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

Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#41

Post by lotsofmangos »

gd1 wrote: post #16
terhechte wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it Religion to have a theory that you're trying to prove? You seem to lack a basic understanding of the scientific method. Her theory is: "climate change is involved". And she is searching for evidence, that is, she is trying to prove it. She doesn't even claim that climate change is involved, it is clearly marked as her opinion. Just like Einstein had the theory that time had to be relative, and then set out…

She doesn't posit a plausible mechanism for her theory, does she? It's just the fallback position, "it must be climate change", just a small upgrade from "it must be god". Click on that list I linked above (and they stopped adding to that years ago!).

The science of evolution didn't discover a plausible mechanism until the discovery of DNA.

Besides, the sea is getting measurably hotter and more acidic and from the article, which you say you did not read, some of the starfish recovered when put in cooler water:

The virus probably isn’t the whole story, both Lahner and Raimondi say. Lahner took sea stars that were disintegrating at 54 degrees Fahrenheit and cooled their water to 50 degrees. "They all went from falling apart, having their viscera hanging out, to pretty healthy in a day," she says. "I came back, and they were like, ready for the cover of Vogue. They were perfect." So temperature may play a role in the animals’ ability to recover as well.

The north Pacific basin, on average, has warmed by about half a degree centigrade from 1955 to 2013, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "That’s kind of a scary number," says Andy Allegra, a NOAA data specialist. "It’s very large."

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#42

Post by Gravityloss »

badgersandjam wrote: post #35
Gravityloss wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree completely. Thought experiment: An astronomer sees a comet approaching earth, that will kill billions. He wants to prevent those deaths. He starts campaigning for methods to prevent that: comet deflection, shelter building, whatever. Seems logical and humane to me.

There's a pretty big assumption in there. That the comet is approaching earth and not going to miss it by half a parsec or that the comet is infact a bit of dirt on the lens of the telescope... All of which need testing first before you start waving your hands around and start saying "WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE - RUN!"

We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty.

Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#43

Post by badgersandjam »

Gravityloss wrote: post #42
badgersandjam wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a pretty big assumption in there. That the comet is approaching earth and not going to miss it by half a parsec or that the comet is infact a bit of dirt on the lens of the telescope... All of which need testing first before you start waving your hands around and start saying "WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE - RUN!"

We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty. Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.

Problem is we have about 50% certainty...

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#44

Post by anon1385 »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #40
lotsofmangos wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that standard, Einstein should have not talked to journalists about his 1905 relativity paper until the first prediction that wasn't null was experimentally verified in 1938.

That's simply not a comparable situation.

Somewhat amusingly, it was actually a remarkably comparable situation.

There was a significant populist anti-relativity movement in Germany in the 1920s: http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7

>Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science.

>Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible.

And from a review of the book ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2181.pdf )

>Nevertheless, anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed. Indeed, many believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful, strengthened the contention that a plot was at play—and some anti-relativists were convinced that the co-conspirators were Jewish. Jews were held to dominate both the newspaper business and the new discipline of theoretical physics; they could thus easily advertize one of their own (Einstein) and his fallacious work (relativity). Gehrcke, for instance, kept emphasizing that the successes of relativity could only be explained by a state of “mass hypnosis”, brought about by excessive and one-sided reporting.

Hmm…

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#45

Post by gd1 »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #41
gd1 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She doesn't posit a plausible mechanism for her theory, does she? It's just the fallback position, "it must be climate change", just a small upgrade from "it must be god". Click on that list I linked above (and they stopped adding to that years ago!).

The science of evolution didn't discover a plausible mechanism until the discovery of DNA. Besides, the sea is getting measurably hotter and more acidic and from the article, which you say you did not read, some of the starfish recovered when put in cooler water: The virus probably isn’t the whole story, both Lahner and Raimondi say. Lahner took sea stars that were disintegrating at 54 degrees Fahrenheit and cooled t…

I'm sorry, I can't really continue discussion with you since I've already spent 3 months worth of karma on this thread. My apologies.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#46

Post by waterlesscloud »

anon1385 wrote: post #44
waterlesscloud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply not a comparable situation.

Somewhat amusingly, it was actually a remarkably comparable situation. There was a significant populist anti-relativity movement in Germany in the 1920s: http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7 >Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Beca…

That's interesting, but it certainly was not one of the largest political debates of its era.

That the situation climate change is in. So it's not a comparable situation.

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#49

Post by pyre »

badgersandjam wrote: post #21
gd1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing hurts the climate change 'cause' more than it being a 'cause' in the first place. Activism dressed up as science smells, and plenty of people who would otherwise be sympathetic can smell it.

This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories. To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion. That's not acceptable.

The "problem" is that even with the science pointing in a particular direction, if monied interests don't like that direction, they turn it into a political issue with FUD (personal attacks on the scientists rather than the science, stirring up the "science is an affront to God" crowd, etc).

Re: Starfish are dissolving up and down the West Coast

#50

Post by pyre »

badgersandjam wrote: post #43
Gravityloss wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty. Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.

Problem is we have about 50% certainty...

Inaction is always easier than action, so which way do you think that people will choose?

If we do spend the time, money, and effort to do things like reduce emissions, will we be worse off than we were? Would it not make more sense to use renewable energy resources, and save up the 'easy' sources of energy (oil, coal, etc) for other applications?

Post reply on HN