Calling bullshit • Hacker News Board

Re: Calling bullshit

#221

Post by mistermann » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #214

mistermann wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is there some truth to what you say? "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak." If you don't mean "literally speak", then what exactly do you mean? What qualifies as "speaking"? Testifying in front of Congress on live national television? Writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal? Boasting of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publication…

Let's approach it this way, in an attempt to clarify where it is we disagree: do you believe there is a single instance in recent scientific history of peer pressure being used to encourage/discourage certain ideas within the scientific community?

Don't forget, sometimes you don't see certain things because they have been eliminated, and a natural reaction might be to assume that they never existed. The idea that disagreements occur in professional environments I don't think is very controversial on HN, but what I seem to be hearing today is that HN believes that these disagreements do not occur in the field of science. There is certainly a very long history of disagreement in science, it is one of the primary strengths of the scientific method. And yet now, it has disappeared? That would certainly appear to be the case, all I'm saying is, I doubt that is the actual reality.

Re: Calling bullshit

#222

Post by sctb » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:12 PM UTC

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…

Controversial threads have way more escape energy than others, and this subthread has definitely left topical orbit. We've detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13382789 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Calling bullshit

#223

Post by blazespin » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #143

blazespin wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue. I mean,…

>You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes? This statement, my friends, is how most persuasion works in the world. No facts, just statements like: "You really think...?" If the person responds with "It's plausible - why not?", then you say: "I mean, Come On!" While it may be hard for some to believe, I write this comment with full seriousness and not as a joke. This really is how mos…

It's called proof by contradiction. I thought it was self evident that Kim Jong-un wouldn't listen to reason once he had nukes, but perhaps you know better.

Re: Calling bullshit

#224

Post by blazespin » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

acjohnson55 wrote: post #148

blazespin wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue. I mean,…

For sure, there are hard-nosed people out there. I agree with you that arguing with these folks is a waste of time. But they are vastly outnumbered. A functional society requires those hardliners to be marginalized and the oppression they advocate to be rejected. For that to happen, there needs to be some baseline solidarity amongst diverse people who mostly simply want safety, opportunity, and justice. It's not a st…

"A functional society requires those hardliners to be marginalized"

Well, that is one theory for sure. But it's a tough one to argue when the reality is that having a bigger gun generally does mean you're right.

Re: Calling bullshit

#225

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #143

blazespin wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue. I mean,…

>You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes? This statement, my friends, is how most persuasion works in the world. No facts, just statements like: "You really think...?" If the person responds with "It's plausible - why not?", then you say: "I mean, Come On!" While it may be hard for some to believe, I write this comment with full seriousness and not as a joke. This really is how mos…

> I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics.

It can be that the PhD's "view of how the system under examination works" indicates that your mathematics doesn't actually apply to the system. At that point, it doesn't matter how error-free your mathematics is.

Is the PhD right about that? They might have higher odds than you, not by virtue of being a PhD, but perhaps by virtue of being more of a domain expert. (Though even that is no guarantee...)

Re: Calling bullshit

#226

Post by acjohnson55 » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

blazespin wrote: post #224

acjohnson55 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, there are hard-nosed people out there. I agree with you that arguing with these folks is a waste of time. But they are vastly outnumbered. A functional society requires those hardliners to be marginalized and the oppression they advocate to be rejected. For that to happen, there needs to be some baseline solidarity amongst diverse people who mostly simply want safety, opportunity, and justice. It's not a st…

"A functional society requires those hardliners to be marginalized" Well, that is one theory for sure. But it's a tough one to argue when the reality is that having a bigger gun generally does mean you're right.

I agree. Many parts of the world work that way, quite explicitly. I'm pretty sure it's the human default. And yet, we have liberal democracies that are at least somewhat functional. I'm interested in how best to work within that scope. I've got a lot less to say about how you achieve progress in a society ruled by warlords, even though that's very timely issue in many places.

Re: Calling bullshit

#227

Post by mistermann » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

ranit wrote: post #204

mistermann wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 simil…

Much of what he has written in the last maybe 3 or 4 weeks I find....distasteful? I absolutely love a good troll, I think he used to be that, but in my opinion he has changed into something less appealing.

I still read him though because I think he continues to raise interesting points (if not always valid) and observations, but I (as someone mostly on "his side" of the political spectrum) often find what he writes a bit repulsive.

Re: Calling bullshit

#228

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Calling bullshit

#229

Post by dennis_jeeves » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

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…

acjohnson55, your observation is spot on. There is one suggestion that I have for 'rational' people: Band together, discriminate against the 'irrational' people in your lives and help out each other. That is one way to preserve your sanity. Often I have found that 'Rational' people also tend be be non-discriminatory and very accommodating on the non-rational people to a point where it hurts their interests. Contact me if interested.

Re: Calling bullshit

#230

Post by croon » Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 10:20 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #115

croon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He won? That is very quantifiable. Despite on 69% of statements lying according to politifact. I would love for you to show me how people cared as much about truth now.

This is exactly where you are going wrong and I believe not really understand what politics is all about. People didn't vote on Trump because of those things that politfact measured. There weren't watching the debates to figure out who was the most well argued person based on some basic idea of their rhetorical skills. They voted on trump for all the things that Politifacts didn't measure but which matter to people a…

> No I am claiming the opposite. That people care as much today as they did back in the 90s.

> People didn't vote on Trump because of those things that politfact measured. There weren't watching the debates to figure out who was the most well argued person based on some basic idea of their rhetorical skills.

I have not mentioned "well argued" nor talked about rhetoric. I've talked about speaking the truth or lying. You can speak the truth as an illiterate 5 year old.

Are you deliberately changing your arguments/moving goal posts between all your responses?