[HN Gopher] How Industry Weaponizes Science and Sows Doubt to Se...
___________________________________________________________________
How Industry Weaponizes Science and Sows Doubt to Serve Their
Agenda
Author : anarbadalov
Score : 164 points
Date : 2021-11-09 14:06 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
| barney54 wrote:
| This isn't really how "industry" weaponized science, but how the
| "tobacco industry" weaponized science. That's a story we call
| know. How about other examples?
| cronix wrote:
| Research Edward Bernays. The nephew of of Sigmund Freud, and
| often referred to as the "pioneer/father of public
| relations/propaganda."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
|
| He basically weaponized psychology, group psychology to be more
| accurate, and still in full effect today. I mean, how else do
| you get young women to suddenly buck societal trends and start
| smoking at a time it was not "proper" to do so?
|
| Another clever trick is when the food industry started coming
| out with ready-made foods to prepare, like instant cake mix.
| This was during a time when most people cooked from scratch,
| and didn't trust this magical box of powder you just add water
| to and bake. How nutritious could that be vs baking from
| scratch with whole ingredients? Well, the solution was pretty
| clever. "Add one fresh egg." It wasn't necessary to the cake
| mix, but it helped women feel like they're still using real,
| healthy ingredients and the product stated to really take off.
|
| Here are some of his better known feats:
| https://listverse.com/2019/09/26/edward-bernays-freud-tricke...
|
| Decent video about him:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOUcXK_7d_c
| potta_coffee wrote:
| Science in the food industry is used to make processed foods as
| addictive and un-satiating as possible.
|
| Psychology is used to make apps like Facebook as addicting as
| possible and hook emotions like fear and rage to boost
| engagement.
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| First thing that comes to mind is the alcohol industry, with
| the regular "drinking moderate amounts is actually good for
| you" headlines I keep reading.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I've learned to completely ignore any headline that suggests
| eating 'x' or drinking 'y' reduces my cancer risk, makes me
| healthier, or in any way changes my life.
|
| Remember when cholesterol in eggs was a big problem? And then
| remember when eggs became a superfood?
| newsclues wrote:
| Fossil fuels, sugar vs fat... Covid-19
| Croftengea wrote:
| I think that fossil fuel scientific bias goth both ways.
| newsclues wrote:
| Sorry I should be more specific I was thinking about leaded
| gasoline, but Exxon hide climate change data for decades as
| well
| mistrial9 wrote:
| "goth bias" apparently
| queuebert wrote:
| Possibly, but one way has MUCH worse consequences than the
| other.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| This comment makes me feel like I live in a very boring
| cyperpunk dystopia
| mistrial9 wrote:
| comments above say it is not possible to lack bias, given a
| system of funders, competing Principal Investigators, and
| imperfect researchers. The comment _" fossil fuel
| scientific bias goes both ways"_ reduces that even more to
| "both of two sides do this" which leaps into a simplistic
| duality, where in fact there is system and multiple topics.
|
| In other words, this comment leads to direct polarized
| partisanship.. far removed from actual scientific practice
|
| If topic at hand is "How Industry Weaponizes Research", the
| comment _" fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways"_ of
| "both sides" (as if there were only two sides to anything)
| is an example of "How to Weaponize comments on YNews" (!)
| gruez wrote:
| >sugar vs fat
|
| the strange part about that was why there was no counter-
| propaganda from the fat side. Surely any PR person worth
| their salt would pay some scientists to poke holes in studies
| saying that your products are bad?
|
| >Covid-19
|
| do tell.
| newsclues wrote:
| How many years did it take to debunk well funded science
| misinformation?
|
| There is a chance that will occur again.
|
| https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| Regarding sugar and fat, it's two sides of the same coin.
| Food companies just released a bunch of low-fat products
| alongside their regular products.
| csee wrote:
| Covid-19: lockdowns caused a huge transfer of wealth from
| small businesses and services to big tech, media and
| Amazon.
|
| Did that motivate decision making and political pressure? I
| have no idea - perhaps not. But the financial incentive
| from certain actors was there.
| kiliantics wrote:
| There are lots of ways the fossil fuel industry is currently
| misrepresenting science, such as overstating the potential of
| carbon capture technology to undo the emissions they intend to
| keep making.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126926
|
| Anti-GMO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126531
| wpietri wrote:
| Off the top of my head, fossil carbon, asbestos, and lead. HN
| discussed the last 2 months back:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500508
|
| But the real question is how many times we don't hear about it.
| Many on HN are, like many executives, big on the duty of
| companies to maximize shareholder value. And this sort of
| manufactured doubt obviously increased shareholder value for a
| long period. So the real question becomes not "did anybody else
| ever do this" but "who wouldn't use a potent, cost-effective
| way to keep profits up?"
| Ambolia wrote:
| I don't trust anything in science that has not been actualized
| either as an engineering project or as a clear prediction that
| has came true in the world.
|
| Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology, social
| sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle
| recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody from
| 1000 years ago could have done.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| To be fair, you shouldn't. Science isn't doctrinal. It's not
| something you or anyone should take on faith. Skepticism exists
| at the very core of science, the basic posture in any
| scientific endeavor is "I don't know". If you can't read a
| scientific paper because you don't understand it, or because
| it's behind a paywall, then your conclusion shouldn't be one of
| "well I guess it's correct because important people say so",
| but "I don't know."
|
| Some people don't understand skepticism, and get muddled up in
| Occam's razor or something (which is just modus tollens of the
| similarly dubious "where there's smoke, there's fire"; a good
| starting point perhaps, but nothing to draw conclusions from),
| and they think that if they can't prove something, it must be
| false. That's not correct either. If you there is no proof, it
| could be either way.
|
| We're in this bizarre zeitgeist where everyone is telling you
| to listen to science because it's all true, but for the love of
| god, don't engage in any sort of scientific inquiry yourself,
| who knows what heterodoxy you might arrive at.
|
| The coffee machine at work has a bunch of advertisement stuck
| on it, how the coffee has been fine-tuned by experts and tested
| by scientists to be the optimal coffee experience. Like what
| the heck, am I not a better judge of whether I like the coffee
| than a bunch of scientists?
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| > or as a clear prediction that has came true in the world.
|
| Impossible standard to prove.
|
| > Which means I don't trust almost anything in psychology,
| social sciences, or quirky health, nutrition and lifestyle
| recommendations if they don't sound like something somebody
| from 1000 years ago could have done.
|
| The myth of the paleo* = good is so dumb.
| nradov wrote:
| Nutrition science is quite complex and much of the published
| literature is simply junk. A lot of what we thought we knew a
| few decades ago turned out to be wrong. So it's not entirely
| unreasonable to ignore the science altogether and just eat
| the same foods that your ancestors ate before agriculture. It
| might not be optimal from a nutrition standpoint, but it's
| unlikely to be too far wrong.
|
| Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing
| cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements.
| Pensacola wrote:
| > Of course most "paleo" nutritionists are scammers pushing
| cookbooks and dubious nutritional supplements.
|
| You're right: most of the protein in the diets of our
| paleolithic ancestors came from insects and leftover
| carrion from the kills of more optimized carnivores. I've
| never seen these recommended in a Paleo diet.
| csee wrote:
| I don't agree it's dumb (perhaps fashionable incarnations are
| dumb, but not the general idea of being inspired by an
| ancestral diet). We evolved in that setting and our bodies
| were optimized for our ancestors' diet. This doesn't mean we
| should commit the naturalistic fallacy but as a first
| approximation it's a good rule of thumb.
|
| The other thing is our understanding of nutritional science
| is so, so bad. It's just such a difficult area to attack with
| the scientific method. We've made good progress for sure but
| there's still so many unknowns.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| For the majority of human existencr the diet which helped
| survival the most was high calorie because it meant they
| weren't starving.
|
| Paleo is dumb because it ignores all other greater
| selective factors. It would be like judging wearing kevlar
| vests as good protection from cancer and heart disease
| because after you empty a revolver of hollow points into
| every fifty year old subject's chests the ones wearing
| kevlar lived the longest.
| csee wrote:
| "For the majority of human existencr the diet which
| helped survival the most was high calorie because it
| meant they weren't starving."
|
| So? That doesn't change the fact that our bodies were
| optimized around the macro and micro nutrients inside the
| foods that our ancestors ate.
|
| Just like how our bodies were optimized to extract
| vitamin D from the abundant sunlignt, and to get benefits
| from physical activity. "Paleo is dumb
| because it ignores all other greater selective factors"
|
| What does this mean? What other selective factors?
| "It would be like judging wearing kevlar vests as good
| protection from cancer and heart disease because after
| you empty a revolver of hollow points into every fifty
| year old subject's chests the ones wearing kevlar lived
| the longest."
|
| Just explain the reason itself. I don't understand this
| analogy.
| refurb wrote:
| As someone who has published in scientific journals, you'd be
| surprised how subjective things get at the bleeding edge when
| there _isn't hard data_ to prove things one way or another.
|
| A good example might be Covid vaccines. Do they elicit an immune
| response? Yes! Do they prevent severe disease? Yes! Do they
| prevent transmission? Data suggests they do. How long does that
| effect last for? Seems to be 6 months, maybe 9 months. What
| impact does the Delta virus have? Vaccines are still effective,
| but less so, but not 100% sure about transmission risk or
| longevity of immune response.
|
| There is "based on all known data, we strongly believe X" and
| there is "data proves X is true". Those aren't the same thing.
| tgbugs wrote:
| A recent related discussion
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29084104.
| bluefox wrote:
| It's not just science, but also technology and other areas of
| research. Bigco throws money at some technological choices (think
| programming languages, or methods of machine learning, or fields
| like distributed computing, cryptography), and academia follows
| to dance at that pole. As a result, research becomes synonymous
| with advancing current industry choices, and all alternatives
| become obscure, even undignified.
| mannanj wrote:
| I'd love to know how the vaccine industry for COVID-19 vaccines
| has peddled the research in the last 2 years or so. Have they
| done the same thing for generic drugs like Ivermectin,
| hydroxychloroquine, Monoclonal Antibodies ("More research is
| needed")?
|
| I'd imagine it wouldn't be difficult to see which trade
| organizations were involved in which papers that circulated
| recently around these drugs.
|
| Before COVID-19 these were touted as the most safe drugs, with a
| very small history of death or complications.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Exactly my thought when I read this pull quote: _If you don't
| like the science that's out there, create some of your own. And
| then claim "we need more research." And then label your
| opposition as a bunch of close-minded fanatics._
| jabthedang wrote:
| Dang, there seems to be some vaccine hesitant dangerous
| misinforming talk in the parent comment: please deal with this
| asap!
|
| We all know that Pfizer and the other pharma corps are just
| _helping_ us out of the _kindness_ of their hearts, are super
| _trustworthy_ and even so virtuous as to be _heroes_!!
|
| They learned from the scandal of big tobacco that crime doesn't
| pay and that it's better to be honest instead of doubling down
| on lobbying & propaganda.
|
| They even sponsor news that relates to their products. And now
| they're coming out with a pill that has nothing in common with
| Ivermectin and supposedly gets much better results! Yay!!
| vzcx wrote:
| It's foolish to think it's just about money and industry.
|
| I mean, yes, be very skeptical of publications that justify an
| outcome their funders' wanted. But why should that stop at
| industry? Should we be so naive as to think that all the other
| science funders and fundees up to and including NSF itself don't
| have their own "agendas", not necessarily aligned at all with
| figuring out what's true and what's not?
|
| Top of the agenda of all institutions is to survive, and second
| is to grow. In industry, that means making more money and making
| it more efficiently. In academia? Here our currency is "impact".
| In government? Here our currency is "power". "Impact" is really
| just another word for power.
|
| The desire for power, for relevance, and for status are just as
| potent, and just as corrupt when compared to what you might
| consider an "ideal science", one whose practitioners are
| motivated by something like "curiosity." How much has our Science
| been influenced from these directions? It's a disturbing
| question, right?
|
| I mean, can you even imagine _that_ article? "How Scientists
| Weaponize Science to Create Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones and
| Serve Their Agenda (moar sinecures and grant money)". "How
| Bureaucracy Weaponizes Science and Sows Compliance to Serve Their
| Agenda (moar sinecures, bigger slice of the budget pie)". Seems
| crazy, right?
|
| But is it? A Minister of Truth is a bureaucrat with a
| bureaucrat's salary, and has no real interest in "profits" beyond
| holding onto his position and advancing in the ranks. Such an
| organization is basically outside the realm of the market and
| profit-motives, and yet, would you trust such a ministry to
| produce good science? If not, why not?
|
| Of course, we do not have an official ministry of truth, but if
| you adjust the telescope lens to bring into focus the
| constellation of universities, government agencies and other
| funding apparatus, it is rather difficult for me to distinguish
| what we do have from that one unified ministry. "They're the same
| picture." The org-chart is just more complicated.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is a shell game that masks motivations rather than
| revealing them.
|
| If what you're saying is that the same corrupting influences
| from industry act on governments, then that's obviously true.
| If you're saying that the corruption of government emanates
| from somewhere other than the interests of business (or rather,
| the owners of business), I'd almost accuse you of dualism.
|
| Grants, budgets, and sinecures are also handed out by the
| owners of industry/finance using the _tool_ of government.
| Following the money always leads to the same place.
|
| edit: all we can do is attack corruption loudly and
| specifically when we see it, and trust nothing until we have
| to. The result of that is anti-vax and a return to flat-
| eartherism, but what can you expect from a system that
| prioritizes the desires of tiny elites over truth?
| LNSY wrote:
| Obligatory reference to "Seeing Like a State". We are in a
| similar situation to Russia in the 1930's -- an ideological chasm
| where recognizing science and reality disrupts the order of
| society. We are careening into the ditch.
|
| Mammon then Famine.
| seneca wrote:
| Dead on. So much "research" is modern western Lysenkoism,
| accompanied by endless demands to "listen to the science".
|
| Corrupting science, whether for political or financial gain, is
| existentially threatening, but seems incredibly popular.
| cronix wrote:
| And labeling people as conspiracy theorists if they dare
| question it, even if they are in a position to do so. A lot
| of people will just start self-censoring and not bring up the
| questions. It takes someone with impeccable credentials,
| integrity and enough FU money to rise above that, and we
| don't seem to have many of those left. They know if you
| google their name and articles with "conspiracy theorist"
| come up that they are basically blacklisted from their
| industry, which is too big of a risk for most to navigate.
| macawfish wrote:
| This just reminds me of the lack of popular, informed, critical,
| literate conversation about the risks (privacy risks and others)
| of widespread, centralized mm-wave cell networks. It's an awful
| taboo. People think you're spouting conspiracy theories when you
| link to published, peer reviewed papers that lay it all out. Or
| worse, industry whitepapers that literally spell out surveillance
| applications will get perceived as conspiratorial
| pseudoscientific nonsense. In the name of science.
|
| It's a sick inversion of the conspiracy theory dynamic. In the
| mm-wave cell network case, industries, governments and academics
| are spelling out the plan and implementing it in broad daylight.
|
| But if you speak critically of the plan, you don't know what
| you're talking about because you're no science expert. Well and
| even if you have a PhD in science, it's in the wrong field so you
| must be crazy.
|
| Anyhow, a lot of the most interesting stuff gets relegated to the
| fringes, especially when it has the potential to stir up dominant
| social or political perspectives.
|
| It's gaslighting by orthodoxy.
| Anthony-G wrote:
| I know nothing about this issue: I had to look up
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency to learn
| what mm-wave electromagnetic radiation is.
|
| Other than attenuation caused by rain-drop scattering and
| atmospheric absorption, I couldn't find much information about
| the downsides of using EHF EMR in the context of cell networks.
| Can you recommend any good summaries of developments in this
| area and its associated risks (privacy or otherwise)?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| yes agree - product liability is the "third rail" of public
| science in Western markets IMHO
| [deleted]
| buitreVirtual wrote:
| Fake or misleading science these days is used not only for
| commercial purposes, but also to advance agendas such as those of
| anti-vaxxers. Just take a look at the hydroxychloroquine and
| ivermectin crazes.
| mannanj wrote:
| Is it not used by Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J in these cases to
| peddle a more profitable vaccine over alternative generic drugs
| (such as Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Monoclonal Antibodies,
| etc)?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Monoclonal antibodies like Regeneron are typically _not_
| generic yet, and are substantially _more_ profitable than the
| vaccines... so, no.
|
| (Regeneron costs $2,100/dose. The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines
| cost around $20.)
| clarge1120 wrote:
| Yes, of course it is: follow the money. Unfortunately, Big
| Pharma is favored right now because they provide a big
| solution to an enormous problem. But, that doesn't make them
| immune from the corruption that follows from greed.
|
| When it comes to COVID vaccines, anything that casts doubt on
| the need for them is verboten. Try stating that COVID, at 99%
| recoverability, is not dangerous enough for a mandatory
| vaccination, and watch your future prospects dry up.
| Vapormac wrote:
| I'm not sure if that's true. But I'm willing to assume
| COVID has a 99% recover-ability rate. Don't other diseases
| have a 99% recover-ability rate and we still vaccinate for
| them? Shouldn't we vaccine against a disease that is lethal
| regardless of the statistical trend?
|
| Also, like the usual stats stuff that get misrepresented
| all the time, the mortality rate of COVID isn't <1%. Unless
| you're talking about a SPECIFIC type of COVID mortality
| measurement, it's higher than 1%.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid <- Source
| mannanj wrote:
| Also your question is phrased in such a way that it
| implies the only answer to a disease is vaccination.
|
| There is a huge body of evidence on viruses that methods
| besides vaccines also work. Vaccines aren't the only
| answer. In fact, this is the only time in science we've
| said "Vaccines are the only answer, forget everything
| else we know about protecting the body from viruses"
| (zinc, sunlight, anti-virals, general healthy behavior)
| skulk wrote:
| Are you forgetting about the guidelines around social
| distancing, masking, hand washing, not congregating
| around stale air? They haven't gone anywhere since
| vaccines became mainstream. It seems you're deliberately
| ignoring all of those efforts to make your argument.
| mannanj wrote:
| I would add that "shouldn't we _protect_ against a
| disease that is lethal regardless of the statistical
| trend? "
|
| There are many ways to protect the body from this viral
| disease. Most of them get no light of day. Zinc, diet,
| sun exposure, exercise. There seems to be a negative bias
| against discussing these, making studying them even
| harder. COVID-19 Vaccines seem to not have this issue.
| Why?
|
| Generic drugs too seem to have an affect on the disease,
| but don't get the proper funding or get exposure in a way
| that is free from the conflict of interest that pushes
| alternative more profitable treatments.
| skulk wrote:
| So your point is that if you say really stupid things in
| public, people will stop wanting to associate with you?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| A lot of that winds up being commercial purposes if you dig
| down far enough. Antivax sites like Natural News are often also
| selling things like dietary supplements. Some of the big
| pushers of alternative COVID treatments make bank off the
| telemedicine appointments to get a prescription for them, too.
| https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ivermectin-demand-dri...
| simion314 wrote:
| What I do not understand from this conspiracies is why do
| "big pharma reason" also applies for China,India, Russia - I
| am sure China would prefer to have their citizens healthy and
| working so they would not suppress the miracle of some
| wonder-plant/pill/exercise to make rich some western
| companies and destroy their national economy.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Because it isn't rational reasoning (pardon the
| redundancy), but emotionally self-serving.
|
| It is like the other conspiracy theory "car that runs on
| water that big oil and their government cronies are keeping
| down". It gives them a bogeyman, a miracle solution, and a
| simple ordered view of the world.
|
| Think about it for half a second and how preposterously
| useful the water engine would be to governments if it
| existed. The military logistics of naval ships not having
| fuel tank but taking in water is just the start.
| ThaJay wrote:
| China has big pharma too and they pivoted from
| authoritarian socialism to authoritarian capitalism,
| they're just making money now and don't care about their
| poor any more.
| simion314 wrote:
| >China has big pharma too
|
| Why do you say this? anything I can read about ? From
| what I see in the news the government makes a plan for
| the future and executes it, it does not care about some
| billionaires or some company.
|
| China does not need to create a convoluted scheme to pump
| money into some company, so it makes no sense. They could
| just give the population the miracle medicine/plant stuff
| and then write a contract for the big pharma for some
| vitamins that will be mandatory.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Anti-vaxxers don't have an agenda, they have fear and anger.
| People selling products or trying to get votes have the agenda.
| yehosef wrote:
| This.
|
| Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of
| money, you should look more carefully. It doesn't mean that the
| science has been bent or broken, but it's a warning sign.
|
| I think it should be clear that now more than ever that big
| corporations have the "means" to influence politicians, media,
| scientists and the general public in fantastic and dreadfully
| successful ways. If this influence will result in their profit,
| you have the "motive".
|
| How to unwind this mess is a bit more or a puzzle - looking for
| solutions.
| api wrote:
| I'd broaden this to: any time science seems to strongly support
| money _or power_.
|
| Governments are large corporations with a monopoly on force.
|
| Again it doesn't prove the science is wrong, but it should
| cause you to put your skeptic hat on and take a deeper look.
|
| Assuming the science is not wrong, keep in mind that the
| _framing_ could be questionable or if there 's a problem there
| may be solutions that are not being discussed because they do
| not benefit money or power.
| hhs wrote:
| > Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot
| of money, you should look more carefully.
|
| Near the end of this conversation piece, that point is noted:
|
| "The CTR [Council for Tobacco Research] would say, "Publish
| whatever you want." But the bias was built in to the selection
| of problems in the first place. And that's a general principle
| that historians and philosophers need to pay more attention to:
| Problem selection and funding shape what kind of science gets
| done. One of the more general points about agnotology is that
| there are infinitely many things you might know, and that
| whatever in fact becomes known is only a tiny sliver of what
| might be known -- infinitesimal really. What this means is that
| when you're shining a light on something, almost everything
| else remains in the dark. And sometimes that darkness is
| deliberately kept dark; the darkness itself may be created,
| maintained, exaggerated, inflated, and reinforced, sometimes
| even by the very power of the light itself (think flashy fish
| lures or Donald Trump). I think there's an assumption in a lot
| of thinking about science that there is some finite quantum of
| knowledge humans might acquire. Maybe we'll never get it all,
| but at least we're moving forward, vanquishing the darkness.
| But darkness has many friends, and often deep pockets as well.
| And darkness can easily grow as fast as (or faster than) the
| light. So it's much more a constructive or organic metaphor
| that we need."
| gorwell wrote:
| > If this influence will result in their profit, you have the
| "motive".
|
| Case in point: The pharmaceutical industry.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot
| of money, you should look more carefully.
|
| Is there anything, any issue, that doesn't involve large
| corporations making lots of money? If we second-guess science
| just because it profits some corporation with a product to sell
| then we won't ever get around to making real changes.
| California just halted sales of small IC engine (leave blowers
| and the like). That's a boon for all sorts of battery makers.
| But it is still a small step in the right direction.
| xxpor wrote:
| Who was funding the physicists and chemists in the extremely
| productive 1880-1940 era? I know it was universities, but who
| was funding them? Genuinely have no idea how things worked
| back then, especially in Europe.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Industry was funding most of them, not universities.
| Because they were interested in all of the various
| applications to metallurgy, design of engines, new
| compounds and medicines, etc. To the degree that the public
| funded research, it was military labs and industries
| contracted by the military.
|
| The idea of universities funding basic research really took
| off in the postwar era when we funneled trillions of
| dollars into universities, massively expanding them and
| reshaping them. Prior to that, universities were much
| smaller and did not have a substantial body of faculty
| doing research, they focused on education and training. In
| modern universities, the faculty focuses on research and
| teaching is done by teaching assistants and non-tenured
| faculty, often working on short term contracts. That is all
| a consequence of the flood of government grants unleashed
| after the 1940s. Prior to the 1940s, most research was done
| by private enterprise or the military.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I think the biggest takeaway here is not for society as a
| whole, nor for those involved in "science" directly, but for
| the individuals, families, tribes, small communities, and
| caretakers.
|
| Progress is inevitable, and so is the damage from it.
|
| This article is a guide on how to stay out of the way and
| avoid being trampled by its wheels.
| lovethyenemy wrote:
| >Is there anything, any issue, that doesn't involve large
| corporations making lots of money?
|
| Preventative health practices, especially those utilizing
| simple, unpatentable, natural tools and techniques.
| laurent92 wrote:
| "Modernity" is the definition of driving society through
| rationality, ie science.
|
| So, whoever can drive science, can drive politics and consumer
| choices. Politicians, lobbies and companies have understood it
| long ago. So, there is such a pressure on "science" to deliver
| some results, that the processes cave and give in to influence,
| at least by the simple fact that one side is funded and the
| other not.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| I would extend this: any time "science" supports large shifts
| in wealth and/or power, careful examination is required.
|
| Not just the corporate world but also the political world has a
| "checkered" history in relation to utilizing science.
| yehosef wrote:
| good point.
| WhompingWindows wrote:
| Where is the line between objective science and subjective
| science? Is the work truly science if it is funded and heavily
| motivated by industry to increase the industry's profits? Or is
| it advertising and marketing masquerading as science, cloaking
| itself in claims of objectivity, when only we educated folk know
| to follow the money and the affiliations?
|
| If science is a set of methods and tools to discover truth, it
| does make sense that there are self-interested "parasites" which
| feed off this reputation for their own ends. Sadly, it does seem
| these parasites are bad for us: smoking, sugar,
| hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, low-fat diet lies, not to mention
| cottage industries of fake internet reviews, bots, trolls, paid
| shills, who go on forums and social media to sell their snake
| oil.
| kansface wrote:
| > If science is a set of methods and tools to discover truth
|
| Science, as practiced, is a process that consumes dollars and
| PhDs and outputs peer reviewed papers.
| fallingknife wrote:
| If that's the line, then there can be no objective science, as
| all funding organizations have motives beyond curiosity.
| praptak wrote:
| Isn't it the perfect solution fallacy?
|
| Take a government funding basic research, with some hope
| there will be profit from this. Take an industry which
| damages public health and funds lies to cover this up.
|
| Both have motives beyond curiosity, yet I think that there is
| at least a chance that the government-funded research is
| objective.
| wpietri wrote:
| If you take it too far, sure. But I'd suggest that the
| notion of "objective" is itself the idea taken too far.
|
| In practice, we all have material interests in the world. I
| think it's much more useful to think of "objective" not as
| a binary or a destination that one arrives at. But more a
| direction, like "up", that one moves in.
| jes wrote:
| I think David Deutsch has suggested that to be objective
| is to be sincere in identifying and correcting errors in
| one's analysis.
| wpietri wrote:
| I'm for that, but it's a very subjective definition of
| objectivity.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Well yeah, but industry has funded basic research with some
| hope there will be profit, and governments have damaged
| public health and lied to cover it up, so they're basically
| the same unless you happen to know the motive in a given
| case.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I sincerely believe the fact that English lacks a distinction
| between what you mentioned as 'objective' and 'subjective'
| science is part of the reason why we are in this mess. Science
| is not a monolith and while we have concepts like validity we
| lack the distinction between science which is likely to change
| (diet/nutrition, [xyz] reduces risk of cancer, most psychology
| research, etc.) and science which is _basically_ law, like
| kinematics, chemistry, meteorology, etc.
|
| I'm actually struggling to articulate the concept simply
| because I lack the ability to cleanly categorize these things.
| To put it another way, a study published in an Evolutionary
| Psychology Journal is not as 'true' as Evolution itself.
| Despite this, the study benefits from all the clout established
| by the broader field.
| pjc50 wrote:
| You can't embed this in language because it's fundamentally a
| contingent property, not intrinsic to the statements
| themselves. You end up with inadequate words like "settled"
| science.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I hate to beg the question, but what's stopping us from
| creating new terminology ourselves? English is malleable
| and I've witnessed new categories and distinctions spring
| up in my lifetime. For instance, 'cis' for gender identity
| matching biological sex. Growing up I never had a word for
| that concept and I don't think academia adopted the term
| until relatively recently.
| andi999 wrote:
| Well, lines are fuzzy, at least on one side I would say: if
| the science has matured enough to be used in engineering it
| is objective. That doesn't mean evolution is not.
| aniro wrote:
| English does not lack this distinction.
|
| "Hard Sciences" refers to scientific inquiry that is
| empirical in nature and has results that can be reproduced
| and confirmed independently. eg: most physics and chemistry
|
| "Soft Science" refers to the rest. eg: psychology
| ksdale wrote:
| These categories exist, but parent's main example was
| diet/nutrition, which _should_ fit into the hard science
| bucket because it 's chemistry/biology, but currently
| involves a lot of soft science-y type studies because it's
| got so many moving parts.
|
| I'm not sure making a distinction like that is particularly
| useful, in any case. I think perhaps that people who have
| studied a lot of science can already make the distinction
| fairly easily, and having phrases like hard and soft
| science just serves to create assumptions where they
| needn't exist.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Some would group biology into a soft science because the
| margins for error must be relaxed or softened; one cannot
| eliminate potentially confounding factors from a
| biological experiment because each organism is unique and
| fractally complex.
|
| Another categorization is the "natural sciences" and the
| "social sciences". Natural science is often split into
| "life science" and "physical science", again because
| biology is difficult.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I also wonder if we can take it a step further and apply
| a sort of "instance" versus "principle" science.
| 'Instance Science' is composed of studies that are trying
| to observe or experiment with something that is heavily
| influenced by uncontrollable variables and is highly
| likely to change. In some sense, the results are more
| like a snapshot in time than a durably reproducible
| phenomenon. What we typically call "soft science" and all
| those studies facing a reproducibility crisis fall into
| this bucket. Instance Science maps poorly onto "the real
| world".
|
| Contrast that with 'Principle Science' in which studies
| are not affected by nearly as many uncontrollable
| variables and is more closely related to demonstrable
| cause-and-effect phenomena. The best examples are
| chemistry and physics. Biology is tricky to categorize in
| this because I see elements of both in it. For instance,
| a study investigating whether or not taking an increased
| dose of Vitamin B helps energy would most certainly
| belong in Instance Science, but the underlying mechanism
| of how Vitamin B is involved in the Krebs Cycle is
| Principle Science.
|
| This idea is still in it's infancy and I'm curious to
| know people's thoughts on this distinction I'm trying to
| elaborate on.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Nutrition isn't a "hard science" because people digest
| food differently, and that varies over time. We adapt.
| Your first week of a bean diet will be harsh but after
| the 3rd year you're probably ok. or dead. Some people
| wouldn't ever adapt to it.
|
| There's "hard science" there but to throw a rope around
| the whole field is more of an exercise in faith, that
| there is One True Diet for All People.
| quantified wrote:
| Not at all. Adequate science would tease out all the
| suitable variables for each individual's diet at any time
| and situation for their stage of life. Which will include
| the details of current internal biome, current
| infections, medical history of their digestive and other
| organ systems, metabolism cycles, and many more things.
| And for which outcome where outcomes compete: cancer
| likelihood, bone health, sperm count, mental dexterity,
| fat content, etc.
|
| The fact that there are too many variables and that it's
| overly challenging to adequately measure them, coupled
| with challenges in studying people (ethics, self-
| assessment blind spots, laws against various options)
| makes nutrituon a squishy science, neither soft (people
| stuff like economics or psych) nor hard.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Like weather forecasting but worse. Nicely put. "oobleck
| science" on this continuum perhaps.
| ksdale wrote:
| Does the fact that people digest food differently make a
| difference? I feel like the way food is digested is
| "knowable" in a way that physics is knowable, we just
| don't have adequate tools to measure all the complexity
| yet. As opposed to lots of things about sociology being
| "unknowable," like Asimov's Foundation being fantasy
| (probably).
|
| In any case, I was attempting to make the point that hard
| science and soft science are _anything_ but settled
| categories, which seems borne out by the responses.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| > I'm actually struggling to articulate the concept simply
| because I lack the ability to cleanly categorize these
| things.
|
| not sure if that categorization is possible.
|
| > Despite this, the study benefits from all the clout
| established by the broader field.
|
| here an example of AI and tech mumo-jumbo co-opted by
| psychologists and sold as "fact" to an audience of
| psychologists (I stumbled over this today while browsing the
| Psychology section of Springer):
|
| _" Chatbots to Support Mental Wellbeing of People Living in
| Rural Areas"_
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41347-021-00222-6
|
| >> Gamification could be used within the chatbot to increase
| user engagement and retention. Content within the chatbot
| could include validated mental health scales and appropriate
| response triggers, such as signposting to external resources
| should the user disclose potentially harmful information or
| suicidal intent. Overall, the workshop participants
| identified user needs which can be transformed into chatbot
| requirements.
|
| >> In addition to supporting those with mental ill health,
| digital technologies are also considered to have potential
| for preventing mental health problems and for improving the
| overall mental health of the population
|
| >> Further research is necessary to try to equip chatbots
| with an understanding of emotion-based conversation and
| appropriate empathic responses, to adjust their personality
| and mimic emotions
|
| a classic example because it even ignores that there is
| little to no research within psychology about the effects of
| when we condition vulnerable groups to pour emotions into
| these robotic " _empathy sinks_ ".
| dmos62 wrote:
| Ultimate truth discovery is the ideal, but in reality all
| science is biased or follows trends to some extent. Scientists
| aren't less susceptible to faults than the rest of us.
| BarryMilo wrote:
| The reproduction crisis goes to show that objective science
| is much more myth than reality. Most people need the money,
| therefore they need the grants.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| So much more objective science and thus progress needs
| tenure and randomized first grants?
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| I get nervous every time I see the word "weaponize" in an
| article.
|
| It is usually talking about some neutral tool (like science or
| speech or encryption or the Internet) and complaining that people
| they don't like are using it in a way they don't like.
|
| The biggest epistemological advantage of science is that it is
| self-correcting even in the face of biased scientists.
| Suppression of science or only allowing science to be used or
| funded certain ways is self-defeating.
| clarge1120 wrote:
| I honestly don't understand why this is being downvoted. Anyone
| care to offer an objective reason?
| wpietri wrote:
| It's not self-defeating at all. The record clearly shows that
| rich companies delayed a science-based reckoning for _decades_
| , profiting greatly even though others were harmed and killed.
| The executives behind that strategy got more money and often
| retired happy. The "scientists" doing the shoddy science also
| got what they wanted.
|
| Did some of the issues eventually get settled on the side of
| truth? Sure, but with how much additional misery and how many
| graves? And how much time did actual scientists have to waste
| proving something wasn't every really in question?
|
| But we know the game goes on. And even if science statistically
| gets there in the end, there's no particular reason to think it
| gets there for absolutely every issue in a timeframe that
| matters.
| _jal wrote:
| > Suppression of science [...] is self-defeating.
|
| That depends on what your goals are, doesn't it?
|
| If you were a tobacco exec in the 90s seeking a golden
| parachute, I rather suspect it was highly successful.
| titzer wrote:
| > it is self-correcting
|
| Unfortunately we can't reverse environmental disasters,
| poisoning, cancer, and death, so we really need to be proactive
| on some things.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| This is appeal to fear, a logical fallacy.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| I don't see any real problem with that usage. It seems like the
| right way to express that a neutral tool is being used to cause
| harm -- that is, as a weapon. For example, if you complained
| that my eight year-old is weaponizing a hammer, you'd be a)
| probably right, and b) correctly expressing that he's using it
| in a way that's likely to cause harm.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| all tools are neutral, but when put into the hands of a person
| they're going to be used for a purpose, and that purpose often
| has moral implications.
|
| The scientific process is self-correcting, but it also doesn't
| exist in a vacuum. As they say, science progresses one funeral
| at a time.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| In case you too can't actually read the graphic at the top of the
| paper:
|
| https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement_to_Cigarett...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement#/media/File:...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-09 23:02 UTC)