Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing • Hacker News Board

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#71

Post by FreakLegion » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:15 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

[citation needed] - This isn't Wikipedia, so skip the passive-aggressive comments. If you think something's wrong, explain why. The reason to post this is not so much thinking the comment is necessarily wrong as that it makes an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence, which if accepted as fact is going to change the shape of the whole discussion...perhaps appropriately, but the onus is on the person ma…

Identifying errors in reasoning isn't the same as explaining why someone is wrong, though. Given the basic definition of an argument as a structure linking premises to a conclusion, a fallacy is simply a flaw in the structure. It doesn't invalidate the premises or the conclusion, only how they relate to one another. So while you're certainly free to attack the structure behind a conclusion, really you're better off attacking the conclusion itself with an argument of your own.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#72

Post by saurik » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:16 AM UTC

pekk wrote: post #69

saurik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inevitable comments about Bettridge's law of headlines every time a title ends in a question mark are not helpful. They don't make an argument, as the article is hardly ever arguing for the question. It is just indicating "look at me, I know of this exotic jargon term, and it happens to apply to this article title". Like, this article could have been "would hacker news improve if we stopped posting certain kinds…

Sensationalized, misleading titles are not helpful.

This, also, is not useful to point out every time an article title ends in a question mark. I'm not advocating for articles with titles that end in question marks, only that there is no value in reflexively pointing out "this article's title ends in a question mark" every time it happens: Bettridge's law of headlines exists, the point has been made, and even to the people who haven't heard about it, it doesn't give the reader any insight. I maintain that the only use of that particular comment is to make the person writing it feel smart for knowing a jargon term.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#73

Post by pekk » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:17 AM UTC

regularfry wrote: post #60

Toshio wrote: post #34

> "What comments bother you the most?" Mindless evangelism of proprietary technologies, disguised as an attempt at an insightful comment (microsoft's mvps and evangelists are particularly guilty of this).

Emphasis on the "mindless". I'm horribly spoilt in that I'm always hideously disappointed when cool tech comes along that's not open source, but there's some very interesting work going on behind closed doors that is worth evangelising.

Such work is not worth evangelizing. It is worth technical discussion. There is a difference.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#74

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:17 AM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #53

citricsquid wrote: post #13

The biggest problem with Hacker News comments -- actually, make that all comments -- is fundamental: the sort of people that leave comments are (more often than not) people that want something, ANYTHING, to say, not people that have something to say.

If that were the case, the solution would be simple: just skip reading comments. On the contrary I often learn useful things from HN comments. Sometimes I even submit stuff to HN because I am curious about the opinion of HN commentators.

[deleted]

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#75

Post by regularfry » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:18 AM UTC

pekk wrote: post #73

regularfry wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emphasis on the "mindless". I'm horribly spoilt in that I'm always hideously disappointed when cool tech comes along that's not open source, but there's some very interesting work going on behind closed doors that is worth evangelising.

Such work is not worth evangelizing. It is worth technical discussion. There is a difference.

If the work's going on behind closed doors, the technical discussion won't happen without some kind of evangelism.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#76

Post by lutusp » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:20 AM UTC

FreakLegion wrote: post #71

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

[citation needed] - This isn't Wikipedia, so skip the passive-aggressive comments. If you think something's wrong, explain why. The reason to post this is not so much thinking the comment is necessarily wrong as that it makes an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence, which if accepted as fact is going to change the shape of the whole discussion...perhaps appropriately, but the onus is on the person ma…

Identifying errors in reasoning isn't the same as explaining why someone is wrong, though. Given the basic definition of an argument as a structure linking premises to a conclusion, a fallacy is simply a flaw in the structure. It doesn't invalidate the premises or the conclusion, only how they relate to one another. So while you're certainly free to attack the structure behind a conclusion, really you're better off a…

> Given the basic definition of an argument as a structure linking premises to a conclusion, a fallacy is simply a flaw in the structure. It doesn't invalidate the premises or the conclusion, only how they relate to one another.

True, and there's a name for that logical error -- it's the "fallacy fallacy" or "argument from fallacy", the error of assuming that, because there's a fallacy in one's argument, therefore the conclusion must be wrong.

> So while you're certainly free to attack the structure behind a conclusion, really you're better off attacking the conclusion itself with an argument of your own.

Yes. On the other hand, such a reply may serve to strengthen or clarify an argument, and is therefore sometimes appropriate.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#77

Post by zalew » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:21 AM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #31

HN sometimes looks like an Asperger's meetup. I understand this is a place for serious debate and constructive criticism, but sometimes it's more uptight than getting interviewed at a border control. I visit and get value from it, but this article is spot on. Well, I still think [citation needed] is relevant sometimes, in the case of a legitimate/interesting (or maybe questionable) citation that would produce more va…

> I understand this is a place for serious debate and constructive criticism, but sometimes it's more uptight than getting interviewed at a border control.

and the most uptight are the ones who feel the need to pretend.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#78

Post by cLeEOGPw » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:21 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #55

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

[citation needed] - This isn't Wikipedia, so skip the passive-aggressive comments. If you think something's wrong, explain why. The reason to post this is not so much thinking the comment is necessarily wrong as that it makes an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence, which if accepted as fact is going to change the shape of the whole discussion...perhaps appropriately, but the onus is on the person ma…

Yes, but on the other hand, fallacious reasoning is rarely the source of disagreement or controversy in a debate. At least in my experience. All you're doing by saying "ad hominem" is shifting the focus to technical delivery of the argument rather than focusing on the real matter of the discussion. And most people forget that calling something an ad hominem attack does not mean that it's wrong. Most things which get…

> All you're doing by saying "ad hominem" is shifting the focus to technical delivery of the argument rather than focusing on the real matter of the discussion.

I agree, that looking for logical fallacies in the argument often is a straw man in itself, which is ironic and which is the reason many are skeptical about pointing them out altogether. But in the end you can't abandon logic and talk relying only on intuition and emotions and discarding all reasoning, which would happen if people "rather focus on the matter of discussion than shift focus to technical delivery".

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#79

Post by vladimirralev » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:22 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #55

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

[citation needed] - This isn't Wikipedia, so skip the passive-aggressive comments. If you think something's wrong, explain why. The reason to post this is not so much thinking the comment is necessarily wrong as that it makes an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence, which if accepted as fact is going to change the shape of the whole discussion...perhaps appropriately, but the onus is on the person ma…

Yes, but on the other hand, fallacious reasoning is rarely the source of disagreement or controversy in a debate. At least in my experience. All you're doing by saying "ad hominem" is shifting the focus to technical delivery of the argument rather than focusing on the real matter of the discussion. And most people forget that calling something an ad hominem attack does not mean that it's wrong. Most things which get…

I think you may be confusing HN with some other place. I have literally never seen someone being called dumb or anyone being "proven" wrong for being stupid. Honestly, I think most fallacies pointed out here are fair and especially "ad hominem" which is probably the easiest to grasp. Can you find any counter-examples?

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#80

Post by lutusp » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:23 AM UTC

rjtavares wrote: post #42

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

[citation needed] - This isn't Wikipedia, so skip the passive-aggressive comments. If you think something's wrong, explain why. The reason to post this is not so much thinking the comment is necessarily wrong as that it makes an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence, which if accepted as fact is going to change the shape of the whole discussion...perhaps appropriately, but the onus is on the person ma…

What bothers me is the link. If you say it's ad hominem and I don't know what that is, I can google it. Adding a link just feels pretentious.

> Adding a link just feels pretentious.

I sometimes find myself debating with people who never do any research, who expect to get by with flowery rhetoric. For such people, links can serve as a reality check.