Sometimes it is possible to follow the science when it is being done properly. I’m thinking mainly of the Recovery Trial (follow @martinlandray for updates) when pharmaceutical interventions have been rigorously tested providing definitive answers. Also people who stick to their specialist area (eg @cathnoakes ventilation science, Prof Iwasaki @VirusesImmunity) - often find it’s people willing to comment outside of their expertise that are unreliable.
I’ve also found some health professionals such as @rupert_pearse reliable at conveying the situation “on the ground” - I think your points about identifying reliable people in general can help find people like him.
Absolutely agree there have been lots of scientists worth following. The problem with "follow the science" is it doesn't discriminate between the ones who are adding value and the ones who are adding noise.
1) it’s really a political statement trying to absolve /remove politics from a decision that is fundamentally political
2) as you say it suggests science deals in certainty where esp for a new, fast moving area that crosses many scientific disciplines that just isn’t true.
We’d be in a much better place if degrees of uncertainty and how they related to decision making had been discussed openly. David Spiegelhalter and his team at the Winton are doing fantastic work on how to convey uncertainty.
Also worth looking at the sociologict Zeynep Tufekci in the US, who was early and right in her critique of the CDC's failures. This Ben Smith profile attributes her many successes to 1) an international background, 2) an ability to work across disciplines and 3) a commitment to systems thinking: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/23/business/media/how-zeynep-tufekci-keeps-getting-the-big-things-right.html. In line with Tetlock's findings.
I'd add to the comment on numeracy that the ability to appreciate and convey uncertainty in the underlying data has been a dividing line for me judging the value of commentators. An uncomfortable observation is that a lot of data is quite weak and doesn't give us unambiguous answers, which makes life difficult if you need to make a policy decision that necessarily takes a strong view (e.g. whether or not to mask, how many restrictions for the omicron wave).
There are some who do have some useful insights but jump to strong, poorly supported conclusions that really aren't supported by the data. "The epidemic is over" is a conclusion some individuals have made more than once.
I'm primarily a psychologist. So my push is more toward whether or not we fully comprehend how people have behaved and reflections for the inevitable need for future pandemics. It would be great to see who you feel are the individuals/"scouts" for psychology that are offering insights around how we can help people to engage in the public health behaviours required for maintaining or preventing cases going further. Do we even fully understand how people have behaved and why? Just my Friday night thoughts but I love this "scout" concept and its application to such a concrete example. Thanks, Sam
One thing I do look out for is when they publicly go against their own tribe, to be consistent in their own ideology. It shows intellectual honesty. E.g. George Monbiot on Assad apologists, or criticizing Chomsky.
This isn't quite the same as "scout mindset' as they're clearly ideologically motivated - and intellectual life would I think be net poorer without ideologues - but it's cut from a similar cloth.
Thing is, people can be scouts on some issues and soldiers on others. Two examples - one on your list, the other not on it. Not on it but should be - Andrew Lilico. Absolute soldier on non-Covid issues, with some fairly, er, eccentric views. But as a number-cruncher on Covid, pretty impressive, and while trenchant at times, also willing to change his mind. On your list and shouldn't be - Tom Chivers. As best as I can see, on non-Covid issues pretty good. But on Covid, I don't see him as a scout. Unlike say Meaghan, he's been consistently doomy over the last few months and hence wrong. I get that this stuff is difficult and we're not rating people on predictions, but scout means changing stance. He doesn't - he sort of looks at data, but he adds a very anxious filter onto it. (Plus anyone who as he did unqualifiedly advocates for masks in shops as an effective means of limiting spread that ought to be introduced, is not someone who is basing their thinking on data.) Also don't agree Oliver Johnson is a scout: clear motivated reasoning going on there, and I don't think his widely documented practice of widespread blocking of commenters is consistent with a scout mindset. Conversely would say Devan Sinha was worth following.
Absolutely agree you can be a scout on some issues and a solider on others (indeed that's true of pretty much everyone to some extent). Lilico I broadly agree though he has a tendancy to slip into ranting about freedom/lockdowns, his modelling has been good. Devan Sinha is also a good call.
I don't agree re: Tom, I think he is generally very scoutish (I discovered the concept via him!) and has been flexible over the course of the pandemic. Scouts can be wrong sometimes - but I always think he's trying to find the right answer. Also don't agree about Oliver who has been consistently excellent in providing accurate info (blocking is necessary sometimes if you're being insulted).
OK, summary of the Chivers oeuvre on Covid in the last four months
Sept 14th. “If deaths and hospitalisations continue to rise at the current rate, we could be in trouble. So - let’s have masks in shops and working from home because they’re simple and easy with no real downsides.”
October 26th “We don’t really know what’s going to happen – on the one hand this, on the hand, the other. So - let’s do Plan B to be on the safe side because it’s simple and easy with no real downsides”.
November 29th “We don’t yet know about Omicron. But closing borders is a good idea with Omicron because it will buy us time”.
December 14th “We can’t really trust any of the positive news coming out of South Africa because they’re different to us. And the booster programme is too little too late so won’t help. And the LSHTM and other models have lots of bad outcomes. So we should have lots of restrictions”.
Consistently doomy, and as a result consistently wrong.
I’ve been following you since a family lunch just before the 2019 GE. Very timely.
I have to agree with what you say and I’m familiar with many of the names you have mentioned. For the layman, there is just so much information thrown at one by the media, who don’t in my experience give much, if any, prominence to the opinions of people you have followed.
So, I guess, one rule - which I appreciate is about who not to trust - might be to turn off your TV and cancel the papers. At one point it’s effectively what I did.
I pretty much never watch TV news anymore, except occassionally Newsnight. Twitter is so much faster and more detailed and you don't have to sit through tedious interviews with politicians or professional contrarians.
Sometimes it is possible to follow the science when it is being done properly. I’m thinking mainly of the Recovery Trial (follow @martinlandray for updates) when pharmaceutical interventions have been rigorously tested providing definitive answers. Also people who stick to their specialist area (eg @cathnoakes ventilation science, Prof Iwasaki @VirusesImmunity) - often find it’s people willing to comment outside of their expertise that are unreliable.
I’ve also found some health professionals such as @rupert_pearse reliable at conveying the situation “on the ground” - I think your points about identifying reliable people in general can help find people like him.
Re scout mind would add @edyong209
Absolutely agree there have been lots of scientists worth following. The problem with "follow the science" is it doesn't discriminate between the ones who are adding value and the ones who are adding noise.
Two problems I can see with “follow the science”
1) it’s really a political statement trying to absolve /remove politics from a decision that is fundamentally political
2) as you say it suggests science deals in certainty where esp for a new, fast moving area that crosses many scientific disciplines that just isn’t true.
We’d be in a much better place if degrees of uncertainty and how they related to decision making had been discussed openly. David Spiegelhalter and his team at the Winton are doing fantastic work on how to convey uncertainty.
Also worth looking at the sociologict Zeynep Tufekci in the US, who was early and right in her critique of the CDC's failures. This Ben Smith profile attributes her many successes to 1) an international background, 2) an ability to work across disciplines and 3) a commitment to systems thinking: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/23/business/media/how-zeynep-tufekci-keeps-getting-the-big-things-right.html. In line with Tetlock's findings.
sorry, sociologist
At the risk of sounding flippant I follow the simple, Chico Marx approach: "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
PS Before I get hauled over the etymological coals, the quote is often attributed to said comedian but not conclusively.
I'd add to the comment on numeracy that the ability to appreciate and convey uncertainty in the underlying data has been a dividing line for me judging the value of commentators. An uncomfortable observation is that a lot of data is quite weak and doesn't give us unambiguous answers, which makes life difficult if you need to make a policy decision that necessarily takes a strong view (e.g. whether or not to mask, how many restrictions for the omicron wave).
There are some who do have some useful insights but jump to strong, poorly supported conclusions that really aren't supported by the data. "The epidemic is over" is a conclusion some individuals have made more than once.
Yes agreed. But then once things are clear to say so rather than never coming down on any position.
I'm primarily a psychologist. So my push is more toward whether or not we fully comprehend how people have behaved and reflections for the inevitable need for future pandemics. It would be great to see who you feel are the individuals/"scouts" for psychology that are offering insights around how we can help people to engage in the public health behaviours required for maintaining or preventing cases going further. Do we even fully understand how people have behaved and why? Just my Friday night thoughts but I love this "scout" concept and its application to such a concrete example. Thanks, Sam
One thing I do look out for is when they publicly go against their own tribe, to be consistent in their own ideology. It shows intellectual honesty. E.g. George Monbiot on Assad apologists, or criticizing Chomsky.
This isn't quite the same as "scout mindset' as they're clearly ideologically motivated - and intellectual life would I think be net poorer without ideologues - but it's cut from a similar cloth.
Thing is, people can be scouts on some issues and soldiers on others. Two examples - one on your list, the other not on it. Not on it but should be - Andrew Lilico. Absolute soldier on non-Covid issues, with some fairly, er, eccentric views. But as a number-cruncher on Covid, pretty impressive, and while trenchant at times, also willing to change his mind. On your list and shouldn't be - Tom Chivers. As best as I can see, on non-Covid issues pretty good. But on Covid, I don't see him as a scout. Unlike say Meaghan, he's been consistently doomy over the last few months and hence wrong. I get that this stuff is difficult and we're not rating people on predictions, but scout means changing stance. He doesn't - he sort of looks at data, but he adds a very anxious filter onto it. (Plus anyone who as he did unqualifiedly advocates for masks in shops as an effective means of limiting spread that ought to be introduced, is not someone who is basing their thinking on data.) Also don't agree Oliver Johnson is a scout: clear motivated reasoning going on there, and I don't think his widely documented practice of widespread blocking of commenters is consistent with a scout mindset. Conversely would say Devan Sinha was worth following.
Absolutely agree you can be a scout on some issues and a solider on others (indeed that's true of pretty much everyone to some extent). Lilico I broadly agree though he has a tendancy to slip into ranting about freedom/lockdowns, his modelling has been good. Devan Sinha is also a good call.
I don't agree re: Tom, I think he is generally very scoutish (I discovered the concept via him!) and has been flexible over the course of the pandemic. Scouts can be wrong sometimes - but I always think he's trying to find the right answer. Also don't agree about Oliver who has been consistently excellent in providing accurate info (blocking is necessary sometimes if you're being insulted).
OK, summary of the Chivers oeuvre on Covid in the last four months
Sept 14th. “If deaths and hospitalisations continue to rise at the current rate, we could be in trouble. So - let’s have masks in shops and working from home because they’re simple and easy with no real downsides.”
October 26th “We don’t really know what’s going to happen – on the one hand this, on the hand, the other. So - let’s do Plan B to be on the safe side because it’s simple and easy with no real downsides”.
November 29th “We don’t yet know about Omicron. But closing borders is a good idea with Omicron because it will buy us time”.
December 14th “We can’t really trust any of the positive news coming out of South Africa because they’re different to us. And the booster programme is too little too late so won’t help. And the LSHTM and other models have lots of bad outcomes. So we should have lots of restrictions”.
Consistently doomy, and as a result consistently wrong.
I think in all those pieces he acknowledges the other arguments and why he might overly "doomy". And at other times he's been more positive.
I’ve been following you since a family lunch just before the 2019 GE. Very timely.
I have to agree with what you say and I’m familiar with many of the names you have mentioned. For the layman, there is just so much information thrown at one by the media, who don’t in my experience give much, if any, prominence to the opinions of people you have followed.
So, I guess, one rule - which I appreciate is about who not to trust - might be to turn off your TV and cancel the papers. At one point it’s effectively what I did.
I pretty much never watch TV news anymore, except occassionally Newsnight. Twitter is so much faster and more detailed and you don't have to sit through tedious interviews with politicians or professional contrarians.