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

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 230 posts

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#101

Post by lzw »

anthonyb wrote: post #98
lzw wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming movement is being perpetrated. The real "problem" is the lack of a world government and the lack of power of governments over people's lives. Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals that will not work on the face of them are actually solutions because t…

> ... world government ... Bingo! I think we have the whole climate denier phrasebook now...

I sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology.

Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#102

Post by nervechannel »

olefoo wrote: post #62
mims wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the funniest thing I've ever read on HN. - Signed, the guy who wrote the original piece for TR

Thanks. Although I was riffing off a long tradition of geeky humor ripping on clippy. On a more serious note; a marketing service that put it's customers brands in front of people who didn't yet know that those products were what they were looking for would be an awesome startup from a business perspective and a somewhat creepy one from a human perspective.

Isn't that how a lot of internet advertising works anyway?

e.g. You're talking about medical condition X, therefore I shall try to sell you drug Y even if you don't mention Y or drugs at all in your search terms/blog post/etc. And I don't care if you even knew that drugs for X existed.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#103

Post by nervechannel »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Some programmer assumes that he is right and others are wrong, so he writes a bot to chase down people he might disagree with and bombard them with one-liners. And Technology Review thinks this is behavior worth promoting? I suspect the reason is that they agree with the programmer. Try it out for a bit with the roles reversed. Doesn't feel quite the same, huh? ADD: The assu…

If rabid frothing twitterers want to get into arguments with someone over topics they know little about...

... and they are happy to continue arguing even if the interlocutor isn't even human...

... then who are we to stop them?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#104

Post by nervechannel »

lzw wrote: post #71
tjmc wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's just rallying against this postmodern delusion that all opinions are equally valid, when the weight of scientific evidence is clearly on his side. And he's not exactly chasing people down, he's just responding to people who are deliberately putting their opinions out there.

Except that the weight of scientific evidence is not on his side. The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. It is merely that there is a political/religious/ideological movement to claim that "global warming is settled science" (with no citations, naturally, not that any legitimat scientist would make such a claim anyway.) The earth is getting colder. The termperature changes we've seen over s…

Are you a counter-bot?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#105

Post by eitland »

philwelch wrote: post #55
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Some programmer assumes that he is right and others are wrong, so he writes a bot to chase down people he might disagree with and bombard them with one-liners. And Technology Review thinks this is behavior worth promoting? I suspect the reason is that they agree with the programmer. Try it out for a bit with the roles reversed. Doesn't feel quite the same, huh? ADD: The assu…

I never had the patience to argue with climate skeptics because I figure once in a lifetime is enough and I wasted my youth arguing with creationists. It would be trivial, given a database of counterarguments to creationist talking points, to write a chatbot to argue with creationists. There are only so many times you can explain to people that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the earth because the e…

I too have spent a lot of time arguing with people who didn't understand the difference between beeing politically correct and being right.

A lot of people will argue about any matter; climate change, religion, Middle East, economics or anything else, even if they now nothing about it and spend more time watching sitcoms than reading up on science or religion or anything.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#106

Post by anthonyb »

lzw wrote: post #91
anthonyb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken about the name calling, but it largely stems from frustration. I don't agree with you about the lack of response or citations. I've provided plenty of data and argument - skepticalscience link to plenty of papers, independent, peer-reviewed, etc. - as well as the reason why deniers are called deniers instead of skeptics. In return, what do I get? One hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted, and a w…

I think that you are sincere and so I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of your response for the answer to your question. On one hand, you linked to a blog that links to "plenty of papers" and you think this is more relevant than a "one hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted". First of all, it is a "hack" paper, only because it disagrees with your conclusion. Secondly "peer-review" is not a barometer of…

I'll put the argument (against the paper) in simple terms:

The SPPI paper says that land weather station data is broken, temperatures are being reported as much higher than they should be, it's all the urban heat island, etc.

Yet the satellite data strongly corresponds with the land based temperatures and also shows an increase. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/surface_satellite_compa... (or read the damn blog post properly)

In addition to this, both urban and rural stations show the same levels of temperature rise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/jones_london.gif

Which brings us back to my original question: If we take what you are saying about the land based temperatures at face value, how do you explain a) the extremely strong correlation between the satellite data and the land based data, and b) the extremely strong correlation in the trends between different stations if the data is flawed?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#107

Post by anthonyb »

lzw wrote: post #101
anthonyb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... world government ... Bingo! I think we have the whole climate denier phrasebook now...

I sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology. Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.

See my previous replies. You still haven't answered any of my original arguments, btw.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#108

Post by cromulent »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #46
msbarnett wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By relying on such tactics you are abandoning science. I don't think this is true. Science is a means of building knowledge via testable predictions. It's not a promotional tool. It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti…

By "unable to sway" you mean "unable to sway everyone without any effort and with almost no delay". How many people believed in evolution in 1500? How many people believed the Sun was powered by nuclear fusion in 1900? It's possible to convince people of the value of scientific inquiry and the truth of the results of scientific research, but sometimes it takes a lot more time and effort than anyone would wish. On the…

The idea that Galileo's life was in danger is itself dogma.

He put himself into trouble by using the Pope's views in the form of his bot Simplicio, embarrassing the Pope. He was in trouble, but not in physical danger.

The irony is that the Church was open to heliocentrism, but demanded more scientific proof before teaching it.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#109

Post by lzw »

anthonyb wrote: post #107
lzw wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology. Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.

See my previous replies. You still haven't answered any of my original arguments, btw.

This is another form of insult. You lie about what I have said in order to characterize me in a negative way. Ad hominem. Reality is, I have responded to your "Arguments" such that they are, and you have simply ignored my responses.

If science is really on your side, why so evasive? Why are you arguing to the person rather than to the point?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#110

Post by [deleted] »

lzw wrote: post #79
glhaynes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified. Excuse me?

The brilliant thing about the global warming debate for proponents is that because they are not even aware of the science inovlved, but firmly convinced that they are on the side of "science" they can say whatever they want. You think some of it hasn't been falsified? Provide a citation please! See what I did there? Also brilliant about their position is that it is completely unfalsifiable (if I'm understanding it co…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN