When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on.
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha I recently heard about Radiation Hormesis, or the theory (as in scientific theory backed by data and currently under testing and review) that some radiation in your environment is actually good because it stimulates DNA repair mechanisms that also tend to catch and repair DNA damage from other causes like oxidative stress.
They badly want you to know, you can google Radiation Hormesis... But they also want you to know that the data isn't quite fully in yet.
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
-
@csolisr I've never personally experienced or even remotely heard of a funder trying to influence the results of a study (and been a scientist for about 15 years now). I'm sure it can happen but it will be a negligible minority.
@elduvelle @csolisr Influencing the results is one thing, but there is definitely a bias in funding bodies towards funding research that will show short-term economic benefit over research that will have longer-term or non-economic benefit.
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha
️ -
@arendjr @jascha I can think of no reason why a computer scientist wouldn't want you to understand quantum computers. There's furthermore plenty of stuff you can read online about them. You can dig into all the theory and learn quite a lot.
What makes you think we want to hide this knowledge from you? It's not like you can go build a quantum computer and accidentally everyone into dust or puddles of bio remnant goo.
@crazyeddie @jascha probably the same reason why native developers might not want you to learn about web development… they might fear their career is in jeopardy if another technology overtakes theirs…
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha @coral tbf, there are scientists who get secretive but it's usually when other scientists are around who are known to steal ideas and take credit. For example Watson and Crick and how they seriously screwed over Rosalind Franklin. I think if Franklin had known what would happen maybe it would have been right for her to be more cagey.
But in general, yeah. I'm not even a practicing scientist but I still remember the shape of the curve that was key to my graduate research project and will still talk about it 20 years later.
-
@anatomical_normalcy @RogerBW @jascha you don't need to debunk flat earth. It's perfectly fine, you'll just have to deal with a horrible geometry and a lot of additional assumptions to compensate for your shitty model 🧚
Aaand: as a local approximation it's killer
@gsc @anatomical_normalcy @RogerBW @jascha When I was at uni I joked about forming the locally flat earth society
-
@jascha Scientists don't want you to know about Roko's Basilisk.
-
When someone says „Scientists do not want you to know“ you can dismiss everything from there on. Scientists want you to know. They are desperate that you know. They can’t shut up about what they found out and want you to know.
@jascha that implies that they believe all scientists are somehow a hive mind or heavily centralized, both of which are wrong. It's just a projection of how they run their organization.
-
@jascha that implies that they believe all scientists are somehow a hive mind or heavily centralized, both of which are wrong. It's just a projection of how they run their organization.
@nlupo no it does not. Take a joke as a joke and do not read more in it as there is. Gosh, your post makes me hate the fediverse
-
@nlupo no it does not. Take a joke as a joke and do not read more in it as there is. Gosh, your post makes me hate the fediverse
@jascha Then I don't get your joke, but fair enough.
-
@crazyeddie @jascha probably the same reason why native developers might not want you to learn about web development… they might fear their career is in jeopardy if another technology overtakes theirs…
-
@crazyeddie @jascha haha, I’m not saying it goes for all of them, but I’ve run into plenty of such programmers in my career.
As for baseless accusations, I guess the shoe fits
-
@crazyeddie @jascha haha, I’m not saying it goes for all of them, but I’ve run into plenty of such programmers in my career.
As for baseless accusations, I guess the shoe fits
-
@jascha @coral tbf, there are scientists who get secretive but it's usually when other scientists are around who are known to steal ideas and take credit. For example Watson and Crick and how they seriously screwed over Rosalind Franklin. I think if Franklin had known what would happen maybe it would have been right for her to be more cagey.
But in general, yeah. I'm not even a practicing scientist but I still remember the shape of the curve that was key to my graduate research project and will still talk about it 20 years later.
-
@jascha
Reminds me of that jokeChild to his biologist dad:
"Dad what's an electron?"Dad: "Why don't you ask your mom, she's the physicist, electrons are her wheelworks."
Child: "But I don't want to know *that* much about it."
@CelloMomOnCars @jascha why my kid asks mom about tech stuff and history
-
@crazyeddie @jascha sure thing. Love you too
-
@jascha
There's a conspiracy theory that's been around for as long as I know; that a cure for cancer has been found, but is being kept secret because the pharmaceutical corporations have paid off the discoverer(s).
As if someone could resist the acclaim, the historical significance and the Nobel Prize. -
@coral @jascha yeah. I think part of that is also from contemporary efforts to address the "reproducibility crisis" where, partly just because almost no one understands Bayesian statistics and partly because scientists were understandably cautious of sharing their data and hypotheses, and partly because analysts were becoming bad at data handling, etc. etc., approximately 80% of published research was essentially unsubstantiated and irreproducible.
-
@GutterPoetry @jascha I have no question that there is bias. That's part of being human.
Which is where peer reviews, etc, come in.
As to specific biases that you are pointing to... I don't have specific data so I cannot comment on it.
The whole point of science, imho, it to fill in holes in our knowledge and to ask better questions.
Do you have any ideas on how to improve on the issues you perceive?
As I said, replication of biased studies with a representative study population & disregard of older biased studies. Deliberate new research ~ women & other marginalised groups. Scientists & medical staff being forced to recognise the seriousness of past & present bias, so the issues cannot be downplayed any longer - meaning oversight from a body with the power to effect change globally (punish financially). Not likely, especially in the trump (white male superiority) era.
-
T tanketom@tutoteket.no shared this topic
