Support NeoGAF

[DiddyKongRacing69]

Why Are Gamers So Much Better Than Scientists at Catching Fraud?

A pair of recent cheating scandals—one in the “speedrunning” community of gamers, and one in medical research—call attention to an alarming contrast.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Krappadizzle]

Most people care MORE about their hobbies than they do their job and unless something is a extremely questionable or creates an inconvenience, most people will just go with the status quo.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Probably because one is an entire field of research, theory and principles that itself is based on conjecture and malleable knowledge that doesn't scorn alterations or revisions and one is a hobby where manchildren spike controllers in a cleared out Hastings on a Saturday afternoon because they missed their shot to win $500 and get DM's from fifteen year old questionably Asian "girls," who caught the Twitch stream?

 

[SLB1904]

Lmfao

 

[TrueLegend]

 

[Punished Miku]

That was a really enjoyable article lol. That Minecraft paper is amazing. Never heard about it.

 

[Burger]

1 - If you are performing scientific analysis, are you not a scientist?
2 - Gamers have a lot of spare time on their hands. Scientists have jobs.

 

[HarryKS]

Wait until you hear about the SEC.

 

[.Pennywise]

Didn't read the article so I don't know what we are talking about.

But just for the title. Maybe because gamers are composed of more young people with tons of free time?

 

[Gargauth]

Well if in-game chat is of any indication I think gamers have way too high false-positive ratio, as they are calling anyone that is better than them, a cheater.

 

[truth777]

Because a fair amount of scientists are basically just smart actors who depend on grants to eat. If you publish the desired material, the grant is renewed. If not, you starve.

I.E. Several decades ago, the sugar industry paid scientists to publish lots of doom reports on the dangers of fats only for the purpose of taking the heat off the dangers of sugar.

 

[Taxexemption]

Science is a religion. Scientists don't do science. They just attend classes and agree with the consensus in their community.


Personally I think many of the "miracles" of science have been fakes. We have a new class of priests, and everyone thinks their magic is real, when it's not.


No matter how good you are at math or analysis if you question long established dogma in the scientific community you will not be taken seriously. To be a "scientist" is to simply subscribe to the popular opinions in their community.

 

[Halo is Back]

Because scientists have better things to do than to waste time on speedrunning gamers. Furthermore, the scientific research culture promotes P-hacking/ fabrication of data because the scientific community rewards publications that report on significant results.


It's like if I ran a study on the effects of social media addiction on our mental health. Now Imagine my data shows no significant correlation or causation. That will likely not get much attention and I would make way less money and gain way less academic acknowledgment for my career.

 

[poppabk]

Science is a religion. Scientists don't do science. They just attend classes and agree with the consensus in their community.


Personally I think many of the "miracles" of science have been fakes. We have a new class of priests, and everyone thinks their magic is real, when it's not.


No matter how good you are at math or analysis if you question long established dogma in the scientific community you will not be taken seriously. To be a "scientist" is to simply subscribe to the popular opinions in their community.

Yeah have you seen a 'passenger jet'? And they try and convince you one of those things can fly. Every time I go against the consensus and point out that there is no way to ever flap the wings fast enough I get ridiculed.

 

[synchronicity]

Science is a religion. Scientists don't do science. They just attend classes and agree with the consensus in their community.


Personally I think many of the "miracles" of science have been fakes. We have a new class of priests, and everyone thinks their magic is real, when it's not.


No matter how good you are at math or analysis if you question long established dogma in the scientific community you will not be taken seriously. To be a "scientist" is to simply subscribe to the popular opinions in their community.

Yeah, all "systems" of thought and/or belief eventually become fairly closed and dogmatic. It's the very nature of defining a "thing" to limit its borders and influence. You can place yourself in those box(es) or you can be free. Praise be! I'm free!

 

[Taxexemption]

Yeah have you seen a 'passenger jet'? And they try and convince you one of those things can fly. Every time I go against the consensus and point out that there is no way to ever flap the wings fast enough I get ridiculed.

Yeah, just make jokes and assume that people can't deeply study an issue and disagree with the consensus. Scientists mock their own community, what's the phrase, "academia advances one funeral at a time?"


One experience I had in college, was a professor saying "People would be interested in knowing about X. We do study it, but we don't publish anything because of the political ramifications. We think it would deeply upset people if we published a study telling them more about X."


Another professor said that the sea level won't be rising anywhere near what was being predicted at the time, and the reason why was that all of the studies/estimates that look into this don't take into account that while ice caps might melt causing additional water to go into the sea, there is an unknown amount of that water will be pressured into fjords, and that since they aren't all mapped out this isn't something you can do a simple calculation on.


A lot of information is being presented as "scientific consensus" that a lot of actual scientists wouldn't actually say. If you talked to them in private they would give you a nuanced opinion or say something like "I'd have to look into it more," but that doesn't pay the bills. Scaremongering pays the bills, and pretending to do studies that show something that is convenient for others if you believe pays the bills.

Edit: A lot of "science" is just marketing. Remember when they were saying that smoking cigarettes was like "lifting weights" for your lungs, and 9/10 doctors preferred camel cigarettes? What about the food pyramid that says you should eat bread, rice and pasta?

Science really does advance one funeral at a time, study suggests

The death of a scientific superstar can open up a field

www.chemistryworld.com

 

[QuantumZebra]

Science is a religion. Scientists don't do science. They just attend classes and agree with the consensus in their community.


Personally I think many of the "miracles" of science have been fakes. We have a new class of priests, and everyone thinks their magic is real, when it's not.


No matter how good you are at math or analysis if you question long established dogma in the scientific community you will not be taken seriously. To be a "scientist" is to simply subscribe to the popular opinions in their community.

I'm not sure where to begin with this.

You realize scientists don't just waltz out of a factory right? You have to go through years of education and research and specialization in a field to become a "scientist" in it.

The generalization is making my head hurt.

 

[Taxexemption]

I'm not sure where to begin with this.

You realize scientists don't just waltz out of a factory right? You have to go through years of education and research and specialization in a field to become a "scientist" in it.

The generalization is making my head hurt.

You realize that if you don't conform to the consensus you will be gatekeeped out of any good jobs in your field if they aren't able to gatekeep you out of the field completely? To go through that education and research is to have the establishment of that profession give you their approval. To become a scientist you have to bow to the consensus.

 

[Pol Pot]

Science is a religion. Scientists don't do science. They just attend classes and agree with the consensus in their community.


Personally I think many of the "miracles" of science have been fakes. We have a new class of priests, and everyone thinks their magic is real, when it's not.


No matter how good you are at math or analysis if you question long established dogma in the scientific community you will not be taken seriously. To be a "scientist" is to simply subscribe to the popular opinions in their community.

Like nuclear weapons?

 

[QuantumZebra]

You realize that if you don't conform to the consensus you will be gatekeeped out of any good jobs in your field if they aren't able to gatekeep you out of the field completely? To go through that education and research is to have the establishment of that profession give you their approval. To become a scientist you have to bow to the consensus.

That's true except for literally all the most highly regarded scientists in the world then, I guess.

Name one - they all went against consensus and were laughed at. Then they became legends. Marie Curie, Galileo, Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc.

I'm not saying gatekeeping isn't an issue - but it is in every other specialized field as well (look at medical cliques)... but you're just throwing out wild generalizations and dismissing science with a post like the above.

 

[Halo is Back]

You realize that if you don't conform to the consensus you will be gatekeeped out of any good jobs in your field if they aren't able to gatekeep you out of the field completely? To go through that education and research is to have the establishment of that profession give you their approval. To become a scientist you have to bow to the consensus.

If you have a different conclusion to centuries of research and data, then it is YOUR responsibility to prove them wrong. That is how science works. Now I'm not saying the field is perfect (as I mentioned P-hacking before) but most of the greatest scientific minds challenged their former professors for groundbreaking research.

The burden is on you to prove otherwise. But hey, if I had someone tell me nuclear weapons never existed I would laugh at them too and demand hard evidence for such claims.

 

[Taxexemption]

If you have a different conclusion to centuries of research and data, then it is YOUR responsibility to prove them wrong. That is how science works. Now I'm not saying the field is perfect (as I mentioned P-hacking before) but most of the greatest scientific minds challenged their former professors for groundbreaking research.

The burden is on you to prove otherwise. But hey, if I had someone tell me nuclear weapons never existed I would laugh at them too and demand hard evidence for such claims.

People eat three meals a day, for their entire life, it's one of the subjects that is most obviously worthy of study. Yet we are finding out that we didn't know some pretty basic information about this field, or otherwise that information was inaccessible until recently. People who questioned whether or not fat might be good for you have been ridiculed by professionals my whole life. In an area that is an obvious choice for study, an area that might by vital to human progress, we know very little because of how little actual research has been done.


I don't believe in a lot of things that are commonly accepted. Frankly, I don't have time to do my own research on a lot of it, so I reason from principles, and from what I know to be true about the world. We can't be experts in everything, we don't have the time, so we rely on others. As society has progressed, there is an ever greater number of fields we cannot be an expert in, and so if the experts choose to they can successfully lie. We don't live in some super altruistic society where people have no reason to be dishonest.


When they told you Santa doesn't exist, you should never have stopped questioning. If your parents would lie to you about Santa, why wouldn't the government or other segments of society lie and give you fairytales about any number of other topics?

 

[Halo is Back]

People eat three meals a day, for their entire life, it's one of the subjects that is most obviously worthy of study. Yet we are finding out that we didn't know some pretty basic information about this field, or otherwise that information was inaccessible until recently. People who questioned whether or not fat might be good for you have been ridiculed by professionals my whole life. In an area that is an obvious choice for study, an area that might by vital to human progress, we know very little because of how little actual research has been done.


I don't believe in a lot of things that are commonly accepted. Frankly, I don't have time to do my own research on a lot of it, so I reason from principles, and from what I know to be true about the world. We can't be experts in everything, we don't have the time, so we rely on others. As society has progressed, there is an ever greater number of fields we cannot be an expert in, and so if the experts choose to they can successfully lie. We don't live in some super altruistic society where people have no reason to be dishonest.


When they told you Santa doesn't exist, you should never have stopped questioning. If your parents would lie to you about Santa, why wouldn't the government or other segments of society lie and give you fairytales about any number of other topics?

If you are too lazy/don't have enough time to do your own research then I don't know what to tell you. Don't expect anyone in the scientific field to take you seriously when you just operate on principle. The culture of P-hacking is now under a much closer microscope so it's not like the scientific field is unaware of the problem. This is why I took great pride in learning how to read a research report, not some shit article on MSM.

Learning how to properly read research papers, helps me to determine how legit the research is.

 

[Taxexemption]

If you are too lazy/don't have enough time to do your own research then I don't know what to tell you. Don't expect anyone in the scientific field to take you seriously when you just operate on principle. The culture of P-hacking is now under a much closer microscope so it's not like the scientific field is unaware of the problem. This is why I took great pride in learning how to read a research report, not some shit article on MSM.

Learning how to properly read research papers, helps me to determine how legit the research is.

The problem is not that I need the scientific field to take me seriously, it's that you take it seriously when you don't have good reason to. You have been trained to respect scientists the same way an earlier generation would have been trained to respect the clergy. The vast majority of these "scientists" are just talking heads spouting the opinions they are supposed to in between smoking weed and trying to bang nerdy girls. They don't deserve half the respect that they get.

 

[dr_octagon]

matters pertaining to videogames are of utmost import. it's about ethics in speedrunning.

 

[Konnor]

More autism

 

[T8SC]

We know who Randy Pitchford is.

 

[Pol Pot]

The problem is not that I need the scientific field to take me seriously, it's that you take it seriously when you don't have good reason to. You have been trained to respect scientists the same way an earlier generation would have been trained to respect the clergy. The vast majority of these "scientists" are just talking heads spouting the opinions they are supposed to in between smoking weed and trying to bang nerdy girls. They don't deserve half the respect that they get.

Without scientists I wouldn't be able to read this inane nonsense individually rational opinion of a free thinker.

You might be bringing me around.

 

[Mistake]

You realize that if you don't conform to the consensus you will be gatekeeped out of any good jobs in your field if they aren't able to gatekeep you out of the field completely? To go through that education and research is to have the establishment of that profession give you their approval. To become a scientist you have to bow to the consensus.

Sounds like the scientific community is full of eunuchs, at least the ones that follow the political climate. If I wasn’t able to effectively do my job, I’d fix it so I could or find a new one. It’s one of the reasons I work for myself now

 

[Taxexemption]

Without scientists I wouldn't be able to read this inane nonsense individually rational opinion of a free thinker.

You might be bringing me around.

Did peer reviewed studies in a university create reading? Or Chads in caves in between hunting, gathering, and sex?

 

[Halo is Back]

The problem is not that I need the scientific field to take me seriously, it's that you take it seriously when you don't have good reason to. You have been trained to respect scientists the same way an earlier generation would have been trained to respect the clergy. The vast majority of these "scientists" are just talking heads spouting the opinions they are supposed to in between smoking weed and trying to bang nerdy girls. They don't deserve half the respect that they get.

This is rich coming from the guy who thinks nuclear bombs don't exist. There is really nothing more I can say to you at this point.

 

[Taxexemption]

This is rich coming from the guy who thinks nuclear bombs don't exist. There is really nothing more I can say to you at this point.

I know you think it's funny, but have you ever seriously considered how you know whether or not they exist? Why hasn't there been a nuclear war? Why do powerful countries saber rattle and get up in each other's business if it literally means ending all life on this planet if they start a war?


When you listen to the rhetoric of world leaders, some of them seem to be willing to risk war with a major power that could theoretically destroy all life. Either they think you can have a WW2 style war again without nukes being used, or nukes don't exist. Functionally those situations look identical. If you thought that your actions as a world leader might end all life on earth, wouldn't you basically just agree in advance "Yeah, we can never go to war with Russia, that might end life on this planet, which is not an acceptable outcome."


I'm not going to pretend like I really understand the science behind nuclear weapons. I'm going to say that the behaviors of world leaders in my opinion is inconsistent with them existing and being the way they have been described to us.

 

[Halo is Back]

I know you think it's funny, but have you ever seriously considered how you know whether or not they exist? Why hasn't there been a nuclear war? Why do powerful countries saber rattle and get up in each other's business if it literally means ending all life on this planet if they start a war?


When you listen to the rhetoric of world leaders, some of them seem to be willing to risk war with a major power that could theoretically destroy all life. Either they think you can have a WW2 style war again without nukes being used, or nukes don't exist. Functionally those situations look identical. If you thought that your actions as a world leader might end all life on earth, wouldn't you basically just agree in advance "Yeah, we can never go to war with Russia, that might end life on this planet, which is not an acceptable outcome."


I'm not going to pretend like I really understand the science behind nuclear weapons. I'm going to say that the behaviors of world leaders in my opinion is inconsistent with them existing and being the way they have been described to us.

We have a multitude of visual, mathematical, and scientific data to prove nuclear weapons exist. Why don't you look at the accounts of survivors from the bombs dropped on Japan. We already almost went to nuclear war with Russia. It was called the Cuban missile crisis.


Nuclear weapons are more of a deterrent against larger foreign powers. Once the world saw the awesome destruction of nuclear weapons, the political landscape of the world changed. You also answered your own question since we haven't been at war with a major superpower since WW2.

 

[Taxexemption]

We have a multitude of visual, mathematical, and scientific data to prove nuclear weapons exist. Why don't you look at the accounts of survivors from the bombs dropped on Japan. We already almost went to nuclear war with Russia. It was called the Cuban missile crisis.


Nuclear weapons are more of a deterrent against larger foreign powers. Once the world saw the awesome destruction of nuclear weapons, the political landscape of the world changed. You also answered your own question since we haven't been at war with a major superpower since WW2.

What are your qualifications to evaluate that evidence? Supposedly we convinced Russia to invest billions into laser technology when we tricked them into thinking we could shoot down missiles with lasers. How do you know this isn't just another Hollywood trick?" If you could trick people into believing you had weapons you didn't, that would be advantageous.


I'm looking at the rhetoric I've seen from world leaders in my lifetime, my take is they don't think nukes will ever be used. They feel free to threaten and insult each other. I don't think you would behave this way if you thought there was any chance they could be used in a war. I also don't think that the US would be as antagonistic as it is towards other powers if these weapons existed.


If we take your view that nuclear weapons exist, and we can't decide this is when we are going to be a world led by mature adults who agree to non-violent conflict resolution, in my opinion the logical answer is to become a luddite. If we can't be mature in the face of new and advanced technology, we will ultimately destroy ourselves. I can believe that nuclear weapons exist, I would come to the conclusion that technology ultimately does not improve humanity but instead makes it more efficient in doing what it already wants to do, much of which is bad.


If I believe in nuclear weapons I would think it was a moral imperative to ban scientific progress, maybe even reverse it by a few decades. I mean theoretically you think some of our tax dollars go to making doomsday weapons, and that someday we might accidentally destroy the world with one, and your hair isn't on fire trying to do something about it? The implications of my worldview is that people lie about a lot of stuff, and that it's hard to know what's really going on. The implications of your worldview is likely Armageddon, the end of the human race. Does that feel good? Does it feel good to logically know that all life on earth will probably end because we don't want to stop scientists from playing with their doomsday machines cause we might need them to end life on another continent before they end it on ours, because despite the possibility of the end of humanity we can't work together?

 

[Mistake]

I know you think it's funny, but have you ever seriously considered how you know whether or not they exist? Why hasn't there been a nuclear war? Why do powerful countries saber rattle and get up in each other's business if it literally means ending all life on this planet if they start a war?


When you listen to the rhetoric of world leaders, some of them seem to be willing to risk war with a major power that could theoretically destroy all life. Either they think you can have a WW2 style war again without nukes being used, or nukes don't exist. Functionally those situations look identical. If you thought that your actions as a world leader might end all life on earth, wouldn't you basically just agree in advance "Yeah, we can never go to war with Russia, that might end life on this planet, which is not an acceptable outcome."


I'm not going to pretend like I really understand the science behind nuclear weapons. I'm going to say that the behaviors of world leaders in my opinion is inconsistent with them existing and being the way they have been described to us.

I’ve been to this museum, and I suggest you plan yourself a trip

The Official Guide to Hiroshima - Travel and Tour Information

Hiroshima official tourism site for travelers. Hiroshima is a treasure trove of highlights and food, with two world heritage sites, Itsukushima Shrine, the Atomic Bomb Dome, many attractive spots, seafood such as Hiroshima Japanese beef and oysters, and Hiroshima. Of course, you can't miss the...

www.hiroshima-navi.or.jp

 

[Joyful]

Science is a religion. Scientists don't do science. They just attend classes and agree with the consensus in their community.


Personally I think many of the "miracles" of science have been fakes. We have a new class of priests, and everyone thinks their magic is real, when it's not.


No matter how good you are at math or analysis if you question long established dogma in the scientific community you will not be taken seriously. To be a "scientist" is to simply subscribe to the popular opinions in their community.

 

[Blade2.0]

You realize that if you don't conform to the consensus you will be gatekeeped out of any good jobs in your field if they aren't able to gatekeep you out of the field completely? To go through that education and research is to have the establishment of that profession give you their approval. To become a scientist you have to bow to the consensus.

Wait, let me guess, the bible is the one true word? Am I getting close?

 

[poppabk]

You realize that if you don't conform to the consensus you will be gatekeeped out of any good jobs in your field if they aren't able to gatekeep you out of the field completely? To go through that education and research is to have the establishment of that profession give you their approval. To become a scientist you have to bow to the consensus.

I'm a scientist and this is ridiculous.
If you mean talking head 'scientists' then maybe. But you really think that the magnetic sector guys kept pushing out the TOF and quadrupole guys out of the field. You think when someone proposed a linear trap he was black balled.
"Full coverage of a 20 mer with accurate mass - it can't be done and I'll see to it you never work in the field again just for mentioning it."

 

[Taxexemption]

I'm a scientist and this is ridiculous.
If you mean talking head 'scientists' then maybe. But you really think that the magnetic sector guys kept pushing out the TOF and quadrupole guys out of the field. You think when someone proposed a linear trap he was black balled.
"Full coverage of a 20 mer with accurate mass - it can't be done and I'll see to it you never work in the field again just for mentioning it."

I think the more physics and math based it is, the more likely it is that actual science is going on. When it comes to any field that has more to do with human behavior there are political considerations and narratives that people want to tell that ends up overriding any actual science.

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Blade2.0]

I'm a scientist and this is ridiculous.
If you mean talking head 'scientists' then maybe. But you really think that the magnetic sector guys kept pushing out the TOF and quadrupole guys out of the field. You think when someone proposed a linear trap he was black balled.
"Full coverage of a 20 mer with accurate mass - it can't be done and I'll see to it you never work in the field again just for mentioning it."

Look, I have no idea what TOF or quadrupole is and a linear trap is a pothole in the road, but my book from sheep herders 2k years ago says you're a bitch.

 

[Halo is Back]

I think the more physics and math based it is, the more likely it is that actual science is going on. When it comes to any field that has more to do with human behavior there are political considerations and narratives that people want to tell that ends up overriding any actual science.

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

good thing nuclear scientist and physicist who developed that fake nuclear bomb meet your criteria of "real scientist".

 

[Taxexemption]

Look, I have no idea what TOF or quadrupole is and a linear trap is a pothole in the road, but my book from sheep herders 2k years ago says you're a bitch.

Honestly if scientists are going to invent nuclear weapons and mess around with doomsday devices they are bitches. I think we need an international movement to stuff all the physicists and nuclear scientists into lockers. We need to lurn them real gud.

 

[Blade2.0]

Honestly if scientists are going to invent nuclear weapons and mess around with doomsday devices they are bitches. I think we need an international movement to stuff all the physicists and nuclear scientists into lockers. We need to lurn them real gud.

While I agree nuclear weapons are bad, it also paved the way for nuclear energy. One of the most efficient and cleanest (as long as something doesn't go wrong, obv.) forms of energy currently known to man. So, I'm 50/50 on it.

 

[Liljagare]

Don't google the answer.

Simple question, which region should you reinforce?

 

[tsumake]

I think the more physics and math based it is, the more likely it is that actual science is going on. When it comes to any field that has more to do with human behavior there are political considerations and narratives that people want to tell that ends up overriding any actual science.

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What gets me is how can a scientist fuck up one of the basic principles of the scientific method?

 

[QuantumZebra]

I know you think it's funny, but have you ever seriously considered how you know whether or not they exist? Why hasn't there been a nuclear war? Why do powerful countries saber rattle and get up in each other's business if it literally means ending all life on this planet if they start a war?


When you listen to the rhetoric of world leaders, some of them seem to be willing to risk war with a major power that could theoretically destroy all life. Either they think you can have a WW2 style war again without nukes being used, or nukes don't exist. Functionally those situations look identical. If you thought that your actions as a world leader might end all life on earth, wouldn't you basically just agree in advance "Yeah, we can never go to war with Russia, that might end life on this planet, which is not an acceptable outcome."


I'm not going to pretend like I really understand the science behind nuclear weapons. I'm going to say that the behaviors of world leaders in my opinion is inconsistent with them existing and being the way they have been described to us.

Holy shit you don't think nukes exist?

Have you ever spoken with a Japanese person, by chance? Or read a book?

Is the Earth flat? We can't trust scientists, after all.

 

[Hari Seldon]

good thing nuclear scientist and physicist who developed that fake nuclear bomb meet your criteria of "real scientist".

He is right about the soft sciences. They are a political shit sandwich in which credentialed people gate keep their club in between fluffing each other and not producing any actual real science.

 

[Taxexemption]

Holy shit you don't think nukes exist?

Have you ever spoken with a Japanese person, by chance? Or read a book?

Is the Earth flat? We can't trust scientists, after all.

I've read a lot of books. I had a job for a few years where I would read books and write summaries of them for people who are too lazy to read books but want to know what is in them. I've read plenty of books. I'm fairly convinced that a lot of what we believe to be real isn't, and that there is an almost endless series of lies that we all get indoctrinated into for the purpose of making us act a particular way, and to accept things the way they are. All of reality must constantly be bent, tangled, re-arranged, so that millions will continue to go to cubicle farms while their wages stay stagnant.


Alternatively, let's ask a separate question. Is it better to believe there are nukes? Do you trust that no government would ever do anything irresponsible with them? Do you trust that they won't end life on earth either accidentally or because it becomes too easy to make these weapons and the wrong people get ahold of them? A lot of people have a lot of stress when they think about this topic, you could go to that cubicle for 20 years, and then right before you retire boom, nuclear war, your dead, all of your good choices in life are now completely meaningless. It's a disempowering belief that minimizes the importance of your own personal choices.


I don't think it's good to believe in nukes, even if they exist. If they do exist, I'm confused as to why people don't want to put scientists on a short leash, they have been creating dooms day weapons after all. Maybe we should have some nerd control. Like if you get a doctorate in nuclear engineering or physics you should be in a registry, and you should be spied on constantly to make sure you don't end life on this planet.

 

[Halo is Back]

He is right about the soft sciences. They are a political shit sandwich in which credentialed people gate keep their club in between fluffing each other and not producing any actual real science.

Yea, I was kinda saying that earlier in this thread but it has to do more with money than politics. You also have to keep in mind the public figures might be more influenced by politics. I never said it was perfect and that it was important to learn how to properly read the research reports yourself. I also believe it is important to conduct replication studies to challenge the reliability of the data.

To be honest with you, social sciences are much harder to measure for tests and data analysis. It's more abstract than hard numbers like with chemistry. There are also more ethical issues related since you are dealing with human beings mostly.

 

[QSD]

I think the more physics and math based it is, the more likely it is that actual science is going on. When it comes to any field that has more to do with human behavior there are political considerations and narratives that people want to tell that ends up overriding any actual science.

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What's interesting about this is that the political considerations were introduced in part through a demand for a more 'socially conscious' science. Before say the 1980's science was seen mostly as an 'ivory tower', it cost huge amounts of money while what it produced could only be understood by a very few people and the social benefits were sometimes difficult to see. Someone like Carl Sagan was shunned by scientists for public outreach / education back in the 70ies. So when the 90ies rolled round there was a huge demand for science to have some kind of social utility. Which is why academics started writing about social issues...