Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#181

Post by EdHominem »

richmarr wrote: post #172
EdHominem wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That gun deaths cluster around guns, and ongoing violence. If you can avoid those you've chopped your risk greatly.

Traffic fatalities do cluster around roads, yes, but those are harder to avoid for the average person.

While the base numbers are roughly the same, for the tragic death of someone who could be you or me (ie not robbing a drug dealer, etc) traffic accidents are the more likely cause of death.

Also, a lot of the low-hanging fruit is taken care of with guns. My colleagues who keep guns have locking holsters(?) that mount under the dash, gun-safes at home, etc. To reduce the deaths by much you've got to approach the hard area of intentional shootings, and you need to realize that those are people trying to kill another - many of those deaths will be replaced with stabbings, etc.

Whereas every day I'm on the roads I see drivers setup to kill those around them while they blithely text away. (Guy in intersection waiting to turn right through the crosswalk, wheels cranked hard over pointing to the pedestrians, and on his cell-phone.) Further, if and when he kills someone, he'll get some pathetically low punishment and probably remain a driver.

Many traffic fatalities happen "near home" and to anyone, pedestrian, driver, passengers in the other car. There's a ton of actionable things we could do, such as just make driver's license renewal require a retest.

We remember the unique, so a gun death stands out. We stoically ignore the everyday, so V2 bombings and traffic fatalities quickly just become a thing that happens.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#182

Post by EdHominem »

richmarr wrote: post #174
EdHominem wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Often for non-gun related threats. And also because they're probably in riskier demographics.

Or maybe because they just enjoy shooting.

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

Worry is zero-sum. The time you spend worrying about being shot is time you aren't spending worrying about your trans-fat intake, or simply enjoying life.

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

Afraid of, or worried about in general? If a bad guy is swinging a gun around, yes you're right to be afraid. There's a direct action that will make you safer - leaving - and you should take that if possible.

But in general to worry about a bad guy with a gun is stealing attention from real problems with actual solutions.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#183

Post by richmarr »

EdHominem wrote: post #182
richmarr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If fear of guns is irrational then why do licence-holders need them? Often for non-gun related threats. And also because they're probably in riskier demographics. Or maybe because they just enjoy shooting. > Just because heart disease is the most common cause of death doesn't mean concern about anything else is irrational. Worry is zero-sum. The time you spend worrying about being shot is time you aren't spending w…

> Often for non-gun related threats.

People carry guns because they're afraid of all the dangerous people out there not carrying guns? Uh huh

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#184

Post by hueving »

cryoshon wrote: post #180
hueving wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

No they aren't. If you think they are liberals you are either stupid or naive. Someone who thinks an 'entire' non political industry is filled with a single political viewpoint is not capable of an objective discussion because people are clearly hiding it from him/her.

I've met many people in biotech startups that are not 'liberals' when it comes to economic policy. They joined explicitly to make something that helps humanity while making them rich at the same time. They were explicitly against government intervention in health care research and believed private industry was better at finding viable solutions to problems. That's antithetical to the standard liberal viewpoint in the US.

If you don't think there are people like that, it's because the crowd you are with is hostile to people with dissenting political views. It's not because biotech is a magical statistical anomaly that operates on the principles of capitalism while being filled purely with liberals.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#185

Post by hueving »

sqeaky wrote: post #177
hueving wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>but they seem to care about your genitals when you: sign up to be a soldier

I forgot, what was the bill number of the law Obama pushed through Congress when the Democrats controlled it that made the selective service apply to women as well? Oh, right, it doesn't exist because Democrats don't give a shit about equality, they just use identity politics to enrage people.

>want to do family planning

You're being intellectually dishonest if you have the brainpower to comment on this site and are pretending this has to do with anything other than the argument about when a human life begins.

Huge chunks of pro lifers give no shits about people using birth control. Yet they consider a human life to begin much sooner than the pro choice crowd. So from their perspective, allowing a woman to extinguish a life is unacceptable. From the pro choice crowd, they think the pro lifers are just sexists interfering with a procedure on the same level as a colonoscopy.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#186

Post by epistasis »

hueving wrote: post #184
cryoshon wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No they aren't. If you think they are liberals you are either stupid or naive. Someone who thinks an 'entire' non political industry is filled with a single political viewpoint is not capable of an objective discussion because people are clearly hiding it from him/her. I've met many people in biotech startups that are not 'liberals' when it comes to economic policy. They joined explicitly to make something that helps…

Liberals and capitalists are a hugely overlapping group! I meet very few liberals who aren't supportive of free markets.

I guess you can find a few in biotech that are against government funding health care research, but they are few and far between. There are also a few that are against regulation, but more as its implemented rather than the idea of it.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#187

Post by EdHominem »

richmarr wrote: post #183
EdHominem wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If fear of guns is irrational then why do licence-holders need them? Often for non-gun related threats. And also because they're probably in riskier demographics. Or maybe because they just enjoy shooting. > Just because heart disease is the most common cause of death doesn't mean concern about anything else is irrational. Worry is zero-sum. The time you spend worrying about being shot is time you aren't spending w…

> Often for non-gun related threats. People carry guns because they're afraid of all the dangerous people out there not carrying guns? Uh huh

Considering police, security workers, private investigators, etc, are a majority of gun carriers, yes, many of them are rightly afraid of people with knives or improvised weapons.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#188

Post by omginternets »

nonbel wrote: post #171
omginternets wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 scie…

Sorry, I still don't understand. Why would an absence of effect predict anything other than a zero difference (assuming infinite samples)?

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#189

Post by nonbel »

omginternets wrote: post #188
nonbel wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scie…

Sorry, I still don't understand. Why would an absence of effect predict anything other than a zero difference (assuming infinite samples)?

No one predicts "an absence of effect". Don't worry, it took me years of reading the literature, running my own simulations, and having discussions in person and online. It is really difficult to accept how bad this is.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#190

Post by omginternets »

nonbel wrote: post #189
omginternets wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I still don't understand. Why would an absence of effect predict anything other than a zero difference (assuming infinite samples)?

No one predicts "an absence of effect". Don't worry, it took me years of reading the literature, running my own simulations, and having discussions in person and online. It is really difficult to accept how bad this is.

Please stop being condescending and actually explain yourself.

>No one predicts "an absence of effect"

In my field, we most certainly do predict an absence of an effect, in the following sense:

1. if a manipulation does not have an effect on the system, then we expect no systematic deviations in the measurement distribution

2. point 1 will be revealed by H0 (no systematic change in measurement distribution across conditions) not being rejected.

It's beginning to sound like you've encountered people who misuse or misinterpret this technique -- and I agree that there are alarmingly many such people -- but this is different from the technique being invalid.

Post reply on HN