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

271–280 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#271

Post by mistermann »

DonHopkins wrote: post #244
mistermann wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 depe…

If you literally interpret me, the police should have been called because not being allowed to utter a single word anywhere would be a major human rights abuse.

I could say to you: why are you talking about mammal excrement? Oh, "of course" I shouldn't have used that interpretation of the word, right?

Will you extend the same courtesy to me?

Re: Calling bullshit

#273

Post by ThomPete »

Chris2048 wrote: post #258
ThomPete wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Hillary won the popular vote which is meaningless.

Not in this context.

Re: Calling bullshit

#274

Post by mistermann »

DonHopkins wrote: post #239
mistermann wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and list the names of more scientists who you claim were bullied and "not allowed to speak". Science is evidence based: give us some evidence. Or are you refusing to define your terms and provide any evidence, because you claim without any evidence that these theoretical silent scientists actually exist, but cannot be measured or counted, like undetectabl…

> Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak"

Of course I meant she is not allowed to speak, quite literally. What else could it possibly mean after all, right?

So, in the spirit of this discussion, I will have to concede that what I was trying to articulate is absolutely 100% incorrect as it is based on a false premise, that she is literally not allowed to speak. Indeed, she is on camera numerous times speaking, which proves absolutely that I am wrong.

You win Don Hopkins. Congratulations.

Re: Calling bullshit

#275

Post by blazespin »

BeetleB wrote: post #241
blazespin wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 k…

Well, I can really only go on by what I read in the press. All that killing he's doing to squash dissent. Doesn't sounds like spends much time listening to any rational argument beyond he who can kill people makes the rules.

And, to be fair, that argument seems to work for a lot of people (looking at you, Putin, Assad, etc).

Re: Calling bullshit

#276

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #270
DonHopkins wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scie…

I find these conversations extremely frustrating because you refuse to define your terms or provide evidence for your conspiracy theories after being asked again and again, and instead you keep trying to derail the argument and move the goalposts.

So once again, please define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and list the names of scientists who were not allowed to speak, by that definition.

Re: Calling bullshit

#277

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #271
DonHopkins wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 depe…

If you literally interpret me, the police should have been called because not being allowed to utter a single word anywhere would be a major human rights abuse. I could say to you: why are you talking about mammal excrement? Oh, "of course" I shouldn't have used that interpretation of the word, right? Will you extend the same courtesy to me?

The topic of this discussion is "Calling bullshit".

Will you define exactly what you mean by the term "not allowed to speak", and list the names of scientists who were not allowed to speak?

Re: Calling bullshit

#278

Post by DonHopkins »

Chris2048 wrote: post #267
DonHopkins wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

So the one person you named wasn't silenced, you don't know any more names, and don't have any other evidence to support your claim, so therefore your conspiracy theory is that it's impossible to even know them, but they exist anyway. You've just proven my point.

The late Stephen Schneider also made the same point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

"So they make this assertion that they’re being systematically excluded, because they have no other argument, they no have evidence for the assertion. Let them do a study. Let them show us the letters of all the papers that have been rejected. What we did is look at real evidence, independently collected: How many papers, and how many citations. That’s independent, and the only way you can claim it isn’t true is to invoke some massive conspiracy that is frankly laughable." -Stephen Schneider

https://thinkprogress.org/interview-with-scientist-stephen-s...

And remember what Stephen Schneider also said about the person whose words and conspiracy theories you and misterman are parroting: "We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately. It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." -Steven Schneider

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht...

Re: Calling bullshit

#279

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #274
DonHopkins wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and list the names of more scientists who you claim were bullied and "not allowed to speak". Science is evidence based: give us some evidence. Or are you refusing to define your terms and provide any evidence, because you claim without any evidence that these theoretical silent scientists actually exist, but cannot be measured or counted, like undetectabl…

> Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak" Of course I meant she is not allowed to speak, quite literally. What else could it possibly mean after all, right? So, in the spirit of this discussion, I will have to concede that what I was trying to articulate is absolutely 100% incorrect as it is based on a false premise, that she is literally not allowed to speak. Indeed, she is on camera numerous t…

So why did you even come here and purposefully spread misinformation you knew wasn't true? What was your point? What was your goal?

What you did was a systematic, pathological attempt to deceive, spread false conspiracy theories, discredit professional scientists, and deny global warming. Trying that hard so many times to articulate something you know is 100% incorrect is called "lying".

You started out by defending Scott Adams and falsely accusing scientists of lying, but it turned out you were the one actually lying, you weren't accidentally mistaken, and you knew it all along.

Don't pretend to be shocked that I'm unfairly calling you a liar, since I'll quote your own words back to you:

"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 speculative, but they pass it off as established fact." -misterman

Go back over this thread and look at how many times and how vigorously you lied, did precisely what you'r falsely accusing other people of doing, and then feigned shock and mortal outrage that you were actually called on it, in a thread about "calling bullshit".

What was the point to all your lies and false accusations, and are you going to continue to act this way in the future?

Re: Calling bullshit

#280

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #227
ranit wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>"I absolutely love a good troll" -misterman

You're not a good troll.

Post reply on HN