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

241–250 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#241

Post by BeetleB »

blazespin wrote: post #223
BeetleB wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

First: In case you felt that way, I did not write this to criticize you. I'm not saying you're wrong or you're trying to manipulate people. I'm highlighting the persuasion tactic you used.

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

Thing is, I don't know better! Tell me how you know better.

And "self-evident" is really code for "everyone knows..."

If I said "Sure, I think he can listen to reason just like all the other nuclear leaders", what is your response?

Re: Calling bullshit

#242

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #219
yongjik wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bei…

How do we know that there aren't plenty more dissenters who have been bullied into silence? (Judith's words, not mine.)

Is this the source of "Judith's words, not mine" that you're parroting?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#cite_note-...

http://julesandjames.blogspot.nl/2010/11/wheres-beef-curry.h...

https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-o...

https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-o...

James Annan (2010-11-06). Where's the beef, Curry?. James' Empty Blog. Retrieved on 2010-11-12. “She's really building up quite a history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong. Here on the no-feedback climate sensitivity, for example. Gryposaurus took her to task here on aerosols and D&A (based partly on comments from Gavin) and found her response lacking. Here is Eric Steig refuting her absurd claim about the IPCC that "they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC." Her eventual response (which had to be dragged out of her through repeated challenges that she kept on ducking) was merely to dismiss it as an "anecdote", even though one single case serves to refutes her claim. Well, I don't think I got quite such a rapturous response as Eric did, with my attempts to improve the AR4 drafts, but I certainly didn't get trampled and discredited either - merely made to feel mildly unwelcome, which I find tends to happen when I criticise people outside the IPCC too. But they did change the report in various ways. While I'm not an unalloyed fan of the IPCC process, my experience is not what she describes it as. So make that two anecdotes. Maybe I'm an "insider" too, in her book :-) If she ever deigns to address the substantive point on probability, maybe she can let me know, but I'm not holding my breath. Her main tactic seems to be throwing up layers upon layers of an increasing shaky edifice as quickly as possible hoping that no-one will notice that the foundations are collapsing as quickly as people can read.”

In her own words:

"Nobody and certainly not myself is claiming that I am persecuted or there is a plot that is out to get me." -Judith Curry, October 23, 2010 at 4:43 pm, http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734

Re: Calling bullshit

#243

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #217
E6300 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a scientist's job is not just to do science, but to, as you put it, police the general public's view of his discipline?

A scientist can do whatever he/she wants, whether they ok with various people twisting their statements into half truths while remaining silent on the sidelines. Society as a whole can decide how they want to approach convincing their fellow citizens to act in a certain manner. Look down your nose at me all you want, but we all have to live with the consequences of how the chosen path plays out. The way it has played…

And climate scientists are responsible for Donald Trump getting elected how exactly?

"He who controls the weather, will control the world. He who controls gravity, will control the universe. He who controls time, will never be around." -Thomas Frey

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/mitt-romney-blames-election-l...

Re: Calling bullshit

#244

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #203
DonHopkins wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh, which bullshit was that?

You claimed that Judith Curry was "not allowed to speak", for example.

Here's something she allowed herself to speak:

"Once we get over this little bump of activism, if the Trump administration will put us on a slightly reassuring and saner footing, that will allow all this to die down," she said. "We can always hope." -Judith Curry

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Good luck with that long term plan that depends on Trump putting us on a saner footing!

Are you really sure she isn't allowed to speak? She's on FOX News an awful lot.

And is it really true that people blink when they're lying? Starting at 3:00 I counted Judith Curry blinking 85 times in 60 seconds during this recent Tucker Carson interview on FOX News. At that rate, she must have blinked 387 times during that 4:33 minute interview! Forget about the Butterfly Effect: her eyelash fluttering itself could affect global climate patterns!

https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw?t=3m0s

Re: Calling bullshit

#245

Post by rsivapr »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #91

My wife took a Critical Thinking course at college. Changed her life, and as a result, my life and our kids'. Blows me away that only 90 people per year at that institution took that course. Meanwhile, back in the public school system, we have examiners mistaking their own opinions as fact. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672

Any chance she'd be kind enough to provide some book recommendations?

Re: Calling bullshit

#246

Post by smsm42 »

Paul-ish wrote: post #146
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…

Something about this categorization seems ironic to me. Does this mean that Scott Adams sees himself as a "word-thinker", because he is certainly labeling people in coming up with this list.

I think at least he considers himself a Persuader, that should be clear is you read the blog.

Re: Calling bullshit

#247

Post by belorn »

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…

That is a black-or-white fallacy. You don't need to have a group being historically oppressed in order for discrimination.

Oppression is about liberty for which there is little proof which gender has more. The number of working profession which is excluded for women is exactly the same number for men in countries where both women and men are employed in similar numbers (such as Sweden). Men are equally or even more forbidden to enter areas which are assigned female roles, and the studies that look at this (such as one about the teaching profession) acknowledge that feminism has made some minor progress to make it acceptable to women to move to typical male roles but not the reverse.

Womens right activist has fought a long time that their movement isn't about anti-men world-view, so why is it acceptable to draw that same conclusion on all men's rights activist?

Re: Calling bullshit

#248

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #215
yongjik wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying you decided to stop trusting doctors about cancers, because you saw a TV reporter talking about chemotherapy and it was clear he didn't know anything about cancer. And I'm not sure what you mean by "dishonest", because I think the mainstream media's position is roughly "If we don't cut out fossil fuel we'll be in deep shit pretty soon (say, before 2100, probably sooner)", and it is a statement I th…

I disagree. My observation is that the scientific community is making assertions of what is more or less the current understanding of the state of global warming to the best of their knowledge. Advocates and opportunists are taking this and converting it to something like "98% percent of scientists agree that global warming is 100% caused by man and we are absolutely doomed if we do not do something right now." (obvi…

If your arguments weren't hyperbolic exaggerations in the first place, then you would not have to state the obvious that you're being hyperbolic, and make disclaimers like "Oh, is that not exaaaaaaaaaaaactly what the message is? Of course not, but there is some truth there." How about trying again, and starting with a non-hyperbolic, literally true argument that exaaaaaaaaaaaactly quotes the message with citations to evidence, which you don't have to disclaim in the next paragraph?

And we're still waiting for you to define what you meant by "speak" and list more names, when you claimed that "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak," offered Judith Curry as your only evidence, and then disclaimed "I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking". If not "literally prevented from speaking", then what exactly do you mean?

Next time you find yourself writing a disclaimer for what you just wrote in the previous paragraph, please reconsider simply rewriting the paragraph so it's not hyperbolic, is literally true, and exaaaaaaaaaaaactly quotes and cites the source.

Your claim she was prevented from speaking in any sense of the word is objectively false, and you've refused to provide any more evidence or examples when requested. She said herself that: "Nobody and certainly not myself is claiming that I am persecuted or there is a plot that is out to get me." Except for you, apparently.

By any definition of the word "speak", Judith Curry often speaks a hell of a lot of hyperbolic hot air, words which you yourself heard and parroted without fact checking, whether she's staring straight into the camera and blinking up a storm at literally 85 BPM while bloviating on FOX News: https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw https://youtu.be/HiTbd4Mc3kk , or spreading climate change denial lies on live national television, in front of Congress, in research papers, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, on climate change denial web sites, and on her widely read blog.

Re: Calling bullshit

#249

Post by smsm42 »

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 is entirely possible to have a factual debate about facts and logical conclusions. It is, of course, impossible to make factual debate about opinions, moral principles and preferences, and politics is a mix of both kinds, heavily skewed to non-factual side, unfortunately. Still, I think there's demand for factual discussion even in politics. That's why "fact checking" became a thing and why "fake news" became a popular pejorative. Unfortunately - and probably inevitably, given the stakes - "fact checking" was taken over by opportunists and turned into partisan mudsligning, and "fake news" has been turned into a club for bashing political opponents. But the demand is still there. It's just that MSM media structures may be by now so corrupt that they are institutionally unable to satisfy it.

Re: Calling bullshit

#250

Post by smsm42 »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #141
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…

> Why? You just said it almost never helps. Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part. What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea. More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility…

10% of the time? You are either a genius of persuasion or choose your battles very carefully :)
Post reply on HN