How people perceive information

[jeyare]

No doubt.
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
The same was true in one tread here - how Synology provides information about new disk drives, so it happens everywhere.

... a much bigger problem when it happens in the scientific community, which then spreads unverified and distorted information as a fact.

One example

during May 2020 I found this article:

Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement - Nature Climate Change

COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns have altered global energy demands. Using government confinement policies and activity data, daily CO2 emissions have decreased by ~17% to early April 2020 against 2019 levels; annual emissions could be down by 7% (4%) if normality returns by year end (mid-June).

www.nature.com

short explanation:
there is an assumption ( assumption again) based on data research from April 2020, that Global CO2 emissions from fossil sources will drop up to 7% in 2020
because I like data based “games”, it was an interesting reading for me.

Just open your browser and try to use these keywords for a search:

7% drop emission

and you will find the “reality”, how the assumption based on data from April 2020 is perceived or transformed into clear enough fact in 2021.

I found it in one of my favorite scientific conversation portal. It was written like this:

Corinne Le Quéré, professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia, tells us they dropped 7% in 2020 – by 2.6 billion tonnes. Le Quéré explains this drop is “the biggest we’ve ever seen” but that everything is relative.

To be sure:
I like nature, I understand, that we need dramatically decrease the CO2 emissions.
But also I like facts. And this is really dangerous hoax. Because people will trust, that mainly dropped aviation is the reason of the drop. Just for a clear table - the entire aviation is about almost 1.65% worldwide share from CO2 emissions. See the point?

Because it’s about facts, you can find one of my sources for data about emissions in public normalized form, from The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR):

EDGAR - The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research

 

[jeyare]

I come across this too often (not always) that scientific articles have lack of factualism and refer to something that is inherently unusable. Subsequently, a series of events arises that cause a partial or fundamental change in reality.

I also partially perceive the effort to fulfill the number of publicized studies, which can easy help to meet a requirements for leverage in their "scientific" career.
The Pareto principle also applies here.

It is normal from the behavioral principles, that people usually devour information. It's a fast era. Too few people think about what they actually read. Then it's no wonder that a "unique" technology supplier (Syno) delivers brief (fast) information about "300,000 hours" in tests only. Or "thousands of test cycles". Marketing specialists know exactly what people need to see - for the purpose of quickly swallowing information.

What we see depends mainly on what we look for.

 

[Tedster]

Seems to me that "scientists" will say whatever those that fund them wish them to say!

 

[atrisk]

Quit walking in my mind with your dirty feet...

Brought to you by: The American Coalition for Clean Coal
We think scientists suck!

Is this a scientist, or a Synology fan site?

 

[jeyare]

there isn’t clean coal energy from every kind of point of view. No doubt.
and thx to this Lounge room is possible also:
Relax and talk about anything here
with a respect to rules defined here.

 

[DataNAS]

What we see depends mainly on what we look for.

Yes, behavioral economists would recognize this phenomenon as a form of confirmation bias, and cognitive scientists know that intention and memory influence attention and perception.

Then it's no wonder that a "unique" technology supplier (Syno) delivers brief (fast) information about "300,000 hours" in tests only. Or "thousands of test cycles".

It does not, however, logically follow that such factoids are necessarily inaccurate or misleading, or reflective of poor quality testing processes on the part of Synology. Believing otherwise is an equally unproven assumption?

Ultimately, what we need are multiple independent assessments of the hypothesis that the HAT5300 drives are reliable and provide a business benefit, in order to enhance confidence in any conclusion.

 

[jeyare]

@DataNAS

there are two points of view:

1. our decision is based on strong pillars and we have strong testing results, then we can openly introduce the product include details. We are proud of such results and therefore we will publish them without any problems

2. or every possible derivates from the point above

in both cases it necessary to take into account the primary market target for such product (enterprise). Also the vendor lock of the enterprise NASes by these drives. Also the zero share in the target market. The complexity in the consideration is necessary. For the very reason, this is the way to avoid assumptions.