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

Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#91

Post by saraid216 »

illuminate wrote: post #89
johnchristopher wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstood parent. He didn't imply atheism is a religion but that atheists who behaves like religous/zealots are as dangerous as their couter-parts on the religious side.

I can understand the dig on zealotry, but the direct comparisons to "atheism as a religion" remain a pretty good sign that someone doesn't really understand what either term means. It's as unfair to religion as it is to those who lack belief in any God(s).

FYI, I wrote a thing up there ^ about how you don't understand what either term means.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#92

Post by illuminate »

johnchristopher wrote: post #90
illuminate wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand the dig on zealotry, but the direct comparisons to "atheism as a religion" remain a pretty good sign that someone doesn't really understand what either term means. It's as unfair to religion as it is to those who lack belief in any God(s).

I disagree. I think the comparison is valid. Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem ( Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents behave like they were a part of sthg that looks like a religion.

"Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem"

Atheists can be assholes? Why does that even need to be said? Atheists are people and run the same set of qualities that any human can possess.

"Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents behave like they were a part of sthg that looks like a religion."

Religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with being an asshole. Software "zealots" promote their fanatical opinions but they don't worship "software".

It's a crappy analogy when "asshole" would suffice.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#93

Post by illuminate »

saraid216 wrote: post #87
illuminate wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When you are conditioned to beleave and cheer a "scientific" fact, it is improbable that you'll allow new facts to replace your beleave. You have made a new religion wit a new "Idol"." Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. You don't seem to understand what "science" and "religion" actually mean, but you really don't like persons who don't believe in anything, so…

> Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. Both of these claims are 100% false. Religion does have significant evidence; the problematic part of religion is in its interpretation of that evidence, rather than the evidence itself. This ranges from the metaphysical "X exists, therefore God" to the specific incidences of revival tents and miracle workers. This is evide…

"Religion does have significant evidence"

Faith does not have empirical evidence. It has philosophical arguments backing it. Religion would cease becoming supernatural otherwise. There's a reason why theology is a soft social science and not a physical science (no matter what the Discovery Institute may tell you.)

"Science is a fucking method, not some "whole". "

Science is both a reflection of our current understanding of reality and the method of how we refine our understanding of it.

"Pretending to be objective is self-delusion" We are not objective creatures there is a vast difference between nature and those who ~practice~ science.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#94

Post by illuminate »

saraid216 wrote: post #91
illuminate wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand the dig on zealotry, but the direct comparisons to "atheism as a religion" remain a pretty good sign that someone doesn't really understand what either term means. It's as unfair to religion as it is to those who lack belief in any God(s).

FYI, I wrote a thing up there ^ about how you don't understand what either term means.

And your response indicates that you seem to not understand what the burden for "evidence" for faith is.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#95

Post by saraid216 »

illuminate wrote: post #93
saraid216 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. Both of these claims are 100% false. Religion does have significant evidence; the problematic part of religion is in its interpretation of that evidence, rather than the evidence itself. This ranges from the metaphysical "X exists, therefore God" to the specific incidences of revival tents and miracle workers. This is evide…

"Religion does have significant evidence" Faith does not have empirical evidence. It has philosophical arguments backing it. Religion would cease becoming supernatural otherwise. There's a reason why theology is a soft social science and not a physical science (no matter what the Discovery Institute may tell you.) "Science is a fucking method, not some "whole". " Science is both a reflection of our current understand…

I'm just going to note that you're claiming that theology is a science and say that you're wrong.

Here's a write-up on the problematic nature of the methodology you use:

http://www.wideopenground.com/fundamentalism-and-foundationa...

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#96

Post by saraid216 »

illuminate wrote: post #92
johnchristopher wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think the comparison is valid. Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem ( Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents behave like they were a part of sthg that looks like a religion.

"Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem" Atheists can be assholes? Why does that even need to be said? Atheists are people and run the same set of qualities that any human can possess. "Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents be…

> Software "zealots" promote their fanatical opinions but they don't worship "software".

Indeed. But software zealots exhibit the same behavioral properties as normal zealots. "Normal zealots" is understood to be "religious zealots", because those behavioral properties are derived primarily from analyses of religious behavior.

Worship, at the end of the day, has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#97

Post by stan_rogers »

scotty79 wrote: post #65
dvt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bresson was a pioneer of the French New Wave. Again, the comparison is just completely off-base, I'm afraid. What Andrews is doing is just plain theft. (Especially given the fact that she's making money off of IFLS.)

I'm not comparing her to Bresson. I'm comparing her to a photographer. Bresson is just an example. My friend who photographs does exactly the same. I just invoked Bresson to show that even masters in the field do that. Also it's a keyword for google so you can see what his creative process consisted of. You just completely missed my point that picking content and reframing it is valuable creative activity. Theft woul…

If you truly believe that photography is nothing more than framing, then you have a very limited understanding of the medium. Given the same camera, same subject and same point of view (let's take a still life setup and a camera with a prime lens anchored firmly to a locked studio camera stand) I can make any number of completely different photographs that convey very different meanings and emotions. And that's before making any darkroom/post-processing decisions.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#98

Post by markdown »

scotty79 wrote: post #65
dvt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bresson was a pioneer of the French New Wave. Again, the comparison is just completely off-base, I'm afraid. What Andrews is doing is just plain theft. (Especially given the fact that she's making money off of IFLS.)

I'm not comparing her to Bresson. I'm comparing her to a photographer. Bresson is just an example. My friend who photographs does exactly the same. I just invoked Bresson to show that even masters in the field do that. Also it's a keyword for google so you can see what his creative process consisted of. You just completely missed my point that picking content and reframing it is valuable creative activity. Theft woul…

But she didn't have to pick anything. As I mentioned higher up, it's just picked off the top science subreddits and could be automated.

Everything she posts has already been proven to be interesting to anyone interested in science.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#99

Post by scotty79 »

stan_rogers wrote: post #97
scotty79 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not comparing her to Bresson. I'm comparing her to a photographer. Bresson is just an example. My friend who photographs does exactly the same. I just invoked Bresson to show that even masters in the field do that. Also it's a keyword for google so you can see what his creative process consisted of. You just completely missed my point that picking content and reframing it is valuable creative activity. Theft woul…

If you truly believe that photography is nothing more than framing, then you have a very limited understanding of the medium. Given the same camera, same subject and same point of view (let's take a still life setup and a camera with a prime lens anchored firmly to a locked studio camera stand) I can make any number of completely different photographs that convey very different meanings and emotions. And that's befor…

Yes you can intentionally take different photos of the same thing by varying lightning. You may even learn what type of lightning invokes what emotions in your viewers. I'm just saying thats not how photography is usually done. You set up the set, the lightning and the camera to the best of your knowledge but you don't take one picture. You take loads of them varying your setup slightly and then you pick the right ones. Of course photography is very varied field and there are guys who get their highs from taking one picture with shoebox but they are not that common among photographers.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#100

Post by scotty79 »

cf wrote: post #69
scotty79 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy to reposting is a robbery? Really? Mine is, telling your friends a joke without bothering to establish who originally invented it.

It's not like many of the original artists want a payout. They just want attribution.

The problem is that because you can be rightfully extorted by original author you have little incentive to keep and acknowledge attribution. It's better to pretend that given image came from the cloud.

That's how copyright enforcers again make it worse for all creative people.

Post reply on HN