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

151–160 of 230 posts

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#151

Post by bilban »

lotharbot wrote: post #114
philwelch wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pick any religious, political, or philosophical position. Chances are, most holders of that position make similar statements about it most of the time, and detractors give pretty similar critical responses. It would be trivial to write a chat bot, either pro or con, for a lot of topics. Replacing yourself with a chat bot is just like arguing in person, except that it doesn't try your patience or waste your time, only…

I'm sure you could review the dialogue if needs be.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#152

Post by loewenskind »

buster wrote: post #144
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…

Being told by companies/lobbies, media and social networks that global warming doesn't exist although there is clear scientific evidence that it is, that's what is wrong here. How would you educate people that are driven to false conclusions by greedy companies? First of all this topic is important to address, because it effects us and, above all, our children. Second, this is no topic of "believe" or "taste", it's a…

You can attach urgency to any claim as a reason we don't have time to be sure and can't waste time with contrarian voices.

In fact, it has been said that doing what some MMGW proponents suggest would keep e.g. India in poverty 100 years longer. People suffering and dying right now! We have to act fast to stop the MMGW movement and save them! See?

Stop using this tactic to shut down discussion.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#153

Post by anthonyb »

_b8r0 wrote: post #135
anthonyb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock. At least 95% of the argument with deniers is basically…

That you refer to people who disagree with you as 'deniers' shows that you are not open to debate on the matter, nor being proved wrong. A lot of people used to think the world was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth. The atom used to be described as a pudding. The idea that illnesses were caused by creatures that you cannot see was considered ludicrous. I would be happy to accept any of the above ideas if su…

I am absolutely open to debate on the matter, provided that it's constructive and relies on evidence and rational debate. When people make wild accusations of data tampering, fraud and shadowy world government conspiracies despite abundant evidence to the contrary then yes, they are deniers, and I use that word in an informed technical sense.

It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?".

So yes, they are deniers. If they don't like it, they should start arguing properly, or admit that they're wrong. You know, like scientists do.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#154

Post by _b8r0 »

anthonyb wrote: post #153
_b8r0 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you refer to people who disagree with you as 'deniers' shows that you are not open to debate on the matter, nor being proved wrong. A lot of people used to think the world was flat and that the Sun went around the Earth. The atom used to be described as a pudding. The idea that illnesses were caused by creatures that you cannot see was considered ludicrous. I would be happy to accept any of the above ideas if su…

I am absolutely open to debate on the matter, provided that it's constructive and relies on evidence and rational debate. When people make wild accusations of data tampering, fraud and shadowy world government conspiracies despite abundant evidence to the contrary then yes, they are deniers, and I use that word in an informed technical sense. It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who c…

To act as devil's advocate, this bit:

> It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?".

Could apply to people from either side. There's theories and evidence to support either direction. It's not a binary it is or it isn't happening thing. It's not a binary we cause it, we don't cause it thing. The problem with the debate is that it becomes a religion to both sides.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#155

Post by cabalamat »

statictype wrote: post #49
FlemishBeeCycle wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it has to do with political correctness, but it seems there is an undercurrent on HN of treating all opinions as equally valid? Even if both sides of the argument are incorrect, if the second opinion was formed through rigorous scientific investigation and represents and the best understanding that we currently have, why should we treat it equally with the opinion that was not developed through any sort of…

You're missing the point. It's not about whether or not the facts he's spamming people with are right or wrong, it's the fact that he's doing it in the first place.

> It's not about whether or not the facts he's spamming people with are right or wrong, it's the fact that he's doing it in the first place.

I wouldn't characterise it as spamming. He's sending the messages on one of his own twitter accounts. If he was auto-replying on other people's blogs, he might more accurately be accused of spamming.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#156

Post by buster »

loewenskind wrote: post #152
buster wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being told by companies/lobbies, media and social networks that global warming doesn't exist although there is clear scientific evidence that it is, that's what is wrong here. How would you educate people that are driven to false conclusions by greedy companies? First of all this topic is important to address, because it effects us and, above all, our children. Second, this is no topic of "believe" or "taste", it's a…

You can attach urgency to any claim as a reason we don't have time to be sure and can't waste time with contrarian voices. In fact, it has been said that doing what some MMGW proponents suggest would keep e.g. India in poverty 100 years longer. People suffering and dying right now! We have to act fast to stop the MMGW movement and save them! See? Stop using this tactic to shut down discussion.

I don't know what MMGW is, and i don't know why people like to distract from the subject of matter here. It's not about indians or religion or whatever. It's about a problem that should be taken seriously, because it is _global_ and it will affect future generations!

Shutting down discussion is equal to what the parent suggests (that is to shut up and not to react to those false claims).

So, when you say "you can attach urgency to every claim", you are suggesting that we shuld just wait the next decades and see what happens, or what is your point?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#157

Post by rimantas »

Robin_Message wrote: post #146
rimantas wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Royal Society agrees that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035?

Let's be clear what you are talking about here: In section 10.6.2 of the 2007 "Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability" IPCC report, someone put in an incorrect figure for glacier melting. That's one mistake, after years of scrutiny, in the IPCC report that talks about the impact of climate change, which is not even the report that shows climate change is real. To imply you think that undermines the case for climate chan…

So this was the one and only mistake on IPCC part? Even if I misunderstand IPCC process looks like they are not happy with it themselves: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.ht...

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#158

Post by colomon »

ewjordan wrote: post #141
lotharbot wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pick any religious, political, or philosophical position. Chances are, most holders of that position make similar statements about it most of the time, and detractors give pretty similar critical responses. It would be trivial to write a chat bot, either pro or con, for a lot of topics. Replacing yourself with a chat bot is just like arguing in person, except that it doesn't try your patience or waste your time, only…

Replacing yourself with a chat bot is just like arguing in person, except that it doesn't try your patience or waste your time, only the other guy's, and it doesn't give you any opportunity to learn or be exposed to novel ideas. I don't see any problem with this, as long as you're actually right when you do it. It's never a waste of time to truthfully tell someone that they're wrong, as long as you give them the info…

Are you kidding?! I watched an anti-evolution video about a decade ago, and it was so creatively wrong it has been an endless source of mirth for me since. "You see, there was a giant ice shield around the Earth in the early days, and that messed up carbon dating. Then God melted it to create the flood!"

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#159

Post by anthonyb »

loewenskind wrote: post #150
chrischen wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how much effort you put into it. It only matters how rational and factual it ends up being.

I was using "put work into it" as a shorthand but yes, this is what I mean: many counter arguments have merit as well. People always tend to assume the other side isn't being rational.

Well in my experience that assumption often holds - most people aren't rational, don't understand the issues and will proceed to try and beat you down with "talking points".

I have a two part test to figure out whether someone's a skeptic or a denier:

1. Ask them some sort of question about their position - "Why do you think X", or "How do you explain this weakpoint in your argument?" Basically try and put them on the spot a bit.

2. If they're evasive, then ask them what sort of evidence it would take for them to change their mind.

If they can't give a good response to either of these questions, then they're a denier - if you can't defend your position, and you're not going to admit to any possibility of error, there's not much point in arguing.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#160

Post by anthonyb »

_b8r0 wrote: post #154
anthonyb wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am absolutely open to debate on the matter, provided that it's constructive and relies on evidence and rational debate. When people make wild accusations of data tampering, fraud and shadowy world government conspiracies despite abundant evidence to the contrary then yes, they are deniers, and I use that word in an informed technical sense. It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who c…

To act as devil's advocate, this bit: > It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". Could apply to people from either sid…

It can and does apply to both sides. I have some "greenie" friends who are pathologically opposed to any sort of development, as well as a couple who are full-bore climate deniers. Neither group are particularly well informed on the issues.

However, it does seem that in most issues like this, and with climate change and evolution in particular, the non-science side seems to be particularly stubborn and bloody minded (perhaps because they don't have any evidence, and have to fall back on rhetoric).

Even asking one pretty simple question gets you posts and posts of chatbot-esqe evasion and denial: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867623

Post reply on HN