How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick • Hacker News Board

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#41

Post by psyc » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:00 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #28

HeyWolfey wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only you can stop the very dangerous people! Consider the fact that you are a byproduct of the endless programming and propaganda behind the War on Terror. If you have no doubts on that subject, YOU are wrong.

So, I'm endlessly programmed, therefore nazis are good? You can critique the way we acquire information and use that to cast doubt on conclusions. But you definitely can not use those criticisms to add validity to any conclusions either. So I don't see how this world view does anybody any good. At some point, you see nazis, you say "those are bad", and you just know you're right about it. In that sense, morals are a…

"Life is complicated and nobody wants to believe it. I suppose you might call it the infantilism of society. There is deep infantilism in the culture, in terms of the way they think, they can’t bear complexity. That you have to think, that there are gradations, nobody wants that. They want to be told, or they want to say: ‘This is good, this is bad’. Anything that in any way undermines that is not to be borne." - Stephen Fry

No pressing need to point out the obvious criticisms. Fry was already roundly criticized up and down for saying it. But it has become my favorite quote about the way people talk about ideologies.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#42

Post by dghf » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:01 PM UTC

tensor_rank_0 wrote: post #31

dghf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know I am not about certain ideas and philosophies Can you give some examples?

I'm not the person you asked, but... any philosophy/belief system that is descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive/normative) will be _apodictically_certain_ to the extent that it is free from internal contradictions. in simple cases we can examine the ideas and be very confident that there are no internal contradictions. for example: given "A implies B" and "A" then we can conclude "B". essentially any time you forma…

I have a layman's and not very well informed knowledge of philosophy, so at the risk of being savagely and justifiably owned: even in the example you give, doesn't one have to make the assumption that one's rules of reasoning are sound? I don't consider it as a serious proposition, but isn't there at least in principle the possibility that one is deluded, and that modus ponens is not universally valid, for reasons one is not capable of grasping?

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#43

Post by rdiddly » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:02 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #13

exabrial wrote: post #4

All of these are extremely important! Two life skills: * If you are without a doubt, you are wrong If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from, you, are in fact, biased beyond listening to facts, and are likely wrong. * Words matter As my grandma said, "If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all."

> If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from, you, are in fact, biased beyond listening to facts, and are likely wrong. This one especially applies to politics. If you are one of those looking for "sanity", or "common sense", and can't imagine how the other side can possibly hold some position, then this applies to you.

I think the sad fact of politics is that demonizing and misunderstanding the other side is quite deliberate and purposeful, and getting at the truth is the least important of concerns.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#44

Post by zaphar » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:05 PM UTC

JasonFruit wrote: post #22

A certain amount of this boils down to, "Don't be mentally ill or have an otherwise disordered mind." I've known people who were the sort of crank he's talking about, and they were generally — though not always — unhealthily isolated people who had difficulties managing their personal lives. Most had a tenuous grasp on reality, especially the motivations of other people. There are cranks who could respond to these ru…

I think we can let our emotions get away from us whether we suffer from mental illness or not. Many people exhibit the behavior in the article despite being of perfectly sound mind.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#45

Post by exabrial » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:06 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #15

exabrial wrote: post #4

All of these are extremely important! Two life skills: * If you are without a doubt, you are wrong If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from, you, are in fact, biased beyond listening to facts, and are likely wrong. * Words matter As my grandma said, "If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all."

I am without a doubt that white nationalists and Nazis are wrong. Am I supposed to question myself here? Supposed to assume I'm wrong? Your line of thinking is very dangerous and not safe, it enables very bad people by making good people assume they are terrible people themselves.

No offense, but you took my words, turned them into something else, then attacked that argument.

I said, "If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from..." meaning, you should "seek first to understand", also known as Habit #5 from Franklin Covey.

> Your line of thinking is very dangerous and not safe, it enables very bad people by making good people assume they are terrible people themselves.

It is always healthy to examine why one is convicted about certain beliefs. Is it rooted in fact, or fear of the unknown? Since you brought up White Nationalism, this is one of my favorite success stories from a man that sought to understand the very people that hated him: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...

Daryl Davis has done great things just by listening.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#46

Post by zaphar » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:10 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #18

ars wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from, you, are in fact, biased beyond listening to facts, and are likely wrong. This one especially applies to politics. If you are one of those looking for "sanity", or "common sense", and can't imagine how the other side can possibly hold some position, then this applies to you.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. People hold all manner of irrational political beliefs and there is value in recognizing that irrationality.

Do you know the reasons for their beliefs? Can you articulate them? If not then you are conflating your own beliefs with the standard for rationality. You will also be really ineffective at convincing them they are wrong. Not because they aren't smart enough but because you are unable to communicate effectively to them.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#47

Post by JasonFruit » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

zaphar wrote: post #44

JasonFruit wrote: post #22

A certain amount of this boils down to, "Don't be mentally ill or have an otherwise disordered mind." I've known people who were the sort of crank he's talking about, and they were generally — though not always — unhealthily isolated people who had difficulties managing their personal lives. Most had a tenuous grasp on reality, especially the motivations of other people. There are cranks who could respond to these ru…

I think we can let our emotions get away from us whether we suffer from mental illness or not. Many people exhibit the behavior in the article despite being of perfectly sound mind.

Certainly true as well.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#48

Post by shaki-dora » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:12 PM UTC

lemagedurage wrote: post #40

"And death threats (and trolling, and weird online gender-flavoured violence) are not just deeply unpleasant, they’re CRIMES. If you do this, you are breaking the law AND being a shit human being, and you should either stop or walk yourself into the sun." Death threats towards people that use death threats, really? I don't like the article. Some people are more knowledgeable on a topic than others, "if you aren't in…

The article makes the point, quite explicitly, that you should not even call a vast conspiracy a “vast conspiracy”. Not because it’s “not PC”, but simply because people on the receiving end of such diatribes have come to associate certain terms with cranks.

You can disregard such advise, and simply launch more and more over-the-top screeches against the MSM trying to silence you. But you’re not going to change any minds.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#49

Post by watwut » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:13 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #41

ninkendo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I'm endlessly programmed, therefore nazis are good? You can critique the way we acquire information and use that to cast doubt on conclusions. But you definitely can not use those criticisms to add validity to any conclusions either. So I don't see how this world view does anybody any good. At some point, you see nazis, you say "those are bad", and you just know you're right about it. In that sense, morals are a…

"Life is complicated and nobody wants to believe it. I suppose you might call it the infantilism of society. There is deep infantilism in the culture, in terms of the way they think, they can’t bear complexity. That you have to think, that there are gradations, nobody wants that. They want to be told, or they want to say: ‘This is good, this is bad’. Anything that in any way undermines that is not to be borne." - Ste…

I goal of killing and mistreating people of other races is morally wrong. You may mock me as someone who cant bear complexity for that, but that is just that - attempt to make me feel ashamed so that they have it easier.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#50

Post by shaki-dora » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:15 PM UTC

AlexCoventry wrote: post #34

mike_hearn wrote: post #26

I've also investigated bad science papers before, and blogged about it a few times. There's a lot out there. There's nothing special about getting a PhD that makes you politically neutral or morally superior. The temptation to abuse maths to make your personal views seem "scientific" is irresistible for too many. My last public attempt: https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f... I feel some sympa…

I don't understand why this is being downvoted. It seems to be the most insightful, empirically grounded, high-effort comment in the thread.

When an article on how not be seen as a crank makes you want to post a long comment about your research into Russian bots, you should probably think again.