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

Calling bullshit

callingbullshit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#131

Post by bad_user »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

Even though I have some training, skills in mathematical logic, probabilities and in mathematics in general being very good for spotting bullshit, I still need help. The only thing that actually protects me is this little voice in my head telling me "this guy could be full of bullshit, I'd better check".

But then fact checking is too time consuming, many times I do it, but not often enough. And you can't just wipe clean from your memory whatever you heard. This is the genius behind repetition: if unchallenged, it sticks to your subconscious, whether you want it or not, especially when spoken by people you happen to respect.

So here's the problem, even those of us with a logical, science-oriented mind, that studied the right things in school, even us need help. Do you think that us developers are immune to yellow journalism? Think again. Here's one concrete proof that we can swallow bullshit whole, much like everybody else: https://twitter.com/timbray/status/810157215478755328

The answer is always education and even if you educate a tiny minority, those people can then educate others. And personally I feel like I need that education as well.

Re: Calling bullshit

#133

Post by dashundchen »

DonHopkins wrote: post #114

..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/

He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/814133681711263744

Later in the thread, when presented with any scientific explanation of climate change, he reverts to repeating "how can I trust it?", all the while accusing climate scientists of having a financial incentive to push climate change, not providing proof himself.

Re: Calling bullshit

#134

Post by galfarragem »

'Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.' -- Aaron Levenstein

Or putting in other words: analysis is an art not a science.

Re: Calling bullshit

#135

Post by marcosdumay »

hashkb wrote: post #127
DonHopkins wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there is a fourth category just for people like Scott Adams, that he neglected to mention.

4. Machiavellian Princes?

Persuasive trolls?

One of the later 1% that does not even care what he's persuading people about. Just plays the game for fun.

Re: Calling bullshit

#136

Post by marcosdumay »

tw04 wrote: post #118
DonHopkins wrote: post #114

..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…

The "certified genius" is a rabid Trump supporter. Nuff said.

That guy won an election where more than half of the people didn't even see him coming. Why do people insist there are no smart people working on his campaign?

Re: Calling bullshit

#137

Post by arethuza »

DonHopkins wrote: post #114

..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…

Now you have me trying to combine this categorization with Sociopath|Clueless|Loser...

Re: Calling bullshit

#138

Post by marcosdumay »

scandox wrote: post #82
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of…

Critical thinking is a piece of technology that evolved a lot since the Middle Age. I don't think Newton could do much better. If he wasn't at the leading edge on "critical thinking", he was very near it.

And that's something most people choose to ignore, that even "how to think" is something that evolves, and our current standards were created by many people improving on what came before them.

Re: Calling bullshit

#139

Post by hirsin »

marcosdumay wrote: post #136
tw04 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "certified genius" is a rabid Trump supporter. Nuff said.

That guy won an election where more than half of the people didn't even see him coming. Why do people insist there are no smart people working on his campaign?

Goalposts a galloping.

His team might have smart people on it, that does not make the people who voted for him smart.

Re: Calling bullshit

#140

Post by samirillian »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

So we need a course called: bullshitting people who want to be bullshitted?

I'd worry a lot about the personal/existential implications. Gramsci says that the demagogue is the first one bitten by the snake of his own demagoguery.

Post reply on HN