TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

‘Preapproved Narratives’ Corrupt Science

80 点作者 wjb3超过 1 年前

12 条评论

tomohelix超过 1 年前
This is very common and is basically one of the &quot;ugly truth&quot; that people get to know once they start doing academic research. If you want to live, you have to get published, and to be published, you have boots to kiss. The grant agencies and the reviewers are not going to be &quot;open-minded&quot; about all topics and there are things you are basically pressured into not saying even if you know that is likely how it actually is.<p>Journals and conferences would also refuse to host your studies if they find the contents to not align with &quot;settled science&quot;, regardless of how or what the studies is actually about. And to an academic, that is potentially the end of their career once they got branded as someone too controversial to be associated with. No funding will come and no student will join. Unless they are big enough to carve out their own niche. But those are rare.
评论 #37756994 未加载
评论 #37759011 未加载
评论 #37757174 未加载
tomgp超过 1 年前
This feels short on facts high on opinion (almost like the WSJ has some pre-aproved narative!). I can&#x27;t speak to the other pieces mentioned but I think it&#x27;s worth noting that Brown&#x27;s claims about a &#x27;prefered narative&#x27; in Nature are rather undermined by some of the peer reviewers comments which encouraged him to broaden the scope of the research in precisely the way he claimed that Nature tacitly discourages.<p>A more indepth look at the claims and counter claims... <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.carbonbrief.org&#x2F;factcheck-scientists-pour-cold-water-on-claims-of-journal-bias-by-author-of-wildfires-study&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.carbonbrief.org&#x2F;factcheck-scientists-pour-cold-w...</a>
评论 #37757171 未加载
评论 #37758221 未加载
评论 #37757609 未加载
评论 #37757330 未加载
nimish超过 1 年前
Lest anyone think this is limited to &quot;soft sciences&quot; we should recall that this &quot;settled science bias&quot; happens in hard ones, too: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hsm.stackexchange.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;264&#x2F;timeline-of-measurements-of-the-electrons-charge" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hsm.stackexchange.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;264&#x2F;timeline-of-meas...</a>
mnky9800n超过 1 年前
I believe when this was published the review was also published, or at least part of it, because I recall that one of the reviewers had pointed out that he had biased his model by leaving out the stuff he left out. Which means he needed to argue why he left it out, which seemed rather duplicitous to me at the time. Feel free to correct me if I&#x27;m wrong.
评论 #37757129 未加载
评论 #37757873 未加载
评论 #37759479 未加载
umvi超过 1 年前
Maybe more generally it&#x27;s just &quot;Politics Corrupt Science&quot;?<p>I doubt &quot;preapproved narratives&quot; are plaguing fields such as niche north american spider research (but maybe so if biased gatekeepers have reputations at stake).<p>But things like covid, climate change, lgbtq issues, and soon probably ai&#x2F;ai safety are politically controversial and thus are much more susceptible to corruption.
评论 #37757956 未加载
tenkabuto超过 1 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;Yttxo" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;Yttxo</a>
bluenomatterwho超过 1 年前
&quot;This is very common&quot; seems to be a refrain this year with Harvard, Stanford and so on. Yet we have trouble accepting this is a real problem when we approach &#x27;climate change&#x27; from an emotional or political standpoint. I say this as an environmentalist who doesn&#x27;t understand why we can&#x27;t be more straightforward. Why we keep losing talented people when they can&#x27;t fix the numbers to fit the narrative? This has been a &#x27;thing&#x27; my entire life but I feel like it is reaching a crescendo, adjacent to the lack of motion in QED.
mint2超过 1 年前
“But makes cost effective and publishable news reporting, that we often use” - continued an alternate reality more open and transparent WSJ that likes to properly contextualize its stories.
johnea超过 1 年前
&gt; &quot;No doubt the editors at the New York Times and ProPublica would say the same of their own pages.&quot;<p>Of course, the WSJ would NEVER have a “a preferred narrative”.<p>And so we should really keep burning as much petro as possible, because otherwise shareholders are being stolen from!<p>And this is obviously another &quot;prefered naritive&quot;:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;health&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2023&#x2F;american-life-expectancy-dropping&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;health&#x2F;interactive&#x2F;2023&#x2F;ameri...</a><p>&quot;Forty years ago, small towns and rural regions were healthier for adults in the prime of life. The reverse is now true. Urban death rates have declined sharply, while rates outside the country’s largest metro areas flattened and then rose. Just before the pandemic, adults 35 to 64 in the most rural areas were 45 percent more likely to die each year than people in the largest urban centers.&quot;
jimwhite42超过 1 年前
I thought this was a good analysis of Patrick Brown&#x27;s claims: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=dXZUXQPqY3k">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=dXZUXQPqY3k</a>
gustavus超过 1 年前
One of the best indicators of what the results of a psychotherapy study&#x2F;experiment will be is what the scientist doing the research already believes. I doubt this is limited to simply psychotherapy.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;28&#x2F;the-control-group-is-out-of-control&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;04&#x2F;28&#x2F;the-control-group-is-o...</a>
评论 #37757188 未加载
thriftwy超过 1 年前
Very funny that it comes from WSJ, which preapproved all of these narratives in the first place.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Self-criticism_(Marxism–Leninism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Self-criticism_(Marxism–Lenini...</a>