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

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

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

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

#81

Post by AlexCoventry »

cgiles wrote: post #72

I would use Andrew Gelman and John Ioannidis as prototypes for the Good Critic and Bad Critic, respectively. Gelman does real, solid work and confines his righteous takedowns to a side hobby. And his criticisms are directed at individual, specific cases, with evidence, and he reserves most of his wrath for repeat offenders rather than one-off mistakes, which are unavoidable given enough projects. He confines criticis…

> Ioannidis' claim to fame is writing a hand-waving, philosophical argument in order to cast doubt on all research at once.

It's solid probabilistic reasoning about the dominant statistical methodology, and its conclusions have been empirically demonstrated in multiple fields.

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

#82

Post by lemagedurage »

to3m wrote: post #77
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…

> A better alternative to "you have to sugarcoat all your thoughts by 30% before you speak them out" would be to train people to be better at taking criticism The amount of extra effort involved in having a few people "sugarcoat" (as you call it) is tiny compared to the effort in retraining vast swathes of people out of what is after all a fairly standard human behaviour. Behaviour so standard in fact that this doesn…

By all means, call it silly, all the more incentive to get to the bottom of it.

"more like the process of actually assembling a persuasive argument"

Why do you use "persuasive" there? If you were right you should be able to prove your point without politeness. Furthermore, if you /need/ politeness to be considered right, /then/ either they're buying bs or you're selling bs. Both are bad for this world.

In my view, people should agree with you based on logic, sane thinking, and not on "what feels good". Because true news isn't always good news, but it's always better news.

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

#83

Post by lemagedurage »

shaki-dora wrote: post #56
lemagedurage wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about using evidence instead of manipulating your point in order to convince people?

Yes, it would be great to live in a world where everyone would judge everything on its merits alone, like you do. Unfortunately, we don’t. Which is why we still put on pants for interviews, write in full sentences, and occasionally waste oxygen being nicer to others than warranted by the cold hard facts alone.

Well i do like warmth, just the genuine kind, not the politeness peer-pressure kind i feel is promoted in the article. Real warmth speaks from actions (patterns) and not from words, because words are forged too easily. An evil person could sugar coat twice as much and get a better job than their honest peer, hm? (virus scanners)

When you see through it you can choose to either exploit it or be fair. That's your call.

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

#84

Post by zaphar »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #67
zaphar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What makes you think people understand the reasons for their own beliefs? How do you know the reasons they give you when asked are the correct ones? Why do you believe that challenging those statements respectfully will change their minds? The actual requirement for persuasion is a believable narrative with a bit of moral weight, and a random selection of standard persuasive tricks that politicians and lawyers have b…

I don't know that challenging them respectfully will change their minds. After all what if they are right?

I do know that not challenging them respectfully is unlikely to persuade anyone least of all yourself.

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

#85

Post by AlexCoventry »

shaki-dora wrote: post #78
mike_hearn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's become a cliche, but that kind of low effort insult is exactly how people like Trump win. You can't argue your position so you resort to calling people who challenge you "cranks". The lazy assumptions that so often pervades these debates leads directly into over-enthusiastic trust of pseudo-science. I've been out all evening, and my post is now at +11. But if it was getting downvoted I am 99% certain it's becaus…

The article here is about the mistakes people make when trying to communicate their doubts in published science: how, even when they are right , they can come across as “cranks” and easily dismissed. I have no idea if you’re right, and I’m not about to waste time down that particular rabbit hole. But you’re arguably doing wrong everything the article mentions. Starting with the impulse of “hold on, I’m not a crank an…

> But you’re arguably doing wrong everything the article mentions. Starting with the impulse of “hold on, I’m not a crank and here are 12 paragraphs and my blog to prove it”. It’s simply off topic in this discussion.

I don't think it came across that way to most people. I'm a bit surprised you got that impression from it, and can't see how you'd read it that way. There's nothing in there about "I'm not a crank," for starters, and it didn't seem at all verbose.

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

#86

Post by to3m »

lemagedurage wrote: post #82
to3m wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A better alternative to "you have to sugarcoat all your thoughts by 30% before you speak them out" would be to train people to be better at taking criticism The amount of extra effort involved in having a few people "sugarcoat" (as you call it) is tiny compared to the effort in retraining vast swathes of people out of what is after all a fairly standard human behaviour. Behaviour so standard in fact that this doesn…

By all means, call it silly, all the more incentive to get to the bottom of it. "more like the process of actually assembling a persuasive argument" Why do you use "persuasive" there? If you were right you should be able to prove your point without politeness. Furthermore, if you /need/ politeness to be considered right, /then/ either they're buying bs or you're selling bs. Both are bad for this world. In my view, pe…

You're assuming that the way people behave is wrong, and that the way you think they should behave is right. Well, guess what: they're going to keep on behaving as they do anyway, no matter what you think. Now suppose you still want to convince people of something. Are you going to adopt a technique that works, or one that doesn't?

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

#87

Post by HeyWolfey »

ninkendo wrote: post #79
HeyWolfey wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are bad because you were told for decades they are bad. The fact I even have to explain that is confirmation at how complete the indoctrination is. Are you seriously attempting to take a morally absolutist position, as if showing an image of a Nazi to aliens would automatically make them recoil in horror as if that particular combination of attire and behavior managed to stumble upon some absolute fixed point of…

Are you seriously attempting to show that nazis aren't bad? Serious question. What have I been falsely indoctrinated about? What should I have been exposed to as an alternate view on nazis? Do history books count as "indoctrination"? To your other point, I would imagine showing aliens concentration camps would make them recoil in horror, yes.

You live in a world where the permanent scare tactics utilized to sustain the Cold War (which were originally developed during WW2) have now been moved over to the forever-nebulous "War on Terror". The enemies can be endlessly expanded now.

You have no other baseline to even compare against. You'll be chasing war propaganda boogeyman for the rest of your life and you won't even consider the fact that you are doing it WHILE you do it.

Nazis weren't the only ones using concentration camps. The people who ACTUALLY paid the real blood and treasure cost to defeat Nazi Germany (Soviet Russia) utilized such camps as well. This throws your juvenile mythology of "Good vs. Evil" obsession out the window since anything Nazi is automatically ultra-evil, ergo, anyone fighting it is ultra-good. Soviet Russia even expelled Jews.

Wait... lemme guess... the actual people who actually killed and enslaved actual Nazis are evil now, too... right? Funny how the enemy list just magically grows longer by the second with nothing more than a hand wave.

You obsess over moral games. That's what you've been indoctrinated to do. And you don't even see it. According to this idiotic game, everyone who isn't you will eventually be designated as a Nazi or an indirect supporter of one.

Only when you are labeled as a Nazi for someone elses expediency will you realize the flaw in your approach. But I'm sure you think that's not possible. You're a good citizen, right?

Lemme know when someone deepfakes your face into a "Nazi" rally and sends the video to your professional circle. That's how easy it is to take your moral preening and twist it against you.

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

#88

Post by tensor_rank_0 »

dghf wrote: post #42
tensor_rank_0 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

I'm also an autodidact and my understanding is that radically agnostic epistemology (such as you suggest) is not very useful. the idea of a delusion presupposes that one could have a correct understanding of reality, at least in theory. the most basic assertion we can make about reality is identity, that is, a thing is itself. the purpose of a logical syllogism is to reduce an apparently complicated chain of identities to a tautology. [0]

rejection of the principle of identity leaves one at the point where no further intersubjective dialogue is meaningful. which is why Avicenna said that anyone who denies the identity should be beaten until he acknowledges that "to be beaten" is not the same as "to not be beaten" and he should be burned until he acknowledges that "being burned" is not the same as "not being burned." [1]

I'm very interested in any corrections, comments, or other replies. I'm also aware that there are other approaches to logic besides the aristotelian approach I have tried to convey above. an example of a non-aristotelian attempt at communicating would be e-prime [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction#Avicen...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

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

#89

Post by tomhoward »

ninkendo wrote: post #79
HeyWolfey wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are bad because you were told for decades they are bad. The fact I even have to explain that is confirmation at how complete the indoctrination is. Are you seriously attempting to take a morally absolutist position, as if showing an image of a Nazi to aliens would automatically make them recoil in horror as if that particular combination of attire and behavior managed to stumble upon some absolute fixed point of…

Are you seriously attempting to show that nazis aren't bad? Serious question. What have I been falsely indoctrinated about? What should I have been exposed to as an alternate view on nazis? Do history books count as "indoctrination"? To your other point, I would imagine showing aliens concentration camps would make them recoil in horror, yes.

I'm not trying to defend/support the GP/sibling commenter, but rather to provide a more sober perspective for you to contemplate.

The issue is not whether Nazis were/are bad. You can feel safe in the assumption that all but an extreme fringe minority are in consensus that Nazi philosophies and practices were horrific beyond comprehension.

What we should contemplate and discuss, however, is what were the economic and cultural conditions that led to the rise of Nazism in Europe in the 30s, and how it came to be accepted, supported and enabled/served by such a large proportion of the population.

Only by fully understanding these issues can we take effective measures to ensure such a movement never takes hold ever again, and ensure that we as individuals are equipped with the strength and judgement to avoid succumbing to populist bigotry any time we see it.

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

#90

Post by dghf »

tensor_rank_0 wrote: post #88
dghf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

I'm also an autodidact and my understanding is that radically agnostic epistemology (such as you suggest) is not very useful. the idea of a delusion presupposes that one could have a correct understanding of reality, at least in theory. the most basic assertion we can make about reality is identity, that is, a thing is itself. the purpose of a logical syllogism is to reduce an apparently complicated chain of identiti…

> I'm also an autodidact and my understanding is that radically agnostic epistemology (such as you suggest) is not very useful.

Oh, absolutely. I was merely suggesting that there is a difference between a lack of doubt for all practical purposes, and a lack of doubt in principle. This difference may not be terribly helpful or pertinent, of course.

Post reply on HN