Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science • Hacker News Board

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#11

Post by RuggedPineapple » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:34 PM UTC

austin-cheney wrote: post #3

The article refers to a very specific form of toxic communication commonly known as heckler's veto . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto The problem is more pervasive and frequently more subtle than the specific discourse context the article illustrates. A counter example is software where an open source project typically requires no funding or approval to initiate, but equivalent initiatives in profession…

I'm rather sympathetic to the issue in general, but it's comical coming from Loeb.

He's been steadily pushing into at the very least fringe territory, and at the worst outright pseudoscience and quackery. He's mad people are pointing that out. That's what this all stems from.

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#12

Post by MichaelRo » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:34 PM UTC

Maybe it's Schadenfreude? (The experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, pain, or humiliation of another).

Although as far as I know that usually requires the others to have wronged you in some way.

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#13

Post by dasmascusstuui » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:35 PM UTC

api wrote: post #4

I really love Avi Loeb. The search for potential fragments of an interstellar comet at the bottom of the ocean was a long shot, and that’s what’s so great about it. We need many more scientists who are willing to look at far out ideas while remaining very rational and scientific about it . We have plenty of stick to the tried and true conservative scientists and plenty of cranks. Edit: if we see another object like O…

[dead]

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#14

Post by perihelions » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:37 PM UTC

So, the author links to a 32-page arXiv paper that criticizes his own paper, and calls that criticism "toxic" (and "misinformation", too), and contextualizes it with angry Twitter mobs? That's an odd perspective.

What exactly does he mean when he says Harvard astronomy department postdocs are being "terrorized" by "aggressive" criticism?

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#15

Post by dtx1 » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:40 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #10

dtx1 wrote: post #6

It seems odd that even legitimate science that is even tangentially related to the UAP Subject is being attack from so many sides. Given the historical context of the CIA infiltrating and spying on UFO groups[0] and what can only be described as an active political fight around the Schumer Amendment [1] it makes me wonder if at least some of this is orchestrated by political/national security Circles [0] https://sgp.…

The Grusch testimony points to a vast off-budget organization that researches exotic tech. They protect their turf from traditional science.

Which is an insane thing if it turns out to be true. Beside the ontological and criminal Aspects. The alleged Conspiracy and mass Manipulation that alone would imply is mind boggling.

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#16

Post by dtx1 » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:42 PM UTC

api wrote: post #9

dtx1 wrote: post #6

It seems odd that even legitimate science that is even tangentially related to the UAP Subject is being attack from so many sides. Given the historical context of the CIA infiltrating and spying on UFO groups[0] and what can only be described as an active political fight around the Schumer Amendment [1] it makes me wonder if at least some of this is orchestrated by political/national security Circles [0] https://sgp.…

The most likely reason for bullshit around the UFO issue is to cover up secret aircraft: https://www.military.com/history/why-first-us-jet-fighter-pi... But that doesn’t mean looking into aliens is silly. The Fermi paradox is genuinely mysterious and one potential answer is “well actually, they are here…” What is necessary is to just ignore all the crazy bullshit in the UFO field including all the new age wackos. Unf…

> I don’t think you need to involve the CIA. There’s plenty of grassroots insanity here.

Just to be clear, I didn't involve them, the CIA historically has involved themselves in this subject in a most questionable manner. It seems reasonable to assume they would do it again.

Though I personally believe they don't have to. The whole debunking-Industry is able to do that alone.

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#17

Post by austin-cheney » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:42 PM UTC

rewmie wrote: post #8

austin-cheney wrote: post #3

The article refers to a very specific form of toxic communication commonly known as heckler's veto . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto The problem is more pervasive and frequently more subtle than the specific discourse context the article illustrates. A counter example is software where an open source project typically requires no funding or approval to initiate, but equivalent initiatives in profession…

> A counter example is software where an open source project typically requires no funding or approval to initiate, but equivalent initiatives in professional settings are frequently vetoed due to the emotional insecurity of a select few vocal participants. Is that true, though? "Equivalent initiatives in professional settings" require resources being allocated to projects that bear no relation with company goals. By…

That is half true. There absolutely is a cost to initiating any change, but that is a one time cost. Some changes can yield dramatic increases in productivity or reductions to costs further down stream. If there exists proper discourse that takes this into consideration then in all fairness any veto presented is certainly not toxic.

When internal initiatives are killed or directed for purely selfish motivations, such as comfort attainment then it certainly becomes toxic. This is why I believe the scenario is exceedingly pervasive, especially in software, because comfort attainment is typically not just the primary consideration, but the only consideration.

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#18

Post by sega_sai » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:45 PM UTC

This guy completely lost it. Nobody in the field treats him seriously because he publishes like 1 first paper a month with all sorts of speculations and shoddy science. Sure when his first claims were distributed about Oumuamua, people were at least somewhat accepting that may be plausible, but then he continued pushing in that direction, as well as trying to be in the media all the time. Realistically I think many scientists just don't care about Loeb. Maybe a small fraction are still interested in disproving his claims.

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#19

Post by ajross » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

daoboy wrote: post #5

The phenomenon is certainly nothing new (see Sayre's Law). People are petty, awful, wonderful, magnificent creatures...and everything in between. The new thing is the tools that enable massive groups to mob together and fulfill their worst impulses. Most institutions have not developed a robust immune system for this novel disease.

There's no mob here. Loeb really is a crank, and a while back started making noise (again) about alien origins for these rocks. And this time a bunch of regular/non-crank/conventional scientists listed to his noise and published a paper refuting it before he could get his own research out.

That's not censorship, that's just science. Yes, it's important that everyone is able to share their iconoclast ideas. And Loeb did. And it's likewise important for people to be able to tell you you're wrong when you are.

Re: Superficial toxicity is the enemy of curiosity-driven innovation in science

#20

Post by javajosh » Sat, Nov 25, 2023, 1:49 PM UTC

If the end-goal is to convince the reader of the veracity of your claim that the BeLaU spherules are of alien manufacture, this piece does not help, and harms a little. It does not help because you spend no time refuting the refutation. You imply that a refutation that doesn't take as long as the original claim isn't worth as much. But that is false. Coming up with one counter-example need not take as long as articulating the theorem.

The harm, as I see it, comes from engaging with the mob. I believe that an honest scientist convinced of evidence of alien tech will know in their bones what an uphill battle it will be to convince anyone of this, and the fact that making such a claim will inevitably come with certain (unfair) labels and attacks. To make such claims and then get angry about those labels being applied doesn't make sense, to the extent that the anger itself reads as evidence of some kind of fraud. Is it possible for a scientist to be naive enough to not realize what this claim would mean for his reputation and career? Maybe. But the more likely scenario is simple fraud and attention seeking, and the anger another layer of performance.