A very interesting paper by Megan Stevenson which I am still reading. But it really piqued my interest since I have definitely harbored what she called an "engineer's view" that we can do sociological randomized control trials with people to test public policy.
I have a feeling this is going to trigger a lot of introspection on my thoughts about this until now...
#Journalism#ScientificJournalism#ScientificMethod: "Angwin sees that unraveling as Proof’s job, and she’s looking to science, rather than journalistic traditions, to inform the publication’s work. She wants Proof’s work to be inspired by the scientific method rather than ideas of objectivity: reporters will develop hypotheses and test them through the reporting process, building software and data sets that will be released to the public for review. Much like a published scientific paper, each story will also be accompanied by an “ingredients label” that lays out its hypothesis, sample size, reporting techniques, key findings, and limitations.
Developing a hypothesis is another term for asking questions, which is essential to all journalism, and in her letter Angwin admits that looking to science is not a new idea; Walter Lippmann, the namesake of the building that houses the Nieman Foundation, called for a scientific approach rather than chasing scoops back in 1922, and Angwin herself wrote about the idea last year.
Unlike scientists, Proof’s journalists will not be subjected to the processes like IRBs or peer reviews that have become hallmarks of modern-day scientific publishing. “It’s not realistic for journalism to [be subjected to those processes] because we are still trying to be faster than science can usually move,” Angwin said. “I see the scientific method is more of a philosophical approach, something I’m aiming toward but not aiming to achieve.” https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/03/proof-news-is-julia-angwins-attempt-to-bring-the-scientific-method-to-investigative-journalism/
COOL! The spicy article I wrote about satellite pollution is FINALLY published! "Bright satellites are disrupting astronomy research worldwide" in Nature News & Views.
This article required weeks of back-and-forth with the editor, the editor-in-chief, and Nature's lawyers, so I hope that means it's a good one.
During this process, I learned that satellite companies are so powerful and litigious that even giant publishers like Nature are terrified of getting sued. Which is...rather worrying.
More than argument, #logic is the very structure of reality
“Philosophers have sometimes fallen into that trap, thinking that logic had nothing left to discover. But it is now known that logic can never complete its task. Whatever problems logicians solve, there will always be new problems for them to tackle, which cannot be reduced to the problems already solved.” #philosophy#knowledge#scientificmethod
I’m still really flabbergasted by how ROBOTIC people sound when one challenges the special status of quantum mechanics.
They even show they don’t understand a word of what you are saying, but saying you are ‘debunking QM’, which of course you are not doing. You are, of course, proving QM correct! My proof proves QM gives the correct result!
They are like robots. The scientific authoritarians have them mind controlled somehow. It is like the ‘est’ indoctrination my mother got (but overcame).
You’ve seen that thing with Homer Simpson and the Leader Beans? That’s what has happened with people who think they are interested in #science. They are not really interested in science. They couldn’t demonstrate #ScientificMethod if their lives depended on it. They are interested in being part of the ‘in’ cult.
This is why there is such interest in ‘Atheism’ these days. It is a new quasi-religion, not actual reasoned thinking. People are joining a cult.
@MoiraEve and if I could piggyback, another great book of like intention is The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan and co-authored by Ann Druyan
I share with him #2 but, as a scientist, can't stand #1. I don't understand exactly where these voices arise, perhaps from hatred and mistrust of a bad economic system which profits from our illness. But using mistrust of a system that exploits us to further hurt us is stupid. But judging by the numbers of followers, engagements, likes, etc., he is not alone. And there may be another simpler answer...