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

Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

magazine.good.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#91

Post by eli_gottlieb »

grkvlt wrote: post #89
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, what people seem to pick up as "evil" from the fictions isn't the immoral actions , but instead the color-coding of villains as wearing ominous clothes (often dressed for a funeral) and accompanied by certain musical stings. I mean, for God's sakes, the Nazis wore skulls and didn't notice they were the baddies!

> Nazis wore skulls and didn't notice they were the baddies You mean like the Queen's Royal Lancers [1] (17th/21st Lancers in WW2) maybe? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Royal_Lancers

Yes, sure, but there's a slightly deeper meaning to the joke: fascism as an ideology has always been built around the glorification of death. If you want to spot capital-E Evil in real life, look for the people loudly proclaiming their devotion to death.

Maybe they cover it up with "God is great!" sometimes, but then they pop out, "We love death as you love life!"[1]. Sometimes, rarely, they do you the favor of actually printing the Chaos Star of the occult on their book-covers[2] (and I seriously thought that was a pop-culture reference until I found the link proving its truth). Or maybe they're just cheering, "Let him die! Let him die!"[3].

[1] -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfagPS6490

[2] -- http://crookedtimber.org/2015/03/10/who-is-aleksandr-dugin/

[3] -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#92

Post by Joof »

Joof wrote: post #85
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, what people seem to pick up as "evil" from the fictions isn't the immoral actions , but instead the color-coding of villains as wearing ominous clothes (often dressed for a funeral) and accompanied by certain musical stings. I mean, for God's sakes, the Nazis wore skulls and didn't notice they were the baddies!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

I would love a skit on the current NSA. Have an old Russian/Nazi operative on a stakeout with a NSA guy who points out that we don't have to bug phones or do stakeouts anymore. Culminates in reading the e-mail of the operative to him. "But aren't you Americans all about freedom of speech?"; "Of course! My freedom to read your speech."

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#93

Post by crpatino »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #68
crpatino wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no, no, no. You miss the point. If you claim to be a scientist, you leave your personal beliefs at the lab door and abide to the experimental results. If you cannot do that, you pick a different subject of study and let some other unbiased scientist pick on the thorny (for you) subject. How would you feel if Hawkings were a Christian, and he would take money from the Pope and then wrote a report on how he saw Jes…

> How would you feel if Hawkings were a Christian, and he would take money from the Pope and then wrote a report on how he saw Jesus in the black hole? The same way I feel about all such claims: if they can't be independently reproduced, they're garbage. The more bizarre the claim, the easier it should be to disprove it. Authors who publish outlandish claims that cannot be substantiated by others will be first disgra…

Let me clarify, I did not ask how do you feel about reports of metaphysical/paranormal events.

My question was, how would you feel about:

1. A scientist with strong political/religious views.

2. That works in a scientific problem that have strong implicationis for his strong views.

3. Then he does accept funding from established political players that allign with his strong views. He fails to report his funding sources.

4. And finally - surprise, surprise - goes on to write articles that "reach" to the "conclusion" that validate his political/religious views.

The reason is that the GP claimed that there is nothing morally wrong with said scientist because of #2. (the scientist sincerily believes in those biased views). And that the former example has no difference with:

a) Scientist picks one field of study.

b) Scientist accepts funding from a third party that is interested in such field of study.

c) Scientist produces results in his field of study.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#94

Post by crazy1van »

epistasis wrote: post #29
crazy1van wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. I really don't think submitting papers to similarly minded groups in the name of "peer review" is an uncommon occurrence on any side of the climate change debate -- or any other debate for that matter.

I couldn't disagree more. Restricting your review to "like-minded" people is not science at all. It would be like a person advocating for Intelligent Design by only getting peer-reviewed by other evolution deniers. If the claims can't stand on their own and you have to go looking for "like-minded" people than it's pretty weak sauce.

I'm sorry but you're disagreeing with a point different than the one I made. Of course it's bad science to have your idea reviewed by an echo chamber that all agree with you. I was saying that I think it is not uncommon.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#95

Post by fredkbloggs »

crpatino wrote: post #93
fredkbloggs wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would you feel if Hawkings were a Christian, and he would take money from the Pope and then wrote a report on how he saw Jesus in the black hole? The same way I feel about all such claims: if they can't be independently reproduced, they're garbage. The more bizarre the claim, the easier it should be to disprove it. Authors who publish outlandish claims that cannot be substantiated by others will be first disgra…

Let me clarify, I did not ask how do you feel about reports of metaphysical/paranormal events. My question was, how would you feel about: 1. A scientist with strong political/religious views. 2. That works in a scientific problem that have strong implicationis for his strong views. 3. Then he does accept funding from established political players that allign with his strong views. He fails to report his funding sourc…

I see your point, but I guess I don't feel that strongly about it. We all have biases, and the way to ensure good results is to document them thoroughly and make sure they're reproduced. After all, some of the people with biases are right. Another good way to make this better has been suggested many times, perhaps most famously by Feynman: require that everyone publish their results, even if they're negative or inconclusive. That way you can't just publish a steady stream of things you agree with, and everyone gets to learn whatever you learned (or ought to have learned) from whatever experiments you did.

There's also your point in:

> He fails to report his funding sources.

Which to me is inherently dishonest, especially in a world where you can decide not to publish your results.

So I guess I still don't think what you're suggesting is ok, but my solution is different and more complex than I think you're suggesting. Mainly because I don't think unanimity is healthy and I don't think lack of bias is achievable or even necessarily desirable. But I still agree that what you've suggested is a problem given how science is done right now.

Re: Undercover Activists Buy Off Professors in Climate Sting

#96

Post by sitkack »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #71
sitkack wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being overly pedantic when it comes to _science_ and I say this as a trained scientist. These guys are testifying before congress as experts when they are pedaling their credentials for money and burying their briber's identities. They should at minimum lose their jobs, have any research redacted from journals and possibly face jail time.

> You are being overly pedantic when it comes to _science_ and I say this as a trained scientist. Reckon you're part of the problem, then. Appeal to authority and a refusal to hold research to a high standard. > They should at minimum lose their jobs, have any research redacted from journals and possibly face jail time. We agree on this. I don't even see how it's controversial. I'd just like to see the other 99% of c…

We can't hold science to a higher standard than the rest of the world. You and I would both like this to be a more principled place, but one thing can't be the pin. It has to be across the board.

Most of everything is crap, the good stuff survives mostly. The bad stuff survives as crap mythos and some good stuff goes under.

Post reply on HN