Oof, this needs a thread. Moin argues that (contra bluskey critics) we shouldn't hold back on criticizing the state of science because no matter what we say it'll be weaponized. 1) No one is actually arguing this 2) It *most certainly* matters. - ThreadSky

jbakcoleman.bsky.social • 19 days ago

Oof, this needs a thread. Moin argues that (contra bluskey critics) we shouldn't hold back on criticizing the state of science because no matter what we say it'll be weaponized.

1) No one is actually arguing this
2) It *most certainly* matters.

Reposted from moin syed

New post! Should we hold back criticisms of scientific practices for fear that they will be weaponized by political attacks on science? Absolutely not. We need to recognize the distinction between scientific arguments and ideological arguments. getsyeducated.substack.com/p/science-re...

Comments

devezer.bsky.social•19 days ago

Yeah I have truly not seen anyone suggest that we should stop scientific criticism. I don't know whether that's a misunderstanding, an overgeneralization from some specific posts, or a straw man. But I'm used to scientific reform criticism getting reframed as an opposition to scientific criticism.

devezer.bsky.social•19 days ago

The endless "science is broken" headlines and overreaching narratives about large-scale "replication crisis" in all of science must stop ofc but for the opposite reason of what's claimed. They are not serious, rigorous, evidence-based critiques. They are unfounded propaganda fueled by moral panic.

devezer.bsky.social•19 days ago

My response to that blog title hence would be: "Science Requires Scientific Criticism to be Scientific"

markrubin.bsky.social•18 days ago

Just read something saying the reproducibility crisis is "plaguing multiple major fields of science." 😱 ☠️

devezer.bsky.social•18 days ago

Even contagious then, huh?!!

penders.bsky.social•18 days ago

An epidemic, obviously. https://bsky.app/profile/penders.bsky.social/post/3llr4pnylik2q

everydayhuman.bsky.social•18 days ago

Wait, it bacterial or virus? 🦠
Maybe it was there the whole time…like a ghost in the machine ?

jodyshenn.bsky.social•19 days ago

Think part is incentives-driven but part is just practical semantics issues around meaning getting lost in need to shorthand things.

Believe one thing is clear, though, that if you’re going to be a critic you need to need to hold self to a very high standard, and that’s not always there.

danhicks.bsky.social•18 days ago

Railing against imaginary interlocutors is a more serious QRP than p-hacking

devezer.bsky.social•18 days ago

Amen!

jbakcoleman.bsky.social•19 days ago

The more specific claim that myself and others are making is that we should clarify and accurately describe our concerns about science, not oversell them for some goal of normative change. Take @jamesheathers.bsky.social "study" indicating 1 in 7 papers are fraud.

https://tinyurl.com/3kn476y7

jbakcoleman.bsky.social•19 days ago

James calls it wildly unscientific, which is another way of saying bullshit. Glad he's honest about it, but that didn't stop it from laundering it's way into @science.org absent any of these caveats in a science story by @hollyelse.bsky.social
https://www.science.org/content/article/systematic-reviews-aim-extract-broad-conclusions-many-studies-are-peril

jbakcoleman.bsky.social•19 days ago

If you read the paper, it's basically asserting any errors in papers tell us about fraud by a lot of logical leaps. A bit like asserting UAP frequency tells us about aliens. At the end differently measured numbers of errors from very specific sampling frames are are vibed-together.

jbakcoleman.bsky.social•19 days ago

Either way, lets pause. Does this tell us anything about the reliability of research on the safety of MMR vaccines? Hubble tension? Does it suggest that we shouldn't put flouride in water?

Obviously not, but where is that clarity in "one in seven papers are false or fabricated" ?

jbakcoleman.bsky.social•19 days ago

My guess is that it was ommitted because the goal here is to raise awareness or whatever. The argument being made is that we shouldn't do unrigorous work without clarity just because it gets a point across about improving science or funding sleuths.

jbakcoleman.bsky.social•19 days ago

And the reason it matters is that it *is being weaponized*. The heritage foundation cites folks like @edyong209.bsky.social covering @cos.io in justifying cuts to science---obviously not an intended consequence of Ed's piece.

https://www.heritage.org/education/report/the-professor-racket-how-universities-could-reduce-poor-teaching-and-shoddy#_ftnref12

tagerai.bsky.social•19 days ago

Also (at least for me) the claim wasn’t ‘don’t criticize science it will help republicans’ it was ‘hey you should think about and reflect on who is massively funding the reform efforts and what their agenda is b/c that will have structural effects on the direction reform takes’

jbakcoleman.bsky.social•18 days ago

We really don’t talk enough about how reform has been funded by the same general corner or wealthy folks most prone to undermine science.

jbakcoleman.bsky.social•18 days ago

We had this conversation only when it was too obvious to ignore, and otherwise seem to just be humming along taking fossil fuel and tech money.

https://www.desmog.com/2020/02/07/dark-moneyed-denialists-fixing-science-symposium-doubt/

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply