Hacker News Reader

Exactly. I believe in some science. The hard part is knowing which science is reputable, which is just a hidden agenda masquerading as science, and which is just pure ignorance.

I have no formal science training, just read a few books. I keep up to date(ish) with the science sections in reputable magazines and newspapers (Guardian, Economist, etc). And I read web forums like Hacker News and Reddit.

But short of reading everything and developing formal training in everything, how do I decide what's reputable? Whom do I trust? Someone with loads of internet points? Someone who has a well designed personal website? Someone with loads of shelf-space in my local bookshop?

So, for example, with vaccines. I believe in vaccines, I have had my son vaccinated and would recommend to anybody else to do the same. But it's really based on blind faith because I would have no idea where to start if I want to establish the truth myself. I trust my local doctor, and he said we should get vaccines, but that's all I have to go on.

This is a very astute comment, with a recognition not many people have.

The trust chain is extremely important here, and yes, it's breaking down.

That's the reason for people uncertain about vaccines: they're attempting to find something to trust in a truly complex ecosystem of information that's more available and more difficult to parse than ever.

We're teetering on the balance of the above perspective, trusting without information or understanding—and the opposite, just on the other side of the truth, distrusting without information or understanding. Is either truly more or less valid from an individual viewpoint?

And is it any wonder we're in this situation? What is the institution that would uphold this trust? Do we need a new one, and what would it be?

Part of the problem is that we all live in echo chambers that tell us what we want to hear. If I believe that grass is blue, then I live in a neighbourhood of people that believe grass is blue, and all my friends are thus people who believe grass is blue. I watch news that says grass is blue. My Facebook and Twitter feeds frequently show updates that prove grass is blue, and rarely show anything to the contrary other than to scorn it. All these reasonable people that I love and trust all agree that grass is blue. I'm a reasonable person. So if I meet someone who says grass is not blue, my immediate assumption is that they're a wacko, unreasonable, not to be trusted.

It kind of makes total sense. If you don't do this, you start questioning everything, and it's really stressful. You start to become 'that guy', nobody wants to spend time with you because you're so disagreeable, and you prevaricate on every decision. So you simplify the world by limiting your inputs to those that agree with you. For example, "Should I get my child vaccinated? I've read 3 books for, 3 against, asked doctors and health advisors I found on Google, and talked about it on multiple forums. Opinion seems divided. " vs "I know I should get my child vaccinated, because everyone on Hacker News says so."

At some point, the answer is to have trusted in-person relationships. As I said, I believe in vaccinations because I know our doctor quite well. I know he's not a quack, and he says vaccinations are a good thing, and so I believe him. Similarly, if I want to get some good beef, I go to our local butcher who knows my name. I trust him not to sell me horsemeat, in a way that I don't trust a big supermarket chain. There's no way for me to guarantee that either the doctor or the butcher are right, but it feels a more certain way than trusting /r/cleverusername on Reddit. How do you sort the wheat from the chaff in a society of billions?

I often recollect Aristotle's comment that "it is difficult - perhaps impossible – for a city that is too populous to be well managed". At some point, large societies seem to eat themselves, and the result is a lack of trust in everything around you.

If you finished high school, you have actually had quite a bit of formal science training--years of it. But it was probably not very good, and did not leave you feeling that you have the mental tools to evaluate science on your own.

I think that a decline in primary and secondary education systems are causing us all sorts of social problems--in science, but also in government, art, law, etc.

I went to a pretty good school in the 90s, but didn't go to university. I would say that they left me with the mental tools to realise that I couldn't evaluate science on my own. If I hadn't received any education, I might be more confident in believing any old rubbish. Instead, I hear the words of my science teachers talking about testable hypotheses.

I believe that education has improved. My parents both quit school before the age of 16. My Mum was taught mostly how to sew, cook and use a typewriter. My Dad did well enough in science, but my grandparents couldn't afford for him to go to college after 16. When I hear the 'education has got worse' argument, I believe that the average pleb today doesn't receive as good an education as a rich joe 50 years ago, but overall the system is much better.

> So yes, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOs, anti-nuclear, et al. are wrong. Stupidly wrong.

This is actually one of the reasons there's such resistance to science I think. These people are actually expressing a very scientific mentality: that we are not totally certain of the consequences of our influence on a complex system. Yet the response is absolute, which is arguably very unscientific!

Sure, they don't respond to it in the right way, and the discussions are never as nuanced or knowledgable as they should be, but they are fundamentally right about the fact that even science leaves room for doubt and uncertainty. They just don't fully understand why. Yes, we need better science education for the masses, and yes their perspective is fallacious individually, but as you say, it's not their fault. There's a systemic issue here.

Ironically, and perhaps impossibly, we still need to validate this mentality, because it is actually mostly right. We should be doubting science. We should be questioning data presented to us. We should not treat all things that appear equal on the surface as the same without demanding a deeper understanding and evidence. These concepts are correct, the process is correct, and people are being lambasted and called stupid for it. These people are often extremely intelligent for thinking those thoughts, even if their macro scale conclusions are not (even though, at times, they are).

Instead, we should encourage that type of thinking—and guide it. Yes! You're right! We're not 100% certain. But here's why that's okay. Thank you for doubting. Thank you for recognizing uncertainty in the face of complexity. Thank you for being complete in your understanding, because here's all the data. Thank you for trusting us—let's keep working together.

So I agree with you; we need that trust. But what nurtures trust? Is it calling people "stupidly wrong," or is it recognizing their motivations and addressing them with a human understanding? And why aren't we doing that?

I just get the sense that in the face of the truth, we're approaching this problem in a profoundly wrong way, and the societal vitriol and information problem is actually becoming a public health consequence. Really stupid, indeed, but not on the part of an individual: it's the mob that's to blame.

To clarify - I said they're stupidly wrong, i.e. really really wrong - not that they themselves are stupid. They might be very smart, but they arrived at objectively wrong conclusions.

Of course we're not totally certain of this stuff. But the important thing people often miss is that you have to quantify your uncertainity. How much uncertain are we about vaccines causing autism? So uncertain that you'd expect vaccinating your child to be a russian roulette? A little uncertain so that the chances of autism via unknown process is below the benefits vaccines provide? Yes, maybe vaccines do sometimes cause autism. But there's a difference between 50% of times and 0.005% of times, and in case of former, we'd have spotted that long time ago.

I agree - we should encourage people to think for themselves. But we should also teach them not to think in terms of boolean logic, but in terms of probability and tradeoffs.

> So I agree with you; we need that trust. But what nurtures trust? Is it calling people "stupidly wrong," or is it recognizing their motivations and addressing them with a human understanding? And why aren't we doing that?

I don't know. Maybe because it doesn't sell? I'm yet to see a reasonable analysis in media. It's always "this group is wrong" or "that group is wrong".

Yes, it's wrong on so many levels, one of the biggest ones being the social and media response. It doesn't have the ability for nuanced discussion by nature. That system needs fixing, but it may not be possible.

> They might be very smart, but they arrived at objectively wrong conclusions.

In many, many cases, we call that science. Extremely intelligent people are allowed to be wrong for many, many years, and continue searching in the cracks and crevices for the truth—as long as they're wearing a white lab coat.

Of course I realize this is reducto ad absurdum—the general public is not qualified to be making such judgements. But systemically, one of the things that prevents people from making binary judgements about the world is to prevent making binary judgements about them.

And that starts with all of our responses, not just the media. I'm convinced that these anti-scientific (as in, people who disagree with the scientific consensus) people are more influenced by the response of their close social circles in the context of social media than by the oft untrusted old media. It is the responses of hatred from people they do trust that drive them further into their hole.

If we want these people—often your friends and family—to learn nuance and probability and tradeoffs and the ability to think in grayscale rather than black and white, then we need to teach them directly using our responses. We need to lead by example, and that begins with not calling them "stupidly wrong i.e. really really wrong"—even if they are. Often they already are thinking in grays: they have doubt where everyone else has an absolute!

Lots of people have been stupidly, really, really wrong in history. Some of them changed the world. That's not likely in these cases, but it is the perspective that will make an argument rhetorically effective. And in the process, we may discover the small nuanced ways in which they were actually right—that's the beauty of the scientific process, and that's the reason people fight against the black and white. They have more to offer than you realize; and especially more to offer than the label "stupidly wrong" would have you believe.

For perspective, I'm almost sorry to admit it, but my mother is a vaccine... 'doubter.' She is a scientist, a biologist, extremely intelligent. She has a nuanced understanding and soaks up data like a sponge, references studies in her sleep and connects more dots than a first grade class. It's less clear-cut than you might think, and not all vaccines are equal. People like her are fighting against the absolute mentality of the mob and how the issue is thought about in public discourse—not the end result like you might think they are. They're not stupid, they're just living in an extremely complex ecosystem without a guiding light to bring it all together in the right direction. Show them that, instead of pitchforks.

Often they already are thinking in grays: they have doubt where everyone else has an absolute!

The thinking in grays is great; as you point out, that's the basis of science. But when it comes to making a decision, the actions need to be, or end up being, absolute. You can't "play it safe", stick a toe in the water, and get "half vaccinated" (you either follow the schedule or you don't). You can't build half a nuclear power plant. The gray area thinking leads to an absolute lack of action when it comes to further understanding. These kind of projects and scientific endeavors are large, society-befitting advancements, and they require everyone to get on board.

I suspect that some of this actually is laziness and not wanting to learn or participate in the scientific process, or considering science to be inaccessible to the layman. It's useful to say that more education and empathy is required, but these kind of society-level things eventually need to be considered lab tested enough to get used in the field for mass benefit. And we need to be both confident of that field use and cognoscent that that's just another stage of the data collection. We should never stop collecting data, stop trying to understand it, or stop doing science. One might argue that we, as humans, can't stop (we just get into ruts sometimes where we slow down significantly).

Lots of people have been stupidly, really, really wrong in history. Some of them changed the world.

Unfortunately, the people who have been really really wrong outnumber those who were wrong and also changed the world by significant orders of magnitude. Those who were wrong and changed the world changed it because they acknowledged they were on a path to discovering the truth. Others who were wrong weren't out for discovery.

my mother is a vaccine... 'doubter.' She is a scientist, a biologist, extremely intelligent

Despite that your mother is a vaccine "doubter", would she fail to recommend getting vaccinated? It's a healthy scientific process that is open to new data, but when it comes to action the data already collected that is what matters (even if the data collected is not immediately at hand). That being said, the question with vaccination isn't "do vaccines work" (do they satisfy the need for which they are administered), but rather "does the risk of unintended side-effects outweigh the documented benefits". In this light, it comes down to being able to do risk assessment, not necessarily being able to interpret the data and scientific results. I think we know way more about vaccination than we do about autism, and the risk assessment needs to take that into account.

People like her are fighting against the absolute mentality of the mob and how the issue is thought about in public discourse—not the end result like you might think they are.

It's interesting that the mob has an absolute stance, but is made up of individuals who are comfortable in the gray area of their interpretation. Is there something in this dichotomy here that can help further the education and empathy?

>Instead, we should encourage that type of thinking—and guide it. Yes! You're right! We're not 100% certain. But here's why that's okay. Thank you for doubting. Thank you for recognizing uncertainty in the face of complexity. Thank you for being complete in your understanding, because here's all the data. Thank you for trusting us—let's keep working together.

Uncertainty, yes, but not radical uncertainty, in which we begin to doubt that we exist or the sky is blue, nor infinite uncertainty, in which we always invent new reasons to disbelieve whenever presented with evidence.

Correct reasoning is about finite uncertainty, which can be moved towards yes-certainty or no-certainty by evidence.

> So yes, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOs, anti-nuclear, et al. are wrong. Stupidly wrong.

Why is that? Another reason people lost trust is the arrogance of some scientist that seem to ignore the complexity of their subjects and don't see the limits of their research.

Also people like you that believe that everything that has gone trough a scientific study must be true, science can also get it wrong sometimes, don't stop thinking and questioning.

I suspect if you actually speak to a scientist, you'll find they really do not ignore the complexity of their subjects. However, the public starts at such a base level, that it's impossible to even engage at the limits of their research. And the honesty of the scientists with regards to their understood complexity often times does them more harm then good. Their carefully chosen, complex-laden words are glossed over in news headlines that extinguish the nuance.

Ask a genetic researcher if "GMOs can harm humans" and the answer will likely be, "Probably not". But this actually means - "I can conceive of nothing but the most fantastic route for that to happen. And even if it did it would have to happen by a route currently unknown or at the edge of our entire field." When in reality the public clings to really strange notions that truly are scientifically incorrect.

You can make the argument that being correct for the wrong reasons has its advantages, but in real life no single action ever taken is without risk. It is precisely the scientist who has dedicated her career to her work that understands (and even thrives in) its complexity.

Well, of course I reduced those groups to their most vocal parts. But we do have overwhelming evidence that vaccines don't kill you, GMOs don't kill you, nuclear power is safe and environmentally friendly. Mind you, those don't even require detailed scientific research - just a little common sense, back-of-the-napkin math and realizing that if what those anti-XXX groups are saying were true, we'd see half of the western world being autistic, dying from cancer and giving birth to two-headed mutants.

I agree that arrogance of some scientists is a part of the problem (I'd say caused by communication problems - scientists and non-scientists are often so far apart in their understanding of various subjects that it's very hard for those two groups to communicate with each other).

Also, people saying about "limits of research" are often doing this to support their refusal to accept conclusions. If you can't find any rational argument against a thesis, you can always say that the whole process is wrong and then continue to believe whatever you want to believe. "But there's always a chance, right?".

Even scientists have been increasingly admitting that confirmation bias is strong. Another problem is funding. If all research was funded by non-profit public interest groups, there might be more trust, but when you're talking about GMO research, for example, a lot of it is done by industry for industry. I'm not saying that all GMOs are bad, but it's also impossible to make a blanket statement that all GMOs are good. Obviously that's not the case.

A GMO could be created to be extremely dangerous, just like a prescription medicine could and has been created which is extremely dangerous. The problem is that we're asked to trust people whose immediate interests do not always align with ours. We've seen prescriptions forced through with inadequate testing, so there's no reason to believe that every GMO is going to be adequately tested. The current atmosphere of hostility seems to be helping that testing happen.

The base problem is that we have a society of people whose interests are aligned against each other and a system meant to encourage that kind of competition.

> The base problem is that we have a society of people whose interests are aligned against each other and a system meant to encourage that kind of competition.

This. This might be one of the roots of the lack of trust. And given that people get abused by others all the time, it's really hard for me to blame people mistrusting research done by companies - especially if you don't have even basic understanding of the scientific issues involved, which most people don't have - partially thanks to broken education system, and partially because well, why should they? Not everyone will love science, those who don't should be able to just trust those of us who do. But now they can't.

> Also people like you that believe that everything that has gone trough a scientific study must be true, science can also get it wrong sometimes, don't stop thinking and questioning.

I can't speak for TeMPOraL, but I've never heard anyone claim that science is infallible--and it's certainly not implied by their comment.

Science believers simply recognize that scientifically-vetted ideas are _the most likely to be true_.

Sometimes science is wrong. Often. Maybe even usually. Science is very clearly the most reliable truth-finding mechanism we have.

The options aren't sometimes-wrong science v. omniscience. It's sometimes-wrong science v. more-often-wrong everything else.

Characterizing belief in scientific findings as absolute, undoubting faith is completely inaccurate.

> People don't trust their government, they don't trust corporations, and they don't trust scientist. And I increasingly believe they have perfectly good reasons for that.

And I feel that most of this can be attributed to the apparition of the Internet. People use to have no alternative other than to trust authorities. Now, they tend to bypass them more and more and equally trust strangers on the Internet since they can relate more easily.

Why is it a surprise that people are having a crisis of trust when they are inculcated by science and Rational Thinkers™ that nothing is to be trusted?

It seems to me that the worldview based on science alone (which is highly prevalent among today's self-described Rational Thinkers™) has reaped what it has sown, which is broad skepticism of everything, including itself.

What I always find interesting reading the comments sections in newspapers, is that certain groups of people deny and dismiss the hard science of climate change, yet the same people seem to believe the very poor science of economics as if it is some kind of proper science.

In part, maybe, but the issue is a little more subtle. People who go all anti-vaxx or anti-GMO are not just saying that science is wrong. Hell, they often try to twist the science into supporting their point. What those people feel is that government and corporations are trying to hurt them. You don't see heated arguments about whether vaccines interact with this or that metabolic pathway. The issues is whether vaccines will hurt your kids, and whether government is forcing you to do something bad to yourself. It's not about facts - it's about trusting authorities that they're not trying to exploit and harm you.

I'm confused then -- why, in terms of correct vs. incorrect outcomes, does skepticism work out so well for those trained in the methods of science, but so poorly for those who are not?

Because you can't just say "I'm sceptical" and expect to magically arrive to the correct conclusion. You have to know exactly why you're sceptical about something. Being "trained in the methods of science" gives you mental habits of analyzing known facts and conclusions instead of just doubting anything which you don't like.

>Because you can't just say "I'm sceptical" and expect to magically arrive to the correct conclusion.

Yes. The idea that "the worldview based on science alone has reaped what it has sown," seems a little silly in this context, as skepticism by itself is not what science promotes. If the skepticism was rooted in science, we might see many other beneficial behaviors associated with scientific method accompanying the skepticism. But we don't, indicating (to your point) that the skepticism stems from distrust for authorities in general, not from middle-school chemistry classes.

Science does have conspiracies of its own. Any (negative) hot-button areas can not hope for funding or departmental approval. Not conspiracies overtly, but conspiracies nonetheless.

>People nowdays see the failure of trust and strive to design systems that don't depend on trusting its actors at all. I'm not sure it's a good direction. As we increasingly don't expect trustworthiness from other people, we're digging ourselves deeper into the hole.

It's an extremely bad move: at the sociological level, trust shows up as coordination. To reduce the level of trust means reducing the level of coordination, increasing the chances that someone does something stupid and harmful for what turns out to be no good reason.

>So yes, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOs, anti-nuclear, et al. are wrong. Stupidly wrong. But it's hard for me to blame them. They've been lied to so many times that it's hard for them to trust authorities anymore.

Moreover, it's not like anyone bothered to teach them the actual truth-finding and truth-tracking methods of science, so that they could understand the difference between science and authority.