91–100 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's simply a hypothesis formed by experts. you're doing a disservice to yourself and the general purpose of acience by denigrating the concept this way.
When the experts are all white liberal progressives competing for citations and news coverage, you're doing science a disservice by not having a critical read....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
climate change is having wide and radically accelerating impacts. I'm certain the scientists have good insights into why it might be a factor in this event. much more concerning is the knee-jerk ignorance about climate change among lay audiences who are repeatedly putting their hands over their eyes and ears.
The two are connected. Scientists lying about climate change, especially in obvious contexts like this one, makes people see that scientists are not to be trusted. It's the boy who cried wolf.
> "Whether this behavior is due to competition for food or to the decline of the rainforest's productivity caused by climate change will now be investigated in more detail." Declaring the cause must be food competition or climate change seems a bit hasty? These are complex social animals. Given this is the only attack ever observed, it seems possible to me that there are a myriad of plausible one-off explanations. Pe…
> "caused by climate change" Can be translated to "we know this is a good word to say to get research money, so we say it" in this context.
> "Whether this behavior is due to competition for food or to the decline of the rainforest's productivity caused by climate change will now be investigated in more detail." Declaring the cause must be food competition or climate change seems a bit hasty? These are complex social animals. Given this is the only attack ever observed, it seems possible to me that there are a myriad of plausible one-off explanations. Pe…
If you want public funding in Germany, you better make sure that you cover either diversity or climate change with your research. Not sure how they missed the opportunity to give "lack of group diversity" as a possible reason for the attack.
> "Whether this behavior is due to competition for food or to the decline of the rainforest's productivity caused by climate change will now be investigated in more detail." Declaring the cause must be food competition or climate change seems a bit hasty? These are complex social animals. Given this is the only attack ever observed, it seems possible to me that there are a myriad of plausible one-off explanations. Pe…
Yes, given the headline I expected a coordinated attack that wiped out an entire group of gorillas, not a couple of skirmishes. Chimpanzees will attack humans, including eating human children. I don't see why small encounters that result in one or two deaths would be totally unexpected.
And if you, in your grand wisdom, don't see it, it cannot be the case. Yeah.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Declaring the cause must be food competition or climate change seems a bit hasty? It's not a declaration, but a hypothesis that attempts to explain the observations according to prior knowledge. It "will now be investigated in more detail" to try and disprove it. That's bog standard scientific work. What's hasty is the easy dismissal of the opinion of experts on a subject most commenters here are probably unfamlia…
Science is a process. HN isn't anti-science. The scientific establishment is a group of people in various organizational structures and alliances. I'm part of that establishment, and I can say that it lies, exaggerates, and has become increasingly untrustworthy in the past decade or two: - The easiest way to get ahead in the scientific establishment is to fabricate politically-motivated results. - Competition is inte…
Oh yes it is. We're not just talking about criticisms of individual papers here; this site often has comments disparaging science as a whole, calling it a "new religion", etc. If that isn't anti-science, then there isn't such a thing.
Moreover, typical commenters here do not apply evidence, critical thinking, and scientific process appropriately. They usually find something easy to nitpick that gives them the appearance of thinking critically, then they conclude that the research is trash. See: the recent article on caffeine.
It's one giant fallacy fallacy masquerading as deep conversation.
> "Whether this behavior is due to competition for food or to the decline of the rainforest's productivity caused by climate change will now be investigated in more detail." Declaring the cause must be food competition or climate change seems a bit hasty? These are complex social animals. Given this is the only attack ever observed, it seems possible to me that there are a myriad of plausible one-off explanations. Pe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, given the headline I expected a coordinated attack that wiped out an entire group of gorillas, not a couple of skirmishes. Chimpanzees will attack humans, including eating human children. I don't see why small encounters that result in one or two deaths would be totally unexpected.
> Chimpanzees will attack humans, including eating human children. Do you have a source for this?
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/animals/2019/11/i-am-sc... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/magazine/hunting-a-chimp-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chimpanzees will attack humans, including eating human children. Do you have a source for this?
This is very well known information. Sources are easily available on the news source of your choice. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/animals/2019/11/i-am-sc... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/magazine/hunting-a-chimp-...
So it doesn't seem that's their natural behavior. So how's that relevant? Oh wait it its, just exactly the opposite of what you said! Nice.