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

Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

natesilver.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 385 posts

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#311

Post by epups »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #201
Fomite wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://twitter.com/GermsAndNumbers/status/16340874678749470... This is a somewhat flippant take of mine, but is emblematic of a lot of Nate Silver's posting during the pandemic, which is that epidemiologists are all hyper risk adverse ninnies, and we're clearly at the end of the pandemic.

You could go to the 2016 election and see Nate Silver backtrack and never admit failure if you like. This guy came up out of nowhere and is a clown.

How did he fail in the 2016 election? He produced one of the best prediction models.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#312

Post by tiznow »

Roark66 wrote: post #296

To be skeptical they first need competency to understand both sides of the argument. Unfortunately the longer I observe the work of journalists the more I become convinced,except few individuals, most people that become journalists do so because they failed in their primary choice of career. This is a huge threat to democracy that one of the most important functions in society (to inform) has been "outsourced" to a b…

"most people that become journalists do so because they failed in their primary choice of career."

Well this is braindead. I assure you most journalists want to be journalists more than anything else -- that's the only reason to hang around in that industry.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#313

Post by willyt »

Roark66 wrote: post #296

To be skeptical they first need competency to understand both sides of the argument. Unfortunately the longer I observe the work of journalists the more I become convinced,except few individuals, most people that become journalists do so because they failed in their primary choice of career. This is a huge threat to democracy that one of the most important functions in society (to inform) has been "outsourced" to a b…

‘Journalist’ should be a profession like ‘medical doctor’ or ’structural engineer’ or ‘electrician’ or ‘architect’. Anyone can still write anything and publish it wherever they want. But the words ‘News’ and ‘Journalist’ become legally protected. If you want to claim that what you have written is ‘News’ and that you are a ‘Journalist’ you have to be registered with a professional body and you have to sign every article that you write and claim as ‘news’. This signature is like a checksum that can be verified to check that a story hasn’t been changed and that the person who wrote it takes responsibility for it. You submit this to a register kept by your professional body. Mistakes and retractions are also kept on file there. If you make a lot of mistakes or consistently ignore standard practices like not using multiple sources or verifiable sources you will loose your right to claim to be a ‘Journalist’ and all your past articles would be called into question. You can still say or write whatever you want but you lose the right to call it news and claim you are a journalist. I think something like that would protect freedom of speech but also give a sense of responsibility to the profession. A bad doctor can accidentally kill a good few people over thier career but a bad journalist can incite war or unrest that could potentially kill many more people. E.g. WMDs in Iraq that didn’t exist.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#314

Post by travisjungroth »

tomhoward wrote: post #238

A few years ago I started undertaking practices to let go of emotional attachments, which I discovered after a lengthy and difficult period trying to figure out how to overcome some major life challenges. I’ve been doing these practices consistently now for about 11 years. Even after all that time, I’m not at all free of emotional attachments; I’m working through some very deep career-related ones right now. But that…

> I’ve come to believe that science and logic really doesn’t hold much sway in society at all

Not directly. It's not like our politicians are having better discussions than the Ancient Greeks. We have satellites though, so that's cool.

Math, science, all that, they don't have much power just through words. They need an avenue like technology to get leverage. Cure polio or make a billion dollars trading securities. Then you have some sway.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#315

Post by lukeholder »

tomhoward wrote: post #238

A few years ago I started undertaking practices to let go of emotional attachments, which I discovered after a lengthy and difficult period trying to figure out how to overcome some major life challenges. I’ve been doing these practices consistently now for about 11 years. Even after all that time, I’m not at all free of emotional attachments; I’m working through some very deep career-related ones right now. But that…

I think it’s just all just a replacement for religion. For some reason everyone longs for meaning.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#316

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

jxramos wrote: post #154
xkbarkar wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot to mention the lefts position. They usually used the lab-leak theory to ridicule, mock and even have careers ended for those who dared to propose it as plausible. As so many of our media outlets lean to the left, the mocking and ridiculing was clearly ubiquitous. And when it started to look like lab leak theory had some merit, media just went silent on the matter. SO I disagree hard with that it's a right…

That Jon Stewart take on it is pretty funny https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8?t=211 , the Hershey factory, gets me pretty good.

An incredibly dumb take by someone who has no idea what he's talking about.

The Hershey factory in question is the Huanan market - you know, the place where they were selling wild animals, where the initial cases were heavily clustered around. It's not the research institute on the other side of the city that never even had a closely related virus in the first place.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#317

Post by aredox »

tekla wrote: post #171
aredox wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nate Silver has been blatantly wrong several times during COVID, has been schooled by actual scientists and is now on a personal vendetta against them. He is ready to fan the flames of science-bashing because his fragile yet enormuous ego has been hurt. That tells all that you need to know about him. (Don't believe me? He has never apologised nor shown a little bit of humility after being corrected. That's who he is.…

Provide links please.

I've quit twitter and that stupid website now won't allow people to see tweets if you're not logged in, so I guess you'll just have to search "Nate silver wrong" by yourself, big guy...

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#318

Post by BMc2020 »

oneshtein wrote: post #307
BMc2020 wrote: post #226

Late to the game, but actual experts explain in great detail why it wasn't a 'lab leak' here. https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-1019/ From ASM Microbe in Houston, Texas, Vincent speaks with Eddie Holmes about the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into humans in the Huanan Market in Wuhan, absence of evidence for other origins , and his work on the virosphere.

Can you point to exact moment in the video, because video is long and I cannot find the argument against lab leak.

There's also an mp3 link

http://traffic.libsyn.com/twiv/TWiV1019.mp3

So you can download it to your phone and listen during your commute.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#319

Post by concordDance »

tiznow wrote: post #312
Roark66 wrote: post #296

To be skeptical they first need competency to understand both sides of the argument. Unfortunately the longer I observe the work of journalists the more I become convinced,except few individuals, most people that become journalists do so because they failed in their primary choice of career. This is a huge threat to democracy that one of the most important functions in society (to inform) has been "outsourced" to a b…

"most people that become journalists do so because they failed in their primary choice of career." Well this is braindead. I assure you most journalists want to be journalists more than anything else -- that's the only reason to hang around in that industry.

I recommend using "wrong" rather than "braindead". You're less likely to get people's backs up and more likely for them to be receptive. (Plus, it's less hurtful)

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#320

Post by aredox »

COGlory wrote: post #245
aredox wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nate Silver has been blatantly wrong several times during COVID, has been schooled by actual scientists and is now on a personal vendetta against them. He is ready to fan the flames of science-bashing because his fragile yet enormuous ego has been hurt. That tells all that you need to know about him. (Don't believe me? He has never apologised nor shown a little bit of humility after being corrected. That's who he is.…

Science bashing? As in he's bashing the scientific method? Or what is this (noun, proper) "science" you speak of?

The science done by actual scientists. The ones that write: "Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another."

that Nate Silver is now twisting into "the scientists lied, don't trust them" because they had the intellectual curiosity to imagine alternative scenarios in a Slack channel.

Post reply on HN