One area I've studied pretty extensively is the history of cancer treatment. In the long story of the history of cancer treatment, it is absolutely scandalous how often the scientific consensus was wrong and persisted for years in spite of the evidence. For example, the radical mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer continued to be used for many years, leaving many women disfigured, in spite of wide evidence that it did not produce better outcomes vs more restrained breast tissue removal.

In the history of science, many of these kinds of bad ideas have persisted simply due to deference/seniority - the incentives are all stacked towards paying your dues and not challenging the status quo and absolutely not towards being right/following the actual scientific method. There is a reason the saying "Science advances one funeral at a time" exists - as Max Planck noted: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Overall it just felt like she was a hot potato and nobody wanted to put their name on *anything* outside of protocol. Even blood work. She was treated at the James Cancer Center in Ohio and we got second opinions from Cleveland Clinic and MD Anderson in New York. These are all fairly well regarded institutions in cancer treatment. I was expecting strong opinions and got hand waving and reluctance to interfere with any treatment selected by her primary oncologist. In the process of all of this i read hundreds of studies and research papers, spoke with numerous PIs, trial coordinators and industry reps. I couldn’t get any traction for anything and came away feeling a bit hopeless.

After it was all over i started making public offers of $25k as a starting point to just review her case from end to end to assess the quality of her care and determine if anything could be learned from it. The only takers I got for that were lawyers who were hoping to twist it into malpractice case, which I wasn’t interested in.

The experience left me extremely bitter about the current state of healthcare. After a while i was able to develop some empathy for the providers. They’re trapped in a system that mortgages their future with student loans and directly threatens their ability to cover with litigation and insurance. They have to stay on the rails or risk financial ruin.

So kinda like the democracy then.... the worst system, apart from all the others (paraphrased)?

I remember seeing a plot of the values over time, but my google-fu is failing me.

https://alexholcombe.medium.com/confirmation-bias-in-science...

It that the one you remember?

Most doctors are more like engineers than physicists.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-0348-9008-3_...

"Even individual fanatic scientific advocates of the Einsteinian theory seem to have finally abandoned their tactic of cutting off any discussion about it with the threat that every criticism, even the most moderate and scrupulous ones, must be discredited as an obvious effluence of stupidity and malice"

People often present science as some sort of free-floating edifice that "self corrects" through mysterious mechanisms. It doesn't. Scientists with wrong ideas have to be explicitly corrected by other people, some of whom will be random Swiss patent clerks and other outsiders. Therefore you cannot have science without free speech, because otherwise there's no way for bad ideas to be corrected. It's as simple as that. And yet, academic "scientists" are often at the forefront of demanding it be shut down.

I think COVID has demonstrated that a substantial fraction of people would still be opting for quackery instead of conventional treatment.

This also paints a too-simple picture, since there are obvious things like the promise of quick recovery if you do simple stuff (cancer being a big one) and the alternative medicines seeming cheaper than regular medicine (It may be the only treatment you think you can afford in the US). Not to mention the dismal state of "Health classes" - I'm a little over 40, and those classes mostly just told you about the parts of the body, the food pyramid, and that sex was bad and would probably kill you through disease unless you only had sex with another virgin.

People have done lots of harm (burning money is doing harm) with crap science. That is totally wrong and harmful.

What may happen later is not a solution.

I don't think most people really try to argue against "science" as is, or even the scientific process in the large scale. The gripe we have is against people who first do bad science (or popularize them), refuse to admit they're wrong, then patronizingly tell the public to trust them anyways, and still have the audacity to reassure us that "it will all work out (50 years later)".

It always fights against anything new, and will try to be opposed to anything against the status quo. It is so confident it is right it actually feels like it is doing the right thing by trying to suppress ideas opposed to the establishment.

Kind of like Galileo I guess, and the religious leaders of hus day are like the intellectual elitists of our day.

Thinking about the copernican revolution it made sense the establishment was opposed to it, not because it wasn’t factually correct, but it was like knowledge people aren’t ready for. And it was too unpredictable what it would do if the idea became dominant.

Scientific consensus can be a hard thing to define sometimes. Climate change is an example where there are enough studies out there that a meta-study can prove consensus, but what about something more recent and difficult to measure, like the effectiveness of covid vaccines/measures?

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

– Michael Crichton

Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts.

And of course he's a climate change denier.

But this quote isn’t really a criticism of science. It’s a criticism of journalism.

I think most people here on HN agree with his premise regarding the quality of science journalism. I’m not so sure about his conclusion that all journalism should be treated with the same suspicion.

The quoted passage specifically says his area of expertise is show business. Do you know of misinformation that he endorses or spreads on that topic?

"State of Fear" is a polemic against climate science.

If all you read was the comment I responded to, then it's no surprise that you don't think I provided enough information to criticize his books. Read his books, then read my criticism.

How unrealistic. Scientists like Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance would never do anything evil or untoward, such as using grant money to perform dangerous gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, demonstrably lying to the NIH about the scope of this research, and then misleading the public on the COVID-19 lab-origin theory while failing to disclose their financial and professional ties to the lab in question [0][1][2].

[0] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/one-perso...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak...

I didn't say that.

My point is that your comment reinforces the point that is made by the much-quoted quote.

He said he knows show business. Calling his writing on climate science crap is consistent with the quote.

Can you see how your comment sounds paradoxical?

You seemed to be saying "don't pay attention to his quote because he's clueless about climate change", but the quote is about people who aren't, say, climate scientists, being gullible about the topic.

It's a self-referential quote. If you refuted it, does that mean that non climate scientists can judge climate science?

It seemed like an amusing paradox, and I guess I'm curious about your motivation.

Thanks for the upvote.

Sure, the quote in itself is great, but the post that you replied to is pointing out that the person who made that quote is himself doing the same thing as those journalists that he is criticizing.