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

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#981

Post by henearkr »

Manuel_D wrote: post #980
henearkr wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same as my other comment. Don't use a proxy.

Is it defensible to claim that men don't commit more violent crime than women? Sure, men are convicted of violent crimes at a higher rates, but convictions for violent crimes is just a proxy for the true violent crime rate. If we want to make th claim that there's a disparity here we shouldn't use a proxy. Of course, that logic doesn't work because convictions for crime is a pretty good proxy. If I want to discredit…

We agree to disagree.

Btw, criminal conviction related to the profession is not a proxy, it is really one of the things that matter, measured directly. So you're mixing concepts.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#984

Post by outrun86 »

tombert wrote: post #976
tourmalinetaco wrote: post #975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was not fantasizing about bestiality, it very clearly states she “lusted after her paramours”. Paramours being adulterous lovers. And, if you even skimmed the rest of Ezekiel 23, you’d know it was describing her being a prostitute to many, many men. I will concede that this chapter, and the Jewish scriptures in general, tend to be rather excessive and would not be where I would start my children for Biblical teac…

I know she wasn't fantasizing about bestiality, but she is still fantasizing about guys with dicks as large as donkeys and cumshots as large as horses; sorry if I didn't make that clear. Regardless, most of the old testament is pretty child-unfriendly. Lots of passages about rape and violence with extremely questionable morality (including unambiguous endorsement of genocide), and I do not think it has any place in a…

The point that this is too graphic for children stands, but this is a metaphor for Samaria and Jerusalem. This is stated explicitly in the text.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#986

Post by nradov »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #929
grecy wrote: post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because they've been deployed so broadly for so long, the chances there is some significant medical harm still undetected is vanishingly small. Cancer rates continue to rise, and will be well over 50% of all people in my lifetime. There is no doubt our current world is making us very sick.

If you don't die of something else first, cancer is what will get you. Increased cancer rates are merely a side effect of improvements in other aspects of health and longevity.

That's part of it, but there legitimately has been a significant increase in cancer rates among younger people. There's something going on but we don't know whether it's radiation or food or something else.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#987

Post by Manuel_D »

henearkr wrote: post #981
Manuel_D wrote: post #980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it defensible to claim that men don't commit more violent crime than women? Sure, men are convicted of violent crimes at a higher rates, but convictions for violent crimes is just a proxy for the true violent crime rate. If we want to make th claim that there's a disparity here we shouldn't use a proxy. Of course, that logic doesn't work because convictions for crime is a pretty good proxy. If I want to discredit…

We agree to disagree. Btw, criminal conviction related to the profession is not a proxy, it is really one of the things that matter, measured directly. So you're mixing concepts.

> criminal conviction related to the profession is not a proxy,

Yes, it is a proxy. Some people commit crimes but aren't charged or convicted. Some people are falsely convicted. Convictions of crimes absolutely are a proxy for committing crimes.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#988

Post by Izkata »

jounker wrote: post #817
AcerbicZero wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the very least it was such an obvious connection that ruling it out should have been an early step; when the PRC clammed up, and stopped letting any data out that should have been seen as the attempt at a cover-up that it likely was. Maybe it didn't come from the lab. Maybe it didn't come from China at all. But maybe we should have checked that? Maybe we should know if some senior coronavirus researchers at that l…

The initial cases of covid 19 cluster around the wet market. The lab is in another part of the city. If it were a lab leak then we’d expect the initial cases to cluster around the lab, and to show up in those who had contact with lab workers. Nobody considered the lab as a source because the basic epidemiological evidence doesn’t support it.

> The initial cases of covid 19 cluster around the wet market.

I remember a few years ago seeing a map of the raw data that led to the wet market conclusion: While it was in the area, but they only got it to be the main cluster by ignoring like half of the data points. I don't think the earliest confirmed cases even came from there. It was far more likely the first "superspreader" event than the origin.

Re: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

#989

Post by pfdietz »

blueflow wrote: post #427
pfdietz wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> biological denialism What is this? I would have thought that the idea that some people who are outwardly one sex have brain wiring for the other sex is quite plausible. Development is very messy.

I do not believe a being could tell if it has a male or female wired brain without relying on some fictitious tropes (or call it stereotypes) about manliness or femininity. This is a constructivistic/social phenomenon.

Well there's two questions. One is whether it's possible for "inner" sex and "outer" sex to be in conflict. There's no reason to think this is impossible.

The other is whether a person suffering from this could tell something was wrong. They couldn't diagnose the problem in detail, but shouldn't they be able to tell, at some level, that something isn't right? Denying the latter just sounds like gaslighting to me.

Post reply on HN