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

Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#51

Post by Tichy »

mseebach wrote: post #31
Tichy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that hard to believe. Surely there is some limit that would change your mind? Maybe if it would save 1000 lives per month? Or one million lives per month? I suspect you don't have any hard data on the impact of torture. Not saying that torture is good, just saying that even in your example, science might change your mind.

Even with science, you don't get to interrogate a captured terrorist that 100% for sure knows where the bomb is/how to disable it - i.e. the Jack Bauer non-dilemma. There will always be a probability.. is there a 70% chance he knows where the bomb is, and maybe only 95% chance that the bomb is actually in place, correctly assembled and activated. NOW how many people would you have to theoretically save to make it OK…

Terrorism was only one example for torture. In a direct war, the situation and "benefit" might be much higher.

Also, maybe the airport checks are already a mild form of torture, deemed an acceptable tradeoff by some.

Anyway, this discussion wasn't about torture. I am not pro torture. All I was saying is that the OP might change his mind with better data.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#52

Post by Tichy »

DrSprout wrote: post #36
msg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bullshit argument. Torture does not save shit and it is good for nothing. What if destroying the earth would save the universe? What if Batman wanted you to torture someone? What if cutting off the eyelids of a brown person meant that unicorns would walk the earth? What if I snuck into suburban households and cut up humans for body parts so my nanobots could learn regeneration techniques? What if the nanobo…

That's still a fact-based argument. You're saying (and I agree) that data show that the supposition that torture is useful is nonsense. It's only useful as a deterrent tool in morally bankrupt regimes. (But again we come to the moral question of how many innocent people we're willing to harm for deterrence's sake.)

Which data do you have? Just curious.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#53

Post by aidenn0 »

I think he forgets one specific form of denial: demands for impossible evidence.

Example: Creationists demand for a complete fossil record

Since things get destroyed, a complete fossil record is not going to happen. If evolution is true: we don't expect a complete fossil record, therefore lack of a complete fossil record is not evidence against evolution.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#54

Post by lutorm »

dpatru wrote: post #49
rortian wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL? Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? Nutrition is not at all easy to do as science because doing research with humans is not considered ethical by society. I think it's something we need to address, and it seems short sighted to me. Your example is not at all convincing evidence for you rather sweeping thesis.

Of course federal funding distorts science. How could it not? It's naive to think otherwise. Politics pervades all the other areas of government spending. Are you saying that scientists and their funders are somehow superior to everyone else? That they have a special gene that makes them bias-free? I see the bias most clearly in the science and studies that are not being funded and the changes that are not being prom…

It can't directly distort science because a) people are applying for grants to conduct research. They don't yet know what the results are going to be, unless you accuse the scientific community of massive fraud. And, b) because research grants, at least the ones I know of which are given out by NSF and NASA, are not awarded based on what the government thinks but on how the proposal is rated by an independent panel of peer-reviewing scientists.

You can of course imagine second-order effects whereby the selection of the members of the peer-review committee is skewed by the program officers, picking panels that they think will give money to the programs they want. But if they consistently picked committee members that are out of the scientific mainstream, I think you'd hear a howl from the scientific community. I've heard plenty of complaints about the awards from people who weren't funded, but that the panels were stacked by people with predetermined ideas of what results should be obtained is not one of them.

As to your K-12 example, do you know for a fact that there are (competent) researchers who have applied for grants to conduct that study and were rejected? If not, you have no case.

If you think the government orders what research be done, you are woefully uninformed of how the vast majority of research is conducted in the US. Aside from a small number of researchers working in government facilities, research grants are awarded based on proposals from independent researchers. If no one applies to conduct a study, it won't happen no matter how much "the government" wants it to. And as far as I know, there is no government-run research facilities in the field of education.

And finally, in case you haven't noticed, Al Gore has not been affiliated with the government for a decade...

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#55

Post by Retric »

dpatru wrote: post #49
rortian wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL? Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? Nutrition is not at all easy to do as science because doing research with humans is not considered ethical by society. I think it's something we need to address, and it seems short sighted to me. Your example is not at all convincing evidence for you rather sweeping thesis.

Of course federal funding distorts science. How could it not? It's naive to think otherwise. Politics pervades all the other areas of government spending. Are you saying that scientists and their funders are somehow superior to everyone else? That they have a special gene that makes them bias-free? I see the bias most clearly in the science and studies that are not being funded and the changes that are not being prom…

And clearly because all research takes place in the United States...

No wait, all research takes place in areas that have the exact same political spin....

Wait, that's not true either... Hmm

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#56

Post by rortian »

dpatru wrote: post #49
rortian wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL? Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? Nutrition is not at all easy to do as science because doing research with humans is not considered ethical by society. I think it's something we need to address, and it seems short sighted to me. Your example is not at all convincing evidence for you rather sweeping thesis.

Of course federal funding distorts science. How could it not? It's naive to think otherwise. Politics pervades all the other areas of government spending. Are you saying that scientists and their funders are somehow superior to everyone else? That they have a special gene that makes them bias-free? I see the bias most clearly in the science and studies that are not being funded and the changes that are not being prom…

>Of course federal funding distorts science. How could it not? It's naive to think otherwise. Politics pervades all the other areas of government spending. Are you saying that scientists and their funders are somehow superior to everyone else? That they have a special gene that makes them bias-free?

This is pretty sad and pathetic. If you are so confident, please head over to the NSF and go through grant proposals. Let us know when you prove your case with evidence that is so obviously true to you.

>Why don't government-funded scientists study whether thousands of math teachers can be taken off government payrolls and replaced with Khan's videos?

People do study different methods of teaching. I'll think you'll find that videos are no substitute for human interaction though.

Your other commentary on various things is just rather confused, but not lacking in certainty. Congratulations on becoming a fountain of truth.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#58

Post by jbooth »

mynameishere wrote: post #20

There's a pretty strong impulse to call somebody a "denier" in order to categorically denounce what he's saying, as well as everybody similarly skeptical. It's important, when doing this, to paint the person in the simplest "nutshell" terms. Those awful climate "denialists" for instance: In a nutshell: Global warming either (1) isn't real (2) isn't caused by humans or (3) doesn't matter Well, #2 is certainly within t…

Blech!

Your #4 is basically saying "I concede that it's actually real but am going to deny it for unrelated economic ideological reasons."

I mean you're pretty wholeheartedly embracing the term "denier" there.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#59

Post by ErrantX »

lutorm wrote: post #57
ErrantX wrote: post #7

Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Winning quote right there.

True. That's exactly why claims that have many independent lines of evidence, like global warming, should be taken seriously.

Well, although I don't want to get into any argument about it (I was meaning it as a "winning quote" in general - not just r.e. climate science) I think your wrong.

Because considering GW as a single claim in entirety is incorrect - there is a lot of claims and elements that make it up. It is more a field than a claim.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#60

Post by arohner »

Tamerlin wrote: post #45
mseebach wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, global warming is not a government plan. The proposed solutions to GW are. Politicians will play a significant part in distributing carbon credits. And you said it yourself: > (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). Subsidized by whom? Private companies that only exist because of government money really aren't private. I disagree with the OP that it's…

"hugely expensive government programs" That phrase is redundant. Edit: grammar

Not entirely. It's a scale, that goes from "expensive" to "mind boggling expensive". There's just plain expensive (The V-22 Osprey program), and then there's really expensive (The total expenditure of the Social Security program, from inception to 2050).
Post reply on HN