DrQuailMan t1_j7lljwo wrote
Reply to comment by Asterose in (Virology) Has SARS-CoV-2 outcompeted all the other coronaviruses which have been called the ‘common cold’? by jsgui
However, a red flag for fake science at work is if when asked to explain its predictions, or changes in its predictions, no details are provided.
Of course this is not the case for covid-19 science. But the person asked a legitimate question about the state of the research. You don't have to give conspiracy theorists ammo by responding with a non-answer like that. Just say which early studies indicated low mutability, and which later studies or observations indicated high mutability.
Asterose t1_j7m114f wrote
>You don't have to give conspiracy theorists ammo by responding with a non-answer like that.
Well, I literally said: "One mark of good, real science at work is when a prediction, based on evidence, is shown to be incorrect and scientists update the predictions with the new data."
Please specify where and how exactly I "give conspiracy theorists ammo by responding with a non-answer like that" then. I did not read the person's comment as needing detailed links and explanations on Scientific Method 101, but you are welcome to provide those if you feel the person needs the basics.
>Just say which early studies indicated low mutability, and which later studies or observations indicated high mutability.
You are welcome to do so, because I personally didn't and don't have the time to go hunting for those specifics just to repeat all the searching and link-sourcing dozens to hundreds of other commenters have already been doing across the replies to both that person and OP. Since you are concerned they didn't get answers out of the many other comments doing exactly that, you can provide the answers you feel they still need.
Because I was solely focusing on and responding with some reassurance that changing statements and predictions with new evidence are part of how the Scientific Method works.
In fact, a few people replying to the same initial comment as me are also talking about the scientific method and public reactions, so I think several of us found it relevant for a few people to discuss and reassure about that since sources and info on the COVID-related questions are already in so many other comments.
I've had a really hard day at work so I am potentially coming across here as angry or passive-aggressive, this is the best I can do to explain right now.
DrQuailMan t1_j7mc1um wrote
>I did not read the person's comment as needing detailed links and explanations on Scientific Method 101
Youre missing the point. Bringing up "scientific method 101" is a step backwards, as this person's actual request was to see the scientific method in action, not to have the concept of it described to them.
>just to repeat all the searching and link-sourcing dozens to hundreds of other commenters have already been doing across the replies to both that person and OP.
No one has replied with a link / reference to this person yet, as of an hour ago.
>Since you are concerned they didn't get answers out of the many other comments doing exactly that, you can provide the answers you feel they still need.
I don't have the expertise to do that. Is that supposed to be a gotcha? If anything you're slightly gotcha-ing yourself by saying it would take you a long time to find appropriate sources, and exposing your own overconfidence. Not every scientific misprediction gets analyzed scientifically, so without already being familiar with the appropriate sources, you can't know whether there are appropriate sources.
You'd think that on r/askscience, people would accept the idea of answering questions with actual scientific data, or an explanation that the data doesn't exist, and would understand the non-triviality of providing the correct answer.
>In fact, a few people replying to the same initial comment as me are also talking about the scientific method and public reactions
Virologists are rare on the internet. Clueless know-it-alls are common. An abundance of replies from the common type of person doesn't indicate that such replies were particularly warranted, compared to the uncommon type. People act within their capabilities. Sometimes that drowns out other people, to ill effect.
>I am potentially coming across here as angry or passive-aggressive
I am just explaining how your comment was indirectly harmful. Save your back-to-basics warning for suspicious questions about science, not all questions about science.
"Why does science say X" is a normal question. "Why did science say X, but now says Y" is also a normal question.
"Why did science say <thing it obviously didn't>, but now says Y" is a suspicious question. "Why did science say <thing that is obviously compatible with Y>, but now says Y" is a suspicious question.
Like, post this all day on questions about mask or vaccine efficacy, where trolls try to pretend masks were supposed to 100% prevent transmission, or vaccines were supposed to prevent all sickness for everyone. But this guy, he's just asking about mutation research, not saying anything about that research being untrustworthy or tainted.
[deleted] t1_j7nbosx wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments