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

Calling bullshit

callingbullshit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#161

Post by csallen »

DonHopkins wrote: post #128
jankotek wrote: post #25

I am not sure I like this site. It uses strong language, but avoids anything controversial and provided case studies are pretty shallow. Nothing like some Youtube channels, where presenter spends one hour deconstructing some study, to its sources and sources of the sources.

How To Deconstruct Almost Anything: My Postmodern Adventure, by Chip Morningstar, June 1993. "Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right." -- Donald Norman http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html

Wow, thank you for sharing this. It's one of the more entertaining essays I've read, especially since I've recently come into contact with some of the literary critics and deconstructionists he's writing about.

Re: Calling bullshit

#162

Post by wodenokoto »

jankotek wrote: post #75
tankenmate wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this course is teaching you how to do this type of deconstruction rather than to provide examples that are entertaining or controversial. Teach a person to fish, etc.

Have a look at case studies. Opinions, anecdotal evidence, no sources. There is not even basic fact checking on their sources (they just took a number from Fox News and ran with it). And I am not sure what to expect from a statistical course build around TED Talks, blog posts and NY Times articles. With chapters named like "The natural ecology of bullshit"...

> (they just took a number from Fox News and ran with it).

I don't know what you think that case study was about, but it isn't about whether the number was true or not. It is about whether that number represents something that is in line with the point of the article.

> And I am not sure what to expect from a statistical course build around TED Talks, blog posts and NY Times articles.

I wouldn't either, but it isn't a statistical course and it isn't build around TED Talks.

It is not about learning what they are saying in a TED Talk, but about dissecting the TED Talk and understanding why you shouldn't just accept the content of it.

All the case studies are examples of bullshit.

Re: Calling bullshit

#163

Post by mistermann »

dashundchen wrote: post #133
DonHopkins wrote: post #114

..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAda…

I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say, and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change.

I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose to not join the unthinking hordes who insist we must do something now, and no we will not think while we are doing this. Dissension is explicitly not allowed.

Oh, is that not exaaaaaaaaaaaactly what the message is? Of course not, but there is some truth there. There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. I believe it is not an intellectually honest conversation, and I'm old enough to remember other situations where dissent was not allowed and it turned out not so good.

Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

Re: Calling bullshit

#164

Post by dwaltrip »

artur_makly wrote: post #160

glad to see the groundswell! However I made a more efficient approach at solving this : http://TrumpTweets.io The manifesto : http://TrumpTweets.io/manifesto

How does this facilitate positive changes in the world? I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing it.

It feels like preaching to the choir. It is also fairly antagonistic, which people generally respond defensively too.

It looks like it was pretty fun to build though!

Re: Calling bullshit

#165

Post by ci5er »

Xgatt wrote: post #158
ci5er wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that do…

I will always remember what my neuroscience professor told me in college: "You know, after having worked in this cutting edge field for almost two decades, with some of the greatest thinkers in the world, I have learned one very important thing. Given all of the mounting research, vast amounts of data, and incredible imaging technologies, at the end of the day people will believe whatever they damn well want to."

> "... at the end of the day people will believe whatever they damn well want to."

I finally learned this and, after long denial about it, now "know" this as a fact about the universe. Or at least humans. That humans operate 1000% out of beliefs and that they didn't come to those beliefs rationally. And that you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

It's actually been hard for me to come to grips with this emotionally and to integrate it into my day-to-day operational instincts/intuition.

Re: Calling bullshit

#166

Post by artur_makly »

dwaltrip wrote: post #164
artur_makly wrote: post #160

glad to see the groundswell! However I made a more efficient approach at solving this : http://TrumpTweets.io The manifesto : http://TrumpTweets.io/manifesto

How does this facilitate positive changes in the world? I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing it. It feels like preaching to the choir. It is also fairly antagonistic, which people generally respond defensively too. It looks like it was pretty fun to build though!

read the manifesto : http://trumptweets.io/manifesto we are just getting started.. those are just test samples. working on better content though.. try it out though.

Re: Calling bullshit

#167

Post by E6300 »

mistermann wrote: post #163
dashundchen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAda…

I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say , and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change. I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose t…

If you get diagnosed with cancer, would you go to med school and wait until you graduate and can fully understand the diagnosis and how the prescribed treatment was arrived at by your doctor before you follow it, or would you follow the treatment as closely as possible as soon as possible?

Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. But as far as anyone can tell no one has a more accurate picture. "This theory may be imperfect [not even 'is imperfect'; we just don't know] so we should disregard it completely" is a Nirvana fallacy.

Re: Calling bullshit

#168

Post by ue_ »

dashundchen wrote: post #133
DonHopkins wrote: post #114

..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAda…

I don't mean to excuse the opinions he has on women, which I agree are deplorable, but I want to ask: what is wrong with being an activist for men's rights?

Re: Calling bullshit

#169

Post by scandox »

brachi wrote: post #130
scandox wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of…

> People know how to think critically in a particular context I observe that we tend to make an implicit assumption that most statements contain an opinion, perception, and anectotes. It gets harder to think everything in terms of data, e.g. I could ask "What people? Did you perform a study yourself?" for your statement, however, if it aligns with my perception or makes sense even without hard data, I'm not going to…

God's War By Dr Christopher Tyerman. He was my teacher so I think that it was his influence that was key.

Re: Calling bullshit

#170

Post by mistermann »

ci5er wrote: post #125
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that do…

You forgot: gender, ethnicity/culture
Post reply on HN