“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

The problem with experts is they spec'd too hard into Wisdom and Intelligence so they tend to have shite Charisma modifiers.

They're also woeful tanks and feckin abysmal glass cannons

[Funt Solo]

Russell Brand

Class: Bard (Troubadour)
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral


STR: 12
DEX: 16
CON: 13
INT: 08
WIS: 07
CHA: 18

[The Legendary Shark]

So the Buddhist, who is not a structural engineer, talks to people who are structural engineers. Interviews them, gathers testimony together, presents it. The actor produces a film following the journey of an English family trying to re-open the inquest into their son's death on 9/11 and presents it. Attaching arbitrary labels to people to discredit their work without even looking at the work itself doesn't feel fair to me.

One wouldn't discredit Einstein's work because he was a mere patent clerk or rubbish Darwin because he was an Anglican parson. Such arguments make no sense, but I'll wager they were used at the time by people who were perfectly satisfied with the way things were and didn't want to even consider an alternative. So if an Anglican parson and a patent clerk get a pass, why not an actor or a Buddhist?

[Funt Solo]

The courts, as imperfect as they are, are still the better alternative to trial by media or trial by mob.

Ah, but nobody was suggesting "trial by mob" - so to casually plop that next to your mention of media is unfairly conflating them.

What did happen was that some journalists (experts in their field - you should listen to them) spent a long time compiling witness testimony - some of it from Brand's own phone, you will recall. Lots and lots of witnesses. That don't know each other. Telling similar stories. But anyway - it's just a documentary - it's not a trial.

You would rather, what? That the (alleged) victims go to the police? When they know that the chance of getting anywhere down that road is practically nil. That's almost the same as just brushing it all under the carpet, and leaving the way open for fresh victims. It's a weak sauce argument because it's ultimately "I'm quite happy with women being sexually abused and having no way of reporting it that will have any tangible effect".

And what of Brand? Has a baying mob torn him limb from limb? Nope. Has he been de-platformed? Actually, not. Arrested. Nope. Abandoned by his loyal followers? Not as such, no. (He has suffered some business reversals, but then - if you were running a business, would you want to be associated with him?)

[Funt Solo]

So the Buddhist, who is not a structural engineer, talks to people who are structural engineers. Interviews them, gathers testimony together, presents it. The actor produces a film following the journey of an English family trying to re-open the inquest into their son's death on 9/11 and presents it. Attaching arbitrary labels to people to discredit their work without even looking at the work itself doesn't feel fair to me.

One wouldn't discredit Einstein's work because he was a mere patent clerk or rubbish Darwin because he was an Anglican parson. Such arguments make no sense, but I'll wager they were used at the time by people who were perfectly satisfied with the way things were and didn't want to even consider an alternative. So if an Anglican parson and a patent clerk get a pass, why not an actor or a Buddhist?

So now you're comparing William Hurt with Albert Einstein and Buddhist Dude with Charles Darwin? The short answer is "peer review".

[The Legendary Shark]

Yes, I did put in "trial by mob" of my own accord, because the point I was making is that courts are the better option, at least in theory and hopefully in practice. I mentioned "trial by mob" because "trial by court" is better. It's also better than trial by media, martial law, drum-heads, and Judge bleedin' Dredd.

I watched the documentary, which was an adequate presentation of the allegations. If the information the journalists have collected is accurate, and if they have interpreted and presented it correctly, it casts Brand in a bad light. We need courts to cast lights of their own and erase every shadow.

I would rather that we look at the truths of the broken system we have inherited and look to fix it. I would rather work towards a world where every human victim of any sort can reach out for help at any time, without fear or favour. That's what I'd rather. In the meantime, it is up to each victim to decide their own course of action and for each of us to respect that course and that person.

You seem to be under the impression that I think Brand has himself boarded up in a windmill somewhere while a mob of angry, pitchfork-wielding yokels swarm up the garden path with mischief in mind. I never made any suggestion of the perils to Brand that you list. As far as I know, it's all legalities-at-dawn for the moment.

[Funt Solo]

it casts Brand in a bad light

Quite an understatement. It accuses him of a variety of sexual assaults, at least one clear instance of rape and actually demonstrates him carrying out a variety of sexual harassments.
 

[The Legendary Shark]

No, that's entirely the mirror of the argument I was making. (How do you so consistently do that? It's a talent.) I wasn't comparing the people to each other, I was comparing the arguments used against them to each other.

[The Legendary Shark]

Quite an understatement. 

I was trying to avoid hyperbole.



I know, I know... Try harder. 

[Funt Solo]

No, that's entirely the mirror of the argument I was making. (How do you so consistently do that? It's a talent.) I wasn't comparing the people to each other, I was comparing the arguments used against them to each other.

I never said that! And you're avoiding the key point I made: peer review is important!

---

Meanwhile - this fresh BBC article has audio of Russell (an expert on himself) and his cohost discussing the fact that Russell trapped a woman in a bathroom and exposed himself to her. He's not denying it. I suppose he himself is part of the "trial by media/mob" you're worried about.

[The Legendary Shark]

Sorry, I screwed the quote up. You said,

So now you're comparing William Hurt with Albert Einstein and Buddhist Dude with Charles Darwin? 

Which is pretty much comparing people to each other. My point was that the same ad-hominem attack has been used against them all; you can't listen to him because he's a used car salesman, you can't listen to her because she's a waitress. It makes no difference. The absolute best way to treat any ad-hominem attack is to take it as an indication of bias, by both the accuser and the accused. 

If you bought a Vintage Thing and it broke, and the local chip shop owner knew exactly what was wrong with your Vintage Thing and how to fix it, because he once had a Vintage Thing of his own that broke in exactly the same manner, would you decline his help because he's a chip shop owner? I would hope not. You'd at least hear him out, see if what he said made sense while all the time keeping in mind that this guy is a chip shop owner and not a professional Vintage Thing engineer. Information gathered, you'd use it as you saw fit. Being a chip shop owner is no disadvantage to having an understanding of your knackered Vintage Thing, and neither is it an advantage. It's a modifier at worst and completely irrelevant at best.

[The Legendary Shark]

I would agree that peer review is important. I could point you to some legitimate peer reviewed papers that would blow your socks off, but unfortunately they're on a verboten topic. I can sense hackles going up even now. Nonsense! Fake news! These must be the wrong kind of peer reviewed papers!

If we are to accept peer review for one position, then we must accept peer review for others as well. That's a big part of the scientific process, to look at all the papers, to hypothesise, theorise, and synthesise - one paper supporting or detracting from or adding to the whole body of knowledge. 

But politics doesn't work like that. We all know it. Convenient research is funded, even popularised. Inconvenient research is ignored or derided be it peer reviewed or not.

Like the ad-hom, the peer review is just a label - but it is a significant one. It's also not 100% reliable - plenty of scientists make a living reviewing papers, and scientists are only human, and humans make mistakes. So yes, peer review is the gold standard and a strong indicator that what the paper says has been determined as accurately and dispassionately as possible, that procedures were followed and interests declared. The peer review in no way endorses the conclusions of any paper, but it does indicate that those conclusions were reached in the correct manner.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Your understanding of the peer review system and scientific discourse in general is quite different to mine.

But politics doesn't work like that. We all know it. Convenient research is funded, even popularised. Inconvenient research is ignored or derided be it peer reviewed or not.

Convenient research?

Like that time they dug miles of tunnels under the alps and filled it with expensive fiddly magnets and then fired particles around it at near light speeds, to collide with a particle going the other way producing a big messy scattering of particles to be analyzed even though it's not visible to the naked eye? The most expensive thing humanity has ever built? (ISS is 2nd)

Convenient like that?

But politics doesn't work like that

No shit, most politicians are too scientifically illiterate to influence the general scientific consensus.

[The Legendary Shark]

Yes, convenient exactly like that. The potential benefits to science and industry of CERN are incalculable. It's a modern wonder displaying the technological and scientific prowess of Europe. Politically, that's all very convenient.

For years, politicians were convinced by the petrochemical industry's scientific studies suggesting that having lead in petrol was completely fine and utterly dandy. Any studies suggesting otherwise were quashed. Had the scientific process in that case been allowed to play out without political and corporate interference, which inevitably boil everything they can down to a simple binary choice so the ayes and nays can shout at one another for a bit, lead might have been out of petrol much sooner.

What worries me is that peer reviewed papers on certain subjects are verboten if they say the inconvenient thing, or come to the inconvenient conclusion. This has become more and more obvious over the last three years. There is politically inconvenient science out there but I think it's starting to permeate a bit more of late.

"Trust the science" is nonsensical political dogma because it suggests having faith in presented conclusions, "trust the scientific process" is good advice because it suggests drawing conclusions properly.

TL;DR

Yeah, politicians know dick about science.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Is Most Published Research Wrong?