blatant disregard of companies like Uber and AirBnB for regulation (and their VC-funded price undercutting), and the entire blockchain/cryptocurrency sphere.

Too much of Big Tech recently has been pushing in the direction of cyberpunk dystopia. I believe we need to be moving more toward solarpunk.

This is the laziest argument I've seen from Smith in quite a while, and I've unfortunately listened to a lot of his rants.

Arguing that sleep is an irrational need is worse than misdirected, its exactly opposite to the truth. We don't know the mechanism behind sleep but we are keenly aware that there is a strong correlation between good sleep habits and better health. The correlation is observed and keenly accounted for in science AND pop science.

The correlation is not causation mantra is true but that doesn't magically mean that we don't care about correlation.

The argument of 'correlation does not equal causation' ONLY matters when its relevant. E.g. you misattribute a cause.

He aaaaaaalmost notices this with his cigarette company argument bit then again completely misunderstands the idiom to mean that skepticism is always good and not just a tool in the scenario where you have limited information and its appropriate.

The fact that the cigarette companies were skeptical about the correlation is not scientific in a vacuum of this article either. It was a vested interest that they took the preferable stance for their company. Science cares about vested interests, and correlation.

I'm all for calling out shoddy scientific reporting but this is arguably worse because it acts like its above the idioms and conflation, when it isn't. Its tragically bad.

One of the most horrible phrases that was popularized in the last few years is "Trust the science" as if science were just another religion.

> There is nothing to "believe in" in science anyway, because it's an exposer of non-truth.

Trusting that the methodology leads to truth is the belief part of science. Someone has to frame "the truth" as some functional model and that gives them immense power to influence, just like any clergy.

We've also been presented with the sole intermediaries between the "science" and ourselves. If we dared to question anything, we were asked if we were an expert instead of the experts explaining why we were wrong.

It's very comparable to how the Church and clergy were the sole intermediary between God and man when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to a door, which began a movement that helped develop the freedom of speech.

Exactly. Case in point: "Science Is Real"

I roll my eyes each time I see this. How exactly is a process real?

Even if this phrase were to mean "the results of science should be weighted more than opinions" it still purports that science is definite which leads people to believe things and never change their minds -- which is the opposite of science.

> At the end of the day, the worst part is that we talk about "science" as if it's some kind of anthropomophic creature with desires and feelings and a plan for us all. It's a uniquely modern flaw to say things like, "Science tells us that..." "Science is about.." "Science is against..." Does this not strike anyone else as creepy?

This, like so many other reactionary screeds, is based on an intentional misunderstanding: nobody is actually anthropomorphizing science. English doesn't have many elegant ways to say "a process provides inductive evidence for a claim"; that is all anyone is ever really saying when they attempt to reduce a hypothesis to a pop factoid.

Similarly for factuality itself: the post's author is arguing against an 8th grader's understanding of "fact vs. fiction." It's simply not how either scientists (or the serious scientific press) uses it. Strip that away, and this is just a confused ramble about pop culture, everybody's favorite thing to hate.

> English doesn't have many elegant ways to say "a process provides inductive evidence for a claim"; that is all anyone is ever really saying when they attempt to reduce a hypothesis to a pop factoid.

Then why not say 'the scientific method' so that we know you don't mean 'scientists'?

> nobody is actually anthropomorphizing science

for one thing, a few years ago there was an irritating practice of any perspective outside current academic dogma being described as 'anti-science'

that is to say, the simplistic anthropomorphizing of science was leveraged in order to try to change the word 'science' to instead mean 'our chosen narrative', a position which is itself anti-science in the most meaningful way

> scientific "advancement" is less of an increase in knowledge than a decrease in falsity

This framing seems extremely useful from a pedagogical standpoint.

Distinguishing scientific units-of-advancement as 'eliminated falsehoods' + 'the tests used to rule out the untruths' would be have been a wonderful correction in my science education.

If you had taken a philosophy of science class, it would have been part of your education. That's cribbed directly from Karl Popper.

It can also be useful to frame findings that rely on statistical analysis as evidence in favor or against some hypothesis, and not interpret them as falsifications.

I don't understand why people with literally no background as scientists feel the need to push back against demographic groups in the name of something they themselves don't actually personally understand

This is also tagged philosophy

I wish we could get this out of our community, this attempt to set people at odds by fetishizing science in a way that science itself does not actually support

It's pretty damaging

Well the example of the long running while millions died lung cancer by smoking "dispute" is exactly the core of the problem that the article completely misses. FLICC which is produced by staceholders in industries. The concept of fake science, fake publication networks, fake experts, cherry picking, loud minorities and so on were invented by the Tabasco Industrie to exacly create a false impression of "dispute" back then. And today it is used to slow things down in climate action again.

I feel like claiming that faked scientific narratives were invented by the Tabasco (sic) industry might be missing Radium, Tetra-ethyl Lead, and any number of other issues. Suffice it to say that for as long as the scientific method has held some sort of real authority outside of its practitioners, it has been twisted by special interests (especially those that have deep pockets) towards their own benefit.

The Tobacco industry is already sufficiently guilty through their actions that there is no need to make things up to paint them in a bad light (here, the 'originators' of scientific chaffing) - all that can do is provide cover for bad deeds when people figure out that such claims are fraudulent, and extend the possibility to information that is not. See the war on drugs for a more modern example.

Nice to see an unusually level-headed take from Luke.

Is he usually worse? This is terrible writing and thinking on every level, full of self-contradictions:

> In nearly all circumstances, our intuition (crafted by millions of years of evolution) ... are much better guides to life than the scientific consensus, despite them being "irrational" (and sorry, religion is part of this too).

very next line:

> When someone guzzles down some newly fabricated energy drink or gallons of soda, they're nearly certainly damaging their bodies in ways science does not yet understand.

"millions of years of evolution" is what gave us the craving for sweetness, science is why we now know it's bad.

Intuition is not a reliable compass, and is built around local circumstance. For example, "gut feelings" like disgust are often how people justify acting on their morally corrupt behavior.

Yes, a lot of his speaking and writing is wrapped up in inside jokes and asides to himself that obfuscate his points to everyone not in on the joke. He usually appears to be arguing against some concept he believes to be widely held (e.g. "irrational"), which sometimes comes off as a straw man. Especially because he usually states these suppositions, explicitly or implied, rather than demonstrating them with evidence. And the points he makes don't seem fully self consistent.

That said, this style of speaking in asides and nonsequitors actually works well on vlogs on YouTube, since jumping around can keep people's attention better than something straightforward and boring. Plus, visual cues can help tie things together.

On that note, considering that he's been promoting "the dissolution of the United States into its [racial/ethnic] component parts" in videos (viewable on his Peertube) makes me think that this article is supposed to prime the reader to be more receptive to the concept and implementation of ethno-states.

this does not strike me as level headed

this is a collection of personal complaints at celebrities and the presumption that that is in some way related to science

too much finger pointing and not a single scrap of hard evidence

> not a single scrap of hard evidence

The point of the piece was to point out the issue with this way of thinking. Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.

The tail end of the article was a series of sweeping generalizations that would be laughed out of most high school classrooms.

> > not a single scrap of hard evidence [[ EDIT: this was to the commenter ]] > > The point of the piece was

You seem to have attempted to respond to my criticism of a HN comment by speaking for the author of a website piece who didn't write the HN comment I was talking about

> Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.

Not really, no. Most science proceeds without a hypothesis. Also, believing this makes me wonder why you're speaking up.

Standing my ground: people who don't have a formal degree in science shouldn't sit on the web announcing what science is for, because they genuinely do not know, themselves.

There is an actual "science exists to," and people who are scientists know what it is.

I understand that you're going to tell me I'm wrong if I don't teach you the scientist secret handshake, and that anything you say is truthful unless another internet person invests significant effort in taking you apart, or that I must provide reference regarding your claims. I'm okay with that.

I believe that my point stands.

The post makes a wildly long list of testable claims, and doesn't test them. A five minute look through the literature shows that almost every claim they made has been tested and come back "no, of course not."

If you find yourself attempting to speak for science as if it's a person, please consider not doing that, unless a college or university has degreed you in a science field.

Anyone who can discuss the type 1a/1b/2b split without the help of the internet can also tell you why science does not, in fact, exist to find the flaws in a hypothesis. None of those are hypotheses. Ample similar situations are hanging from the tree in literally every branch of science. That one's just common enough that I expect a typical internet user to know what I mean.

Thanks for understanding.

Dear journal: today, I saw someone attempt to correct me on that science is little interested in evidence. Also, I had some lovely tacos in the mission.

Politics uses Science the same way that Politics uses Religion. It's just an appeal to authority.

I think there are facts - there is an objective reality. There are situations that are win/win but more often we have every incentive to create or create the perception that situations are win/lose.

Whenever the situation is win/lose and someone is pointing to objective facts the hair on your neck should go up and you should acknowledge that you might be in a minefield. The incentives and the goals of all the participants in those kind of Political situations can be strange and not readily apparent.

The author clearly cares about both science and progress in the abstract, and how applicable science and progress are to daily living. The author does have a point: scientific research is both a) slow, and b) confirmatory. This means that it necessarily lags behind what people can think up, surmise, and hypothesize. Yes, people who blindly believe in Science are missing part of the point. But that isn't a problem with Science.

Unfortunately, the writing in this post is not compelling -- it is overly emotionally charged (rather than analytical), contains contradictions, is not backed up by any citations or links, and has weird grammar.

Some examples:

> Of course, much like the Greek Gods, we cannot seem to speak to "knowledge" directly, or to mentally murky academics, but only to official mediators: journalists and "science communicators" and the like.

Every academic has a publicly accessible email address. Some may not respond to a honest inquiry, but in my experience, many do! Of all the academics I've emailed, I'd say my response rate is ~8/10.

> And scientific models, from our models of the atom, to models of the Earth's weather and climate, to models of our body are highly circumstantial, and as a rule, will nearly all inevitably be proven false.

The Bayesian interpretation of probability in the context of hypothesis testing suggests that "True" and "False" are not useful conceptual predicates for thinking about models. Newton's laws are "False" if you want to be persnickety, but they describe how things move on Earth to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

> We know nearly nothing of how the brain works.

This is a hyperbolic claim. The visual system, detailing how information in the form of light wavelengths are transformed at various stages of processing and location is remarkably well worked out. Especially given that researchers have only been tackling the problem for a little more than a hundred and twenty years.

> The reality is that these demigods really just went to graduate school because they were lazy and initiativeless, and even in the abstract, most of their real work has nothing to do with your life whatsoever.

> Science journalists, much like journalists generally, are people too incompetent and emotional to work in the private sector...

It always saddens me to read writing from an author who doesn't seem to be very happy. Would he say that MD-PhD researchers who went to grad school are lazy and lacking in initiative?

...

While it would be great to be alive to benefit from, say, another 100 years of medical research and development, that's a counter-factual fantasy. Science is our best guess. It is also an imperfect process. But hey, the author is more than welcome to think of a better way to do generate new, accurate, and useful knowledge.

TL;DR: complain about scientism without actually using the word "scientism"[0].

Luke Smith is what you'd get if Curtis Yarvin had grown up on 4chan. He's a reactionary schmuck.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com