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

261–270 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#261

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

You could argue that sock-puppeting defeats/is an antidote to Argumentum ad populum, and is as such a valid tactic.

In this case also, it would be seen as arrogant to tell someone they aren't smart enough to understand your argument, but not so with a third party, i.e. maybe it's appropriate for playing devils advocate informally.

That said, he was also antagonizing if using "idiot", rather than being more polite himself. If he spoke through his own handle, he might have cared more about civility.

Re: Calling bullshit

#262

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

> who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped

Literally, or he just used a metaphor?

I can say "black people are like bowling balls, they are both black".

You could respond "oh my god! black people are people, not objects! How dare you!"

But this would not be a reasonable response - The implication of the metaphor was not that black people share the property of being an object. That would be a purposeful mis-interpretation.

Granted, the use of metaphor can sometimes be suspect, precisely because of the ambiguity of implication, but that's all it is - ambiguous in meaning/intent.

Re: Calling bullshit

#263

Post by Chris2048 »

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!"

You don't need to know everything about livers and cancers. There is a lot to know that is irrelevant to alcoholism.

Also, the doc was technically wrong. He should of said "high probability", not "Yes, science is very certain".

Re: Calling bullshit

#264

Post by Chris2048 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #216
mistermann wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beh…

You should have made an argument that was literally true in the first place, instead of preemptively disclaiming your argument in the next paragraph. Don't move the goalposts. Explain and defend your original argument by defining exactly what you mean by "speaking", if not literally "speaking", and listing the names of highly trained scientists who are not allowed to "speak" because they don't support the party line.

> by defining exactly what you mean by "speaking", if not literally "speaking"

conventions already exist.

If I say "99% of cats prefer whiskers", this needn't mean that of a worldwide population of 12,000 cats, exactly 11,880 prefer whiskers. It's understood as a statistical statement.

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you not to speak, it is understood you are not being allowed to speak, despite the fact that you are still able to do so. "not allowed" can conventionally mean "influenced in speaking freely".

In this case, whatever the standard of "not allowed" is, we don't need a formal definition when we have the actual example to hand; The implication here is no due respect is given to the scientist because they have an opposing view, marginalising opposition (e.g other scientists will not be keen to get the same treatment, and so less likely to speak up).

You have the rose to smell, there's no need to argue it's name.

Re: Calling bullshit

#265

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

> my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status

Is the implication that there is good reason to feel either might have been true? Is the same true of other scientists considering joining her position?

Re: Calling bullshit

#266

Post by Chris2048 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #238
mistermann wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dis…

Please stop trying to move the goalposts, and go back and 1) define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and 2) list more names of scientists who are "not allowed to speak".

Please prove the goalposts have been moved...

Re: Calling bullshit

#267

Post by Chris2048 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #253
mistermann wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

Since you're so adept at deciding who to trust and judging people's honesty by watching their facial expressions and body language on television, what do you have to say about Judith Curry blinking continuously at 85 blinks per minute during this FOX News interview? https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw Do you trust what this guy says about blinking and lying? https://youtu.be/HiTbd4Mc3kk Have you ever read and listened to th…

> Give us the names of scientists who have been silenced

"hear, hear, tell us what it sounded like, this tree that fell in the woods while no one was around!"

Re: Calling bullshit

#268

Post by richard___ »

BeetleB wrote: post #240
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wor…

>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. If they pointed out that it doesn't apply, sure. However, this is how it usually happened (meant to put in the original post but forgot): He looks at his colleague and asks "Have you ever heard of this?" Th…

People pull the "everyone knows" and "it's obvious" card all the time. It usually happens for two reasons 1) they don't actually understand the argument or subject matter enough to explain what's going on or 2) they don't want to spend the time arguing on something they are certain is true

Re: Calling bullshit

#269

Post by mistermann »

DonHopkins wrote: post #243
mistermann wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Since I can't prove a direct cause and effect, then therefore we shall say with 100% certainty that there is no relation, right?

Enjoy 2016 through 2020.

Re: Calling bullshit

#270

Post by mistermann »

DonHopkins wrote: post #248
mistermann wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I find these conversations extremely frustrating.

I would like to ask you a question and I hope you can answer it honestly: do you believe in the notion that there is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law?

I believe there is, and I think it is in part the problem all of western society is suffering from in these conversations. My core belief, I guess, is that all is not well in the scientific community. I genuinely believe there is substantial peer pressure applied to any scientist who does not toe the line. It is plausible that speaking out could literally end your career. That there are relatively few people complaining is not necessarily proof that there is no problem, that could simply be the effect of the silencing.

Is this true? I don't know for sure, but there are signs. If it is true, even partially, I think it is a big deal. I would hope HN would be a place where we could discuss such things in good faith. My perception is, that's not happening. My perception is that any point I raise is dismissed on a technicality.

Take for example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13386058

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

Of course no single person or group is responsible. So take that same logic and go through all of the speculated causes, and each of those you can say " is responsible for Donald Trump getting elected how exactly? And your end result is, you have discarded every single one of those theories, when the reality is, it was likely some combination of many of them.

I think I'll leave it at that, you can choose how you'd like to react to this.

Post reply on HN