Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

joseduarte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 380 posts

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#301

Post by Amezarak »

vacri wrote: post #146
Amezarak wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, there is, largely to a very poorly representative electoral system. Lots of elections doesn't make a well-functioning democracy, that takes elections which produce governments that are effectively representative. Can you explain in what sense American government is not representative? People freely choosing to vote for people that you don't consider to be in their best interests does not make a government unrep…

> Can you explain in what sense American government is not representative? While 'Winner Takes All' is one way to do representative voting and checking that item off the list, it's one of the worst ways to be representative. CGP Grey has a series of videos on different voting systems and their pros and cons on youtube - start with this one, which goes through the ways 'winner takes all' drives towards worse represent…

> While 'Winner Takes All' is one way to do representative voting and checking that item off the list, it's one of the worst ways to be representative.

State and local elections are often not winner takes all, but two-round voting. (Really, more than that, if you want to cheat and count the primary election and possible run-offs there.)

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#302

Post by Amezarak »

dragonwriter wrote: post #149
Amezarak wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, there is, largely to a very poorly representative electoral system. Lots of elections doesn't make a well-functioning democracy, that takes elections which produce governments that are effectively representative. Can you explain in what sense American government is not representative? People freely choosing to vote for people that you don't consider to be in their best interests does not make a government unrep…

> Can you explain in what sense American government is not representative? Because it produces outcomes where the distribution of power in government does not follow the distribution in the preferences of the electorate (even the distribution as expressed in voting, which is already distorted by tactical accommodation to the known features of the electoral system.) This is problem stemming largely from the use of sin…

Who are we comparing with? It's difficult for me to see how American government is not necessarily more representative than the usual European/parliamentary government.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#303

Post by donatj »

zo1 wrote: post #296
tangled_zans wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. Well, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that it's probably some other aspect of libertarianism that offended them. Just saying. Unless they're actually offended by non-violence, in which case they probably did you a favor.

>" Unless they're actually offended by non-violence, in which case they probably did you a favor. " Most would not say they are offended by non-violence, and most would actually advocate non-violence. The problem comes in when you start pointing out that logical and consistent definitions of violence/aggression preclude a lot of the things people value and think noble. To some, mentioning you are Libertarian inherent…

That's the problem in a nutshell, and quite elegantly stated.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#304

Post by js8 »

isolate wrote: post #300
js8 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. This is so wrong... If it was correct, what would be point of doing science? Let's face it - the point of science is to build models of reality. And every model (except of usage of the world in logic) by definition is a type of inductive reasoning about reality. The reason why we want to have models is to be…

I agree with your point of view on just about everything. I was just objecting to the use of the word fact. I make a point of doing this. The AGW believers hate me for calling it a belief, and the AGW deniers hate me for believing in AGW. I must be doing something right! Your words about models and inductive reasoning are helpful. Bringing that up in the future will probably help clarify my position, which is about l…

Yeah, I think you should just call it a model or scientific theory (although both of these may be confusing terms for laymen) and not be too picky about people calling it "fact" (I think there is no point arguing with people you share beliefs with). We also often informally call gravity a "fact", although technically it's just a theory too.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#305

Post by OJFord »

dang wrote: post #65
josinalvo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rationalization is usually said when the conclusion comes first, and the "reasoning" latter. First you decide what you think, then why. This "reasoning" is considered suspect, and called a rationalization.

"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page18.htm

This is what I mean below [0] really - I think the doubt cast on the validity of the thought/decision/thing being rationalised it is asked of someone else.

My rationalisation is just what I think makes it rational. No negative connotations here. "How do you rationalise that, then?" is where the doubt creeps in.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10748700

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#306

Post by midwest1 »

nkurz wrote: post #293
midwest1 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my problem with that study. No one really knows how big that consensus is, or what the consensus even is. Too much noise in the way.

Jose Duarte, the author of the post being discussed, has written compellingly on why he feels the Cook article is outright fraud, and that the correct percentage (if there is one) is closer to 80%. Here's an entry point, but you might need to follow the links for context: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/correction-counting

It's also quite easy to verify for yourself by visiting the web of science search. Then one can be assured it isn't a devious lie from the Koch brothers. ;)

I would be interested to know why Duarte feels the correct number is 80, and which IPCC model, if any of them, that consensus includes. I'm going to have to catch up on his blog.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#307

Post by Retra »

isolate wrote: post #227
Retra wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of science is to generate correct beliefs about the world. If you believe in nonsense, that's very poor scientific work.

Presumably you can imagine a somewhat stupid robot that does random scientific experiments, generating good beliefs and bad ones. Why would that invalidate the good beliefs? Belief A has no rational basis. Belief B has a rational basis. If you believe A yet have proven B, that doesn't make B wrong. Even if believe that it was A which led you to the discovery.

It doesn't. But it is a good clue that the robot isn't using a rational process to select beliefs, and is instead doing so randomly. It is far easier to come up with an invalid belief than a valid one, and if you aren't selecting them rationally, you are practically guaranteed to be wrong.

>If you believe A yet have proven B, that doesn't make B wrong.

It makes you wrong. All the time you spend as a proponent for A is wasted.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#308

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

Yen wrote: post #147
hackuser wrote: post #106

Is there any evidence that someone rejected him on that basis? I didn't read the whole article in detail, but it seems like a suspicion with nothing to substantiate it, and a lot of hearsay about what some people told him about the risks.

At the end of the article, under the header "The original post from July, 2014", he describes his experience. In summary: 1. In 2007, 14 Jewish Members resign from the advisory board of the Carter Center, due to disagreements over statements in Carter's book. 2. OP blogged about this, apparently in support of their statement. (The original original blog post is not linked to) 3. Some undetermined amount of time later…

Wow; its amazing that the school called him back and confronted OP on his political views. OP mentions that HR people would never do that for fear of being sued, has the university some form of immunity against being sued? Is industry a more liberal place than academia?

Also what exactly was the keyword that put him into the 'enemy camp' - was it support of Israel, criticism of Carter or both of them that raised the red flag for them ?

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#309

Post by jolux »

tbrownaw wrote: post #268
jolux wrote: post #151

"Why would they? There's been lots of noise lately about how conservatives don't respect science or the intellectual sphere. Why would they? They know we're politically biased." This is where it took a turn for me. I'm basically in agreement with everything else, and it's personally eye opening to gain a greater understanding of these kinds of biases, but when you take a few bad apples in the social sciences (literal…

"... is ingenious, a deep thinker." vs. is dumb, a shallow thinker. Vs. is able to explain things so that they seem obvious. "... values artistic, esthetic experiences." vs. values uncreative, ugly experiences Vs. values practicality. "... is inventive." vs is uninventive Vs. understands the value of having standards. "... is sophisticated in art, music, and literature." vs. knows nothing of art, music, or literature…

Yes but none of those are mutually exclusive which is the point I'm trying to make.

Re: I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

#310

Post by jolux »

wdmeldon wrote: post #206
jolux wrote: post #151

"Why would they? There's been lots of noise lately about how conservatives don't respect science or the intellectual sphere. Why would they? They know we're politically biased." This is where it took a turn for me. I'm basically in agreement with everything else, and it's personally eye opening to gain a greater understanding of these kinds of biases, but when you take a few bad apples in the social sciences (literal…

This post almost entirely reinforces the article. The lefts tendency to treat "undereducated" people like they are children is in no way helpful. > blinkered bourgeois liberals who are also big fans of Austrian economics This is the icing on the proving the point cake.

I'm not treating them like children, you missed the point of my last comparison. I'm saying that this article holds a definition of conservatism that is highly stereotypical and not at all representative of much of academic conservatism. I'm trying to defend my conservative friends here.
Post reply on HN