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

We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#121

Post by DuskStar »

komali2 wrote: post #108
komali2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Good luck in the NBA if you’re 5’1” tall. Sure, you're not wrong, but you've just stated an individual trait, not a population one. Try now to make the argument that someone is more "likely" to be pro NBA if they're of some arbitrarily chosen genetic background. You will run into the fact that 1. You will be totally unable to create rigid constraints for your genetic background, and 2. Statistical variance will be s…

> No, I’ve stated a population trait. The population of professional athletes Ok... but we've now left the field of genetics. Professional athletes are determined by whether they get hired to play sports professionally, not by genetic birthright. > Not all tall people can be NBA stars but all NBA stars are tall. Again, unsure the relation to genetics here, but this also isn't true. Muggsy was a god and is 5'3". Curry…

> Again, unsure the relation to genetics here, but this also isn't true. Muggsy was a god and is 5'3". Curry is 6'3" which is definitely tall, but among NBA players, not that tall... but his skill level is far, far, far higher than his height would indicate. The statistical variation between height and skill, even in the highly-artificially-selected-for population of NBA players, doesn't correlate perfectly enough to derive a good predictor. You just can't say "the taller the player, the better the player." Not even on average! So, it's not useful information.

This is actually a common fallacy - height is a fantastic predictor of NBA skill, that's why something like 15% of everyone in the US over 7' tall will play in the NBA at some point in their life. But once you've limited the question to the set of people who play in the NBA, it won't be nearly as good of a predictor of skill - because you're measuring after a selection effect.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#122

Post by DuskStar »

malvosenior wrote: post #75
chris_mc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you didn't need uplifting doesn't mean others don't need it. Your "bootstraps" argument is such BS.

You did not refute any of my points. Do you really think lowering the barrier of entry for poor people then giving them on the job training will bring them to the level of people that are already high performing? Companies do not have the resources to make that happen as it would require decades of training, education, therapy, life adjustments... just to get to the same level as some people have coming through the d…

This reminds me of McNamara's Folly - during the Vietnam war, then Secretary-of-Defence Robert McNamara lowered mental standards for service in an effort to increase the size of the conscript pool. [0] (Gwern's review is a nice summary IMO [1]) They'd just need a little more training, right?

Suffice to say, this did not go well.

Might go a bit better without live weapons and people shooting at you, but it really should say something that there are people that the army literally cannot find a use for.

0: https://www.amazon.com/McNamaras-Folly-Hamilton-Gregory/dp/1...

1: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2333328079

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#123

Post by komali2 »

rosterface wrote: post #111
komali2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, I’ve stated a population trait. The population of professional athletes Ok... but we've now left the field of genetics. Professional athletes are determined by whether they get hired to play sports professionally, not by genetic birthright. > Not all tall people can be NBA stars but all NBA stars are tall. Again, unsure the relation to genetics here, but this also isn't true. Muggsy was a god and is 5'3". Curry…

I admit I’m using height as a shorthand here. I’ll put it more simply: Do you think anyone can become a professional athlete with the right training? I don’t. I think it’s a field where genetics determine who can succeed and who can’t. That isn’t to say that everyone who can become a professional athlete becomes one though.

Genetics can certainly determine success in athletics.

But, what genetics? Predictably? I argue, no, not predictably, and quite possibly never predictably across populations.

Hence my overarching argument which is that "these attempts to 'figure out' genetic predispositions across populations are pointless."

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#125

Post by Veen »

DuskStar wrote: post #119
Veen wrote: post #21

> We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography, etc. I note a diversity of politics isn’t included.

I'm personally rather confused as to how a diversity of ability is useful. A diversity of abilities perhaps, but I don't see how having an incompetent in the loop is supposed to help.

That stuck out to me as well, but reading it charitably I suppose it refers to people with disabilities, not to people who are rubbish at science.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#126

Post by instantwhat »

GreaterFool wrote: post #66
instantwhat wrote: post #60

This discussion is a good example of why downvoting, graying comment text, and specifically, downvoting for disagreement, are bad. The solution to the problem this story is about is robust, fearless discussion in pursuit of truth. But what I see here are many thoughtful, reasoned comments being shamed and made hard-to-read by people who aren't able or willing to rebut them. It is cowardly and anti-intellectual. It's…

So one starts with 1 point. Someone clicks downvote, it goes to 0 and the comment disappears, right? That's too fast IMHO. Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?

> Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?

I agree. That's one of the conclusions I've come to from having used different comment voting systems online. I think tildes.net works that way.

But HN specifically has the problem that its founder thinks downvoting for disagreement is good. It mystifies me that someone who ostensibly favors intellectual curiosity has a stated policy which creates a narrow-minded echo chamber (at least, for certain topics).

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#127

Post by instantwhat »

dang wrote: post #124
75dvtwin wrote: post #40

[flagged]

For me it will forever be weird to run across internet comments talking about my inner thought processes. I don't recognize myself in what you say. Are you sure you're right?

Perhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he definitely didn't intend for the code he wrote to work that way, and other users are happy with the program's output.

Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix it.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#128

Post by dang »

instantwhat wrote: post #127
dang wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it will forever be weird to run across internet comments talking about my inner thought processes. I don't recognize myself in what you say. Are you sure you're right?

Perhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he definitely didn't intend for the code he wrote to work that way, and other users are happy with the program's output. Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output…

Would it were so easy! It's more like this. You get dozens of bug reports a day. Some report that XYZ are bugs while others report that no, those are features and you'd better add more, but ABC are bugs and you'd better fix those. If you change ABC or XYZ, there is scandal and outrage! Many new reports are filed.

The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them about you. What should we do now? :)

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#129

Post by 75dvtwin »

dang wrote: post #124
75dvtwin wrote: post #40

[flagged]

For me it will forever be weird to run across internet comments talking about my inner thought processes. I don't recognize myself in what you say. Are you sure you're right?

Thanks for the reply.

I am often not correct in recognizing even my own cognitive biases. So, of course, I do not know what you think. To answer your question otherwise, would be pretentious.

But I am certain, that I feel the unfair bias and censorship against the conservative points of view. In both: what stories are allowed to be posted, and how the comments are moderated.

I am also certain, that would feel much happier with the quality of discussion -- if divisive topics with just a passing relation to modern technology and without substantial evidence based analysis -- would be left to other forums.

Again, thank you for your reply (I did not expect it, I only expected to be flagged again). And thank you for personal time and effort to moderate HN.

Re: We Must Defend Science in the Face of Political Attacks

#130

Post by instantwhat »

dang wrote: post #128
instantwhat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he definitely didn't intend for the code he wrote to work that way, and other users are happy with the program's output. Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output…

Would it were so easy! It's more like this. You get dozens of bug reports a day. Some report that XYZ are bugs while others report that no, those are features and you'd better add more, but ABC are bugs and you'd better fix those. If you change ABC or XYZ, there is scandal and outrage! Many new reports are filed. The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and f…

> What should we do now? :)

I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning.

A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views.

Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones.

At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000.

This is plain to any observer who's been here a while.

So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning.

If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.

Post reply on HN