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

191–200 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#191

Post by yongjik »

mistermann wrote: post #184
yongjik wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. Name one.

Judith Curry https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/ Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist! I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is s…

So, what you really mean is:

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are invited to congressional hearings, publish books and papers, and keep a personal blog where they can discuss anything, and nobody can tell them to GTFO because they're tenured professors, but they may ultimately decide to resign, because working in an environment where everyone else think you're being crazy is just too stressful.

Yeah, I can sympathize with the last part, but I must tell it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Re: Calling bullshit

#192

Post by coldtea »

aninhumer wrote: post #89
coldtea wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. "I never had sexual relations with that woman". "Read my lips: there will be no more taxes". "It depends on what the definition of is is". "I will close down Guantanamo Bay".

>"I never had sexual relations with that woman". And he was impeached for that, which is exactly the point.

Impeached just means they accused/questioned him about it. He remained President just fine, and was acquitted of the charges.

Re: Calling bullshit

#193

Post by dragonwriter »

mistermann wrote: post #187
DonHopkins wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Men's Rights Activist" is a euphemism for these people: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ Described in The Guardian as a "toxic technoculture on a spectrum of digital misogyny": https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/the-red-p... The term "red pill" is also common on 4chan's "politically incorrect" /pol/ board where taking the red pill is usually used to mean embracing conservative political thought a…

I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.

> I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.

It would be possible if there was a general perception that men were generally and historically, in the context in which one is an activist, oppressed based on their sex, such that being an activist for greater rights for men was consistent with pro-equality interest rather than anti-women interests.

However, there are very few societies on the world where that view is dominant or even a wide minority view, either internally or for external observers, so it's very hard to be a "men's rights activist" without the general perception being that one is acting out an anti-woman worldview.

Re: Calling bullshit

#194

Post by mark-r »

TheGrumpyBrit wrote: post #121
swanson wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Scott Adams (Dilbert): > Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.) > Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world. > Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves…

I used to really enjoy Adams' blog - he used to be fairly easy to read, conversational, and just controversial enough to be entertaining. Over the last couple of years though, it seems that he's become obsessed with this whole "master persuader" idea. It made for interesting reading for the first month or so, but it's slowly taken over all of his other content to the point that he now seems afraid to actually express…

Reading the blog, it appears this is a subject he's obsessed about his whole life. He wanted to share but held off until the perfect situation presented itself. I'm not sick of it yet, I think it's fascinating. You're right about the comments though, I missed them when they were gone.

Re: Calling bullshit

#195

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #184
yongjik wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. Name one.

Judith Curry https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/ Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist! I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is s…

People like that usually have interesting discussions on their talk pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry

Characterizing her as "not allowed to speak" or somehow oppressed and silenced by mainstream scientists is totally off base, since she herself has said: "I flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat out don’t care at this point."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry#Collide-a-Sc...

Re: Calling bullshit

#196

Post by rebuilder »

Ok, so it's not "this course" in the "you can go here to take this course" sense, but in the "there may be a course held somewhere some day" sense? Because I was interested but baffled when I tried to find the course or info about where to take part on that site.

Re: Calling bullshit

#197

Post by dandrick »

mistermann wrote: post #184
yongjik wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. Name one.

Judith Curry https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/ Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist! I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is s…

So why do people trust the dissenting scientists? What leads them to that option over simply going with the majority? I've never understood that, but the cynic in me thinks they're simply looking for someone that they already agree with.

Re: Calling bullshit

#198

Post by mistermann »

dragonwriter wrote: post #193
mistermann wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.

> I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist. It would be possible if there was a general perception that men were generally and historically, in the context in which one is an activist, oppressed based on their sex, such that being an activist for greater rights for men was consistent with pro-equality interest rather than anti-women interests. However, there are ve…

You're likely correct, but isn't is a bit sad that this is the case? That unless it is generally accepted (regardless of whether or not it is true) that men are discriminated against based on gender in some situations, that the only other possibility is misogyny?

On whether it matters....I had a long conversation on the phone with an old friend yesterday, he is going through a divorce and has so far been bankrupted, been dismissed from his job (due to being obligated to take too many days off to prepare for court), he only gets supervised visits with his son, etc. I predict he will commit suicide within 5 years.

Re: Calling bullshit

#199

Post by dandrick »

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…

What a cynical view - and coming from me, that's pretty bad.

Things can improve, and in fact, they have improved quite a bit over the last several centuries.

The appeal to authority of the ancient Greeks is sometimes a good one I guess, but not always. For instance, the Greeks "knew" a lot of things that they were flat wrong about.

Re: Calling bullshit

#200

Post by E6300 »

mistermann wrote: post #181
E6300 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. Don't be surprised when people don't trust you if you don't disclose that fact.

What do you mean? Does anyone believe that a given scientific theory explains exactly and totally a phenomenon? If they do, that's their problem. Science doesn't claim to have perfect answers. Until we find Laplace's demon, the best we can say is "theory A is better supported by evidence than theory B". If we have nothing better than A, is there any reason not to treat it as true?
Post reply on HN