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

Cognitive bias cheat sheet

betterhumans.coach.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–143 of 143 posts

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#141

Post by csours »

groovy2shoes wrote: post #134
CWuestefeld wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a similar slant against "academic" computer science. As someone who went to college for CompSci, I see good reason for a slant against computer science . The problem is that it's the wrong topic for somebody who does software development! What we do is not science , it's engineering. Much of the time spent teaching us the science aspect is wasted, at least compared to the opportunity to use the time on engin…

> The problem is that it's the wrong topic for somebody who does software development! For somebody building the next CRUD app, perhaps. In my line of work (EDA software), I routinely apply concepts from my computation science education on the job and in my code. Algorithms, data structures, discrete mathematics, graph theory, set theory, type theory, universal algebra, tractability theory, automata theory — these ar…

If you are building programming languages, compilers, tools, etc, Comp Sci is certainly pertinent. If you aren't building programming tools, you can get away with a minimal Comp Sci background.

Re: Cognitive bias cheat sheet

#142

Post by hairy_man674 »

BeetleB wrote: post #137
hairy_man674 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>keep the "secret recipe" to ourselves >Everyone will have a list like that You and/or your publishers are terrible human beings.

>You and/or your publishers are terrible human beings. Eh? Not sure why. Because we have a list of papers we don't believe? It would be naive to believe everything that is published. I don't like the notion of withholding information, and personally I would not like to accept any paper that does that, but I'm merely stating the norm in the field. You still have to contend with journal size restrictions. A paper in Ph…

Maybe I was wrong but here are the reasons for the condemnation

1. propagating falsehoods, or flaws in published work without correcting or refuting their validity, claims etc. by your strong admission that everyone knows of such work (which is subsequently used and cited) yet "completely wrong" there must be so much crap getting published. but there is disinclination to do anything about it

2. witholding of information necessary for reproducing results of experiments as a means of discouraging co-operation with peers you view as rivals or adversaries.

The second is really serious because it effectively subverts the scientific method, undermining scientific consensus and progress. That these are "norms in the field" means nothing save for everybody's indifference and lack of cooperation.

Is the above correct?

Post reply on HN