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

201–210 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#201

Post by ewzimm »

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…

What you're saying here seems to be backing up what Scott Adams is saying. I'm not saying you're an irrational person, but your arguments against him seem to be completely irrational, based on word associations rather than arguments. He says men often avoid arguing with women over gender equality issues for the same reasons they avoid arguing with children or the mentally handicapped, because they see the process of argument as counterproductive, and he specifically says that he's not equating the groups in any way, only the reasons for avoiding arguments with the different groups.

If you were thinking in terms of word associations and analogies, this disclaimer wouldn't matter because it's the association of words that's important, not the argument itself. And here you're ignoring the argument and focusing on word associations which he explains clearly are not his point. I see people making this kind of argument all the time, and it makes using analogies in any way other than emotional association usually pointless because someone will always find a way to focus on their emotional response to the words rather than the arguments. Doesn't this perfectly illustrate his point?

It seems like he was manipulating people into having this kind of negative reaction to prove his point that people don't focus on arguments.

Re: Calling bullshit

#202

Post by mistermann »

E6300 wrote: post #200
mistermann wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The current popular mainstream politically correct stance is that "the science is in and the time for debate is over." That is a fact, and if scientists find it efficient to go about it that way (rather than correct that somewhat incorrect stance), then there will be a small portion of people who will dig their feet in against those sorts of dishonest tactics. And furthermore, some of these people will write convincing rebuttals (after all, there is a completely science based disagreement with the status quo opinion) that voters who want to not believe will typically interpret as "the scientists are lying to us!".

Until the scientific community comes clean, as well as "polices" the outspoken public advocates, the climate change cause will always have this Achilles heel - I am not pointing it out to win an argument, I am pointing it out in the hopes that they fix the problem, as I believe the theory is mostly correct.

Re: Calling bullshit

#203

Post by mistermann »

DonHopkins wrote: post #183
mistermann wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Says the guy who brings bullshit to a discussion about calling bullshit.

Oh, which bullshit was that?

Re: Calling bullshit

#204

Post by ranit »

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…

> 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.

Fair point. Could you find a link where he "deliberately causes outrage" to the opposite camp that "take themselves also too seriously" completely denying the same science theory. I am genuinely curious, because up until recently I also had similar opinion about him (a humorist author approach). Now, I kind of doubt this.

Re: Calling bullshit

#205

Post by mistermann »

yongjik wrote: post #186
mistermann wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"Doc, will I die of liver cancer if I keep drinking?" "Yes, science is very certain on that. You will die." "So, you know everything there is to know about livers or cancers, with complete precision?" "What? Of course not, why would anyone even think that?" "Hah, I thought so, now I won't trust you!"

The difference is, the vocal climate change advocates (who do not understand the science) assert that in fact there is no disagreement on the matter.

Oh wait, that's not completely true, they say the scientific community is "98% in agreement", but they are dishonest about what exactly the 98% of scientists are agreeing to.

Re: Calling bullshit

#206

Post by mistermann »

dandrick wrote: post #197
mistermann wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So why do people trust the dissenting scientists?

That's a great question. At least for myself, I don't immediately trust her (why would I without reading a substantial part of her work) - it is that when someone asks obviously informed questions, and answers are refused, I assume the person being asked the question is lying.

In the youtube video, the senator is very clearing presenting himself as being far more informed on the topic than he is. He is (perhaps unknowingly) being dishonest, so I trust her more.

Re: Calling bullshit

#207

Post by dragonwriter »

mistermann wrote: post #198
dragonwriter wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

> You're likely correct, but isn't is a bit sad that this is the case?

Are you suggesting:

(1) That it is sad that people assess the likely motivations of actors based on their assessment of the facts of the context of those actor's actions in general, or

(2) That it is sad in specific that people don't see men as factually being an oppressed group such that lobbying for greater rights for them than they currently is something other than attempt to establish dominance at the expense of not-men.

In either case, I'd have to say that, no, I don't think it's particularly sad.

Re: Calling bullshit

#208

Post by mistermann »

DonHopkins wrote: post #188
mistermann wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You failed to prove she was "not allowed to speak" by posting a link to a video of her literally SPEAKING in front of Congress. Did somebody interrupt her, and that's the best proof you can come up with of your assertion "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak." Being highly criticized by your peers is not the same as not being allowed to speak. D…

It's interesting that even though I wrote "I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking", the main rebuttal to my post is that she isn't literally prevented from speaking.

Here, let's try a different approach: would you be willing to admit that in human society there is this behavior where peer pressure is sometimes used to persuade people to behave in one way or another? Please note that I am not asking you if that is the case here (that would be my next question), at this point I am simply asking if you are willing to admit that it is a legitimate phenomenon?

Re: Calling bullshit

#209

Post by [deleted] »

ewzimm wrote: post #201
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…

What you're saying here seems to be backing up what Scott Adams is saying. I'm not saying you're an irrational person, but your arguments against him seem to be completely irrational, based on word associations rather than arguments. He says men often avoid arguing with women over gender equality issues for the same reasons they avoid arguing with children or the mentally handicapped, because they see the process of…

[deleted]

Re: Calling bullshit

#210

Post by mistermann »

DonHopkins wrote: post #195
mistermann wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Did she go on to say all was well in the scientific community?

Judith herself obviously has quite a backbone and seems to be able to take this environment on, the more important point is: is there some truth to what she says? Is there in fact a lack of complete honesty in the scientific community, are some people "strongly encouraged" to not say certain things whether not it has a solid grounding in science?

Post reply on HN