Date: 28/04/2016 22:19:41
From: dv
ID: 881828
Subject: Who will debunk the debunkers?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-debunk-the-debunkers/

In 2012, network scientist and data theorist Samuel Arbesman published a disturbing thesis: What we think of as established knowledge decays over time. According to his book “The Half-Life of Facts,” certain kinds of propositions that may seem bulletproof today will be forgotten by next Tuesday; one’s reality can end up out of date. Take, for example, the story of Popeye and his spinach.

Popeye loved his leafy greens and used them to obtain his super strength, Arbesman’s book explained, because the cartoon’s creators knew that spinach has a lot of iron. Indeed, the character would be a major evangelist for spinach in the 1930s, and it’s said he helped increase the green’s consumption in the U.S. by one-third. But this “fact” about the iron content of spinach was already on the verge of being obsolete, Arbesman said: In 1937, scientists realized that the original measurement of the iron in 100 grams of spinach — 35 milligrams — was off by a factor of 10. That’s because a German chemist named Erich von Wolff had misplaced a decimal point in his notebook back in 1870, and the goof persisted in the literature for more than half a century.

By the time nutritionists caught up with this mistake, the damage had been done. The spinach-iron myth stuck around in spite of new and better knowledge, wrote Arbesman, because “it’s a lot easier to spread the first thing you find, or the fact that sounds correct, than to delve deeply into the literature in search of the correct fact.”

Arbesman was not the first to tell the cautionary tale of the missing decimal point. The same parable of sloppy science, and its dire implications, appeared in a book called “Follies and Fallacies in Medicine,” a classic work of evidence-based skepticism first published in 1989.1 It also appeared in a volume of “Magnificent Mistakes in Mathematics,” a guide to “The Practice of Statistics in the Life Sciences” and an article in an academic journal called “The Consequence of Errors.” And that’s just to name a few.

All these tellings and retellings miss one important fact: The story of the spinach myth is itself apocryphal. It’s true that spinach isn’t really all that useful as a source of iron, and it’s true that people used to think it was. But all the rest is false: No one moved a decimal point in 1870; no mistake in data entry spurred Popeye to devote himself to spinach; no misguided rules of eating were implanted by the sailor strip. The story of the decimal point manages to recapitulate the very error that it means to highlight: a fake fact, but repeated so often (and with such sanctimony) that it takes on the sheen of truth.

In that sense, the story of the lost decimal point represents a special type of viral anecdote or urban legend, one that finds its willing hosts among the doubters, not the credulous. It’s a rumor passed around by skeptics — a myth about myth-busting. Like other Russian dolls of distorted facts, it shows us that, sometimes, the harder that we try to be clear-headed, the deeper we are drawn into the fog.
—-

Much more in link

Reply Quote

Date: 28/04/2016 22:23:45
From: roughbarked
ID: 881830
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

dv said:


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-debunk-the-debunkers/

In 2012, network scientist and data theorist Samuel Arbesman published a disturbing thesis: What we think of as established knowledge decays over time. According to his book “The Half-Life of Facts,” certain kinds of propositions that may seem bulletproof today will be forgotten by next Tuesday; one’s reality can end up out of date. Take, for example, the story of Popeye and his spinach.

Popeye loved his leafy greens and used them to obtain his super strength, Arbesman’s book explained, because the cartoon’s creators knew that spinach has a lot of iron. Indeed, the character would be a major evangelist for spinach in the 1930s, and it’s said he helped increase the green’s consumption in the U.S. by one-third. But this “fact” about the iron content of spinach was already on the verge of being obsolete, Arbesman said: In 1937, scientists realized that the original measurement of the iron in 100 grams of spinach — 35 milligrams — was off by a factor of 10. That’s because a German chemist named Erich von Wolff had misplaced a decimal point in his notebook back in 1870, and the goof persisted in the literature for more than half a century.

By the time nutritionists caught up with this mistake, the damage had been done. The spinach-iron myth stuck around in spite of new and better knowledge, wrote Arbesman, because “it’s a lot easier to spread the first thing you find, or the fact that sounds correct, than to delve deeply into the literature in search of the correct fact.”

Arbesman was not the first to tell the cautionary tale of the missing decimal point. The same parable of sloppy science, and its dire implications, appeared in a book called “Follies and Fallacies in Medicine,” a classic work of evidence-based skepticism first published in 1989.1 It also appeared in a volume of “Magnificent Mistakes in Mathematics,” a guide to “The Practice of Statistics in the Life Sciences” and an article in an academic journal called “The Consequence of Errors.” And that’s just to name a few.

All these tellings and retellings miss one important fact: The story of the spinach myth is itself apocryphal. It’s true that spinach isn’t really all that useful as a source of iron, and it’s true that people used to think it was. But all the rest is false: No one moved a decimal point in 1870; no mistake in data entry spurred Popeye to devote himself to spinach; no misguided rules of eating were implanted by the sailor strip. The story of the decimal point manages to recapitulate the very error that it means to highlight: a fake fact, but repeated so often (and with such sanctimony) that it takes on the sheen of truth.

In that sense, the story of the lost decimal point represents a special type of viral anecdote or urban legend, one that finds its willing hosts among the doubters, not the credulous. It’s a rumor passed around by skeptics — a myth about myth-busting. Like other Russian dolls of distorted facts, it shows us that, sometimes, the harder that we try to be clear-headed, the deeper we are drawn into the fog.
—-

Much more in link

and on and on, we blunder through our life courses.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 00:23:52
From: SCIENCE
ID: 881918
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

Cite me the attack rate of influenza A.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 00:27:36
From: roughbarked
ID: 881923
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

eh? eh? etchoo!

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 02:34:56
From: Ian
ID: 881936
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

Popeye loved his leafy greens and used them to obtain his super strength

—-

Seems to imply that Popeye no longer gains his super strength from spinach.
I’d like to see a ref.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 09:02:00
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 881945
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

QI in many respects.

One quite interesting aspect is that he chooses what is a rather trivial example of false statements accepted without question, when there are others with much greater effect, and which held sway for much longer.

My favourite is Galileo’s theory of beam bending, which predicts a bending capacity (for a given tensile strength) 3x greater than the correct value. About 50 years later Mariotte came up with the correct solution, but promptly modified his calculations to get a result closer to Galileo’s. Another 30 years on Parent published the correct result, but no-one noticed. Finally over 100 years after Galileo, Euler published the correct solution, but it was another 100 years before this was widely accepted by engineers.

The question is though, which of today’s theories, which are accepted without question, are in fact completely wrong, and which de-bunkings of new hypotheses are accepted without question, when the hypothesis is in fact correct?

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 10:09:06
From: Cymek
ID: 881964
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

It sounds like the scientific extension of spoiling myths, people like the fanciful version even when its been proven incorrect.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 10:11:09
From: diddly-squat
ID: 881966
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

Is it really that big of a surprise that facts require a degree of reinforcement

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 10:13:31
From: Cymek
ID: 881969
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

diddly-squat said:

Is it really that big of a surprise that facts require a degree of reinforcement

No, it’s probably a good idea as it forces knowledge to be learnt over and over again.
We could end up like the stupid people in the movie Idocracy otherwise (maybe not that bad, but not far off)

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 10:16:03
From: diddly-squat
ID: 881970
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

Cymek said:


diddly-squat said:

Is it really that big of a surprise that facts require a degree of reinforcement

No, it’s probably a good idea as it forces knowledge to be learnt over and over again.
We could end up like the stupid people in the movie Idocracy otherwise (maybe not that bad, but not far off)

the best thing about showing something to be true is that is works over and over and over and over again… which allows it to be retaught and learned anew

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 10:29:42
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 881974
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

diddly-squat said:

Is it really that big of a surprise that facts require a degree of reinforcement

But the phenomenon being discussed is that non-facts are accepted with absolutely no reinforcement, other than having being stated by an accepted “authority”.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 10:44:20
From: diddly-squat
ID: 881978
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

The Rev Dodgson said:


diddly-squat said:

Is it really that big of a surprise that facts require a degree of reinforcement

But the phenomenon being discussed is that non-facts are accepted with absolutely no reinforcement, other than having being stated by an accepted “authority”.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true either… I think any story, true or otherwise suffers message creep due to a variety of reasons, including things like Chinese whispers as well as out-and-out lying and discrediting to suit one’s own purposes…

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 10:51:57
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 881979
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

diddly-squat said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

Is it really that big of a surprise that facts require a degree of reinforcement

But the phenomenon being discussed is that non-facts are accepted with absolutely no reinforcement, other than having being stated by an accepted “authority”.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true either… I think any story, true or otherwise suffers message creep due to a variety of reasons, including things like Chinese whispers as well as out-and-out lying and discrediting to suit one’s own purposes…

OK, I over-stated the “no reinforcement” aspect, but I don’t think it’s a case of Chinese whispers. Once something is stated by an authority it can be accepted without proper examination, and then continually reinforced by re-statement by other authorities.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 10:57:22
From: diddly-squat
ID: 881980
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

The Rev Dodgson said:


diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But the phenomenon being discussed is that non-facts are accepted with absolutely no reinforcement, other than having being stated by an accepted “authority”.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true either… I think any story, true or otherwise suffers message creep due to a variety of reasons, including things like Chinese whispers as well as out-and-out lying and discrediting to suit one’s own purposes…

OK, I over-stated the “no reinforcement” aspect, but I don’t think it’s a case of Chinese whispers. Once something is stated by an authority it can be accepted without proper examination, and then continually reinforced by re-statement by other authorities.

agreed, but it needs to be reinforced or else other information (be it misinformation or otherwise) get sucked in the fill the vacuum…

one of problems we have now (especially in the pseudoscience arena) is that self stated ‘authorities’ have a soapbox to stand on and makes claims… back in the day the only way you got your theory out there was to first do a whole heap of work and then rock up to the Royal Society and bang it out with the homies…

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 11:50:30
From: Cymek
ID: 881993
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

diddly-squat said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure that’s entirely true either… I think any story, true or otherwise suffers message creep due to a variety of reasons, including things like Chinese whispers as well as out-and-out lying and discrediting to suit one’s own purposes…

OK, I over-stated the “no reinforcement” aspect, but I don’t think it’s a case of Chinese whispers. Once something is stated by an authority it can be accepted without proper examination, and then continually reinforced by re-statement by other authorities.

agreed, but it needs to be reinforced or else other information (be it misinformation or otherwise) get sucked in the fill the vacuum…

one of problems we have now (especially in the pseudoscience arena) is that self stated ‘authorities’ have a soapbox to stand on and makes claims… back in the day the only way you got your theory out there was to first do a whole heap of work and then rock up to the Royal Society and bang it out with the homies…

Clinical trials and wearing a lab coat seems to work

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 11:59:38
From: dv
ID: 881994
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

I’ll wait to hear from the Ponds Institute, thanks.

Reply Quote

Date: 29/04/2016 18:36:33
From: wookiemeister
ID: 882181
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

i’ve heard they found another visible sign of aging and won the nobel prize

Reply Quote

Date: 30/04/2016 15:45:33
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 882526
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

Myths last longer than facts, unfortunately. Consider for example the carrot-eyesight myth, the vitamin C-cold cure myth, the stonehenge-calendar myth, the bible.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/04/2016 15:49:16
From: PermeateFree
ID: 882530
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

mollwollfumble said:


Myths last longer than facts, unfortunately. Consider for example the carrot-eyesight myth, the vitamin C-cold cure myth, the stonehenge-calendar myth, the bible.

I always thought facts last forever.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/04/2016 15:52:10
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 882533
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

PermeateFree said:


mollwollfumble said:

Myths last longer than facts, unfortunately. Consider for example the carrot-eyesight myth, the vitamin C-cold cure myth, the stonehenge-calendar myth, the bible.

I always thought facts last forever.

Not when they are opinions

Reply Quote

Date: 30/04/2016 15:53:13
From: PermeateFree
ID: 882535
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

CrazyNeutrino said:


PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Myths last longer than facts, unfortunately. Consider for example the carrot-eyesight myth, the vitamin C-cold cure myth, the stonehenge-calendar myth, the bible.

I always thought facts last forever.

Not when they are opinions

Then they are opinions and not facts.

Reply Quote

Date: 30/04/2016 16:02:24
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 882541
Subject: re: Who will debunk the debunkers?

PermeateFree said:


CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

I always thought facts last forever.

Not when they are opinions

Then they are opinions and not facts.

exactly

Reply Quote