Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#171

Post by nonbel » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 6:52 AM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #166

nonbel wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Null hypothesis significance testing. It is a "method" of statistics that resulted from confusion between Ronald Fisher's significance testing with Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson's hypothesis testing sometime in the 1940s. None of those three are free of blame either. While there is all sorts of things wrong with NHST, the primary thing is that researchers never actually test their own hypothesis. Instead they test a…

>Instead they test a "null" hypothesis that acts as a strawman, usually that some parameter equals exactly zero How is "there is no difference between my groups/conditions" a strawman? This is by far the most common H0.

Because, except in rare cases, the model/theory/idea of interest does not predict "there is no difference between my groups/conditions". It predicts something else. In the rare cases a zero difference is predicted, the method is scientific.

For nearly all use cases many plausible models/theories/ideas will predict "not exactly zero difference", so rejection of the hypothesis "difference = zero" is useless to the scientist. Mathematicians apparently don't get this, which is what inspired the Fisher paper I linked to.

And yes, it is the most common H0. No argument there. The problem is so widespread and destructive that the mind instinctively rejects its existence as unbelievable.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#172

Post by richmarr » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 10:46 AM UTC

EdHominem wrote: post #159

tyleraldrich wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the foundation of fear, especially such that motivates policy, should be based on odds." That is a fair point and a rational reason. However, it's convenient to say "We've always had guns, the chance of randomly getting shot in the street is low, therefore we should keep them." What is the chance of randomly getting shot if guns were never legal in the first place (e.g. an American in which no 2nd amendment was pres…

Why have this conversation though? Even if you were right, you'd save a hundred times more people by advocating for better road safety. I'm not even against gun control. I'm merely against useless legislation and fear-based politics. The movement consistently fails to show interest in the results they're supposedly fighting for (less deaths) and just the means they propose (less guns).

> Even if you were right, you'd save a hundred times more people by advocating for better road safety.

Just curious, what's that assertion based on?

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#173

Post by croon » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

cderwin wrote: post #164

hueving wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If "progressive causes" == science backed causes, then go right ahead. No, "progressive causes" will be whatever is in vogue in the party. So anti-GMO with labeling campaigns and leverage the scientists to cast doubt on their safety would be very possible. Perhaps it will be to convince people that science has shown that people with more money are evil and should be jailed based on the UC Berkley study with the BMWs…

For what it's worth, when I wrote "progressive causes" in my original comment, I wasn't refer to things as black and white as the science on GMOs. I was referring to scientists using their scientific authority to make progressive claims on issues like abortion, or taxation, or anything else that ignores either (a) actual scientific evidence to the contrary or (b) the lack of scientific consensus on the issue at all.…

> For example, there is significant disagreement within economics on, say, minimum wage. It would be an abuse of authority for an economist (for example, Paul Krugman) to claim we ought to raise the minimum wage because there is an economic consensus that we should do so, when in fact there is not and the said economist wants to raise minimum wage because it's a progressive cause.

There is disagreement, but everything I've read has been more along the line of disagreements as to how severe the side effects were, but that they're almost exclusively weighted in favor of the upsides. Feel free to link me if you've read otherwise.

And disagreement within science is good until you can have irrefutable proof (although apparently this can still be ignored). But having policy based on science even when disputed isn't bad. You can always change it according to new results/studies.

> ...and as a progressive he clearly is under the impression that such a technocracy would come to nearly exclusively progressive conclusions. But of course this denies the fundamental truth that he could find a perfectly rational opponent for any of the causes he supports, from public funding of science to Britain's membership in the EU.

You say that, but can you though? I'm honestly considering the possibility that fact based politics has somehow been smeared as "progressive". Especially on public funding of science. That is something I can't even imagine a possible counter argument against. Sponsored science is at best extremely tricky, and most often simply tainted.

I'm not a fan of deGrasse, but in this I can't help but agree with him.

You're under the impression that him being "progressive" colors his views on science. I'm of the impression that it's the complete reversal.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#174

Post by richmarr » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

EdHominem wrote: post #135

tyleraldrich wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns should be respected, and thank you for respecting yours. Now, can you guarantee that every person I pass on the street respects their gun as much as you do, and they won't misuse this "power tool" they have the right to own? If you cannot guarantee that, I don't think you can say anybodies fear is unfounded. What you just said is like saying a fear of airplanes is unfounded because all pilots respect their aircr…

> I don't think you can say anybodies fear is unfounded. I also can't guarantee they won't get diabetes or heart disease, or fall off a ladder, or be hit by one of the passing cars. All of which are vastly more likely to happen than being shot, which itself is an order of magnitude more likely than an innocent person being shot. (ie, not robbing a drug dealer, etc) Dead is dead, and a car gets you there just as quick…

> I normally see the irrational fear (crypto-racism) argument from people who want to limit refugees

I question your probability argument that concerns around guns are irrational.

Just because heart disease is the most common cause of death doesn't mean concern about anything else is irrational.

I think being afraid of something that can kill you is absolutely rational.

> All of which are vastly more likely to happen than being shot, which itself is an order of magnitude more likely than an innocent person being shot.

If fear of guns is irrational then why do licence-holders need them?

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#175

Post by croon » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:36 PM UTC

mjolk wrote: post #23

croon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When science is a partisan issue, what else can you do?

This is delivered a bit to dry for me to know if I should laugh.

Depends, are you into gallows humor or not?

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#176

Post by drzaiusapelord » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:55 PM UTC

cderwin wrote: post #162

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardcore libertarianism is the exception, not the norm in tech. Tech tends to float in big cities and as such is naturally liberal. A lot of the successes of early tech startups is in part due to liberal hiring policies welcoming women, gays, and minorities who otherwise had a hard time working or getting hired at the old conservative shops like IBM. Its the weirdos who gave us the Apple // and the Mac. Not the butto…

> Its the weirdos who gave us the Apple // and the Mac. Not the button down conservative culture Thiel represents. I don't think that's fair. First of all, in some sense Thiel is one of those "weirdos" you mentioned above as a gay man. But that aside, the more modern versions of those enterprises -- google, facebook, uber -- were all funded by that "button-down conservative culture". It is hard, if not impossible, to…

Depends what your focus is. If your focus is playing the stock market or IPO game, it doesn't really matter what industry you're in. You're merely an investor.

Yes, I think this anti-engineer culture at work at HN is ridiculous. Its the people building the future and having a vision for it who matter. Not the bankers who write the loans/buy stock/buy equity. That what Thiel's role is, pretty much just what banks used to do for businesses, except the SV way is no collateral just equity.

I think we greatly overplay the importance of the money men and let them steal credit from the engineers and founders.

> "the weirdos" and people like Thiel.

He stopped being one of the weirdos a long time ago. He's the establishment the weirdos now have to fight against.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#177

Post by sqeaky » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #169

sqeaky wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this one person does, particularly trump, is not indicative of the whole party. Republicans have a long history of being categorically against climate change, against civil rights, pro religion, against the separation of church/state and in general not big on silly little things like evidence or human compassion. Trump is a special case in so many ways. Few of the republicans in power wanted him and he pretty mu…

No true scottsman. Democrats support slavery by your close-minded inflexibility of a political party's values.

You can't really be serious, I think you are trying to provoke a reaction.

The views that I indicated about Republicans exist today and now, not a hundred or more years ago. If you do a poll or research polls already done, the overwhelming majority of American who oppose gay marriage are republicans (and it seems a majority of republicans care). When gay marriage is brought up as an issue in discourse, it is almost always a republican saying something morally reprehensible.

If not for republicans people's gender would largely not be issue in modern politic, but they seem to care about your genitals when you: sign up to be a soldier, want to do family planning, try to get married to another consenting adult.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#178

Post by nkoren » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #107

nkoren wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. By most metrics I am very liberal (although am orthogonal to the left/right axis by some metrics), and I would love to see Republican primaries jammed up with intellectually honest science-believing fiscal conservatives. And should any of them make it through the primaries, I would be double plus thrilled to see a contest between two people who weren't batshit insane. We really, really need this. Having one p…

Agreed. What happens if we get rid of the Republican party? Those same groups will coalesce as factions within the Democratic party and politics will just be more obscured. The single-party South didn't do anyone favors. I think people are of the mindset that the Democratic party doesn't share a lot of the same issues. The Clinton coalition worked because it was full of conservative Democrats. As an example, how's th…

Parties become problematic when their tents gets too big: the central organising principle become personality-driven factions. The Democratic party may already have this problem. When push came to shove, the DNC's core concept of itself was as a machine for getting Clinton elected -- even during the primaries, when that absolutely shouldn't have been its mission. On a philosophical level, that's a pretty shitty organizing principle.

No, there are some things that should not be claimed by any one party, because they are foundational to civilization. Science and rationality, for example. There are other things that should be staked out as party territory, so that the parties are based on differentiated principles rather than personalities.

Personally, I'd love an America where rationality was considered foundational and in-your-face religiosity was a differentiating factor, rather than the other way around. Because honestly, that video made my skin crawl.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#179

Post by nkoren » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

nkoren wrote: post #178

aaron-lebo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. What happens if we get rid of the Republican party? Those same groups will coalesce as factions within the Democratic party and politics will just be more obscured. The single-party South didn't do anyone favors. I think people are of the mindset that the Democratic party doesn't share a lot of the same issues. The Clinton coalition worked because it was full of conservative Democrats. As an example, how's th…

Parties become problematic when their tents gets too big: the central organising principle become personality-driven factions. The Democratic party may already have this problem. When push came to shove, the DNC's core concept of itself was as a machine for getting Clinton elected -- even during the primaries, when that absolutely shouldn't have been its mission. On a philosophical level, that's a pretty shitty organ…

Also, re: these ostentatious religious invocations at the conventions. Think Jesus might've had a thing or three to say about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#180

Post by cryoshon » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 5:40 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #167

cryoshon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you're a vaccine developer or someone working on genetically modified crops, you'll get pushback from Democrats. Pick your poison. hi, former vaccine scientist here: there was never any pushback from democrats that i ever heard of, and i can say with authority that nobody would pick republican any percentage of the time for any purpose. i'm not even exaggerating. scientists are liberals. that's all.

>i'm not even exaggerating. scientists are liberals. >that's all. You're wrong. You just don't hear from the conservatives because it's become acceptable to be borderline militant about political views that aren't liberal enough in universities. The disconnect is mind boggling. I had several tenured professors on my Facebook feed ranting about how everyone who would consider not voting for Hillary was a racist, sexis…

i've spent more time in biotech industry than in academia, as is true of many of my scientist coworkers.

even in industry, they're all (all) liberals. maybe even moreso than in academia, really. even the high up ones. even the runts of the litter. even the foreigners; even the white males. scientists are liberals... and capable of having a polite and objective discussion with those who aren't.