4 ms·

I honestly don't mind the downvotes. Obviously libertarians would downvote. I did mind the bit where dang decided for whatever reason to move the whole thread f

I honestly don't mind the downvotes. Obviously libertarians would downvote. I did mind the bit where dang decided for whatever reason to move the whole thread from it's correct position.

zo1 11y ago
I did so not because I'm a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist to be more precise. I did so because you're flat out not adding anything to the conversation, as well as seemingly dismissing valid points because you dislike the political ideology that the publication is associated with. Either the ideas/points are valid, backed-up by evidence, etc. Or they're not.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Actually the OP had two points (and an agenda). Let's break them down. 1. I did well therefore why can't everyone be like me? This is rather tired argument that I have seen dismissed 3 times last week on HN alone. Refuting this is a waste of everyone's time hence I ignored it. 2. Here is a think tank publishing sponsored pseudo-science with a political agenda. This is what I commented on. In science, especially in controversial fields, the source of funding and acknowledgement of conflicting interests is almost as important as the findings for any given study. Not mentioning funding or conflicting interest is a viable grounds for withdrawal of peer reviewed publication. Your point: > Either the ideas/points are valid, backed-up by evidence, etc. Or they're not. Refer to my comment on the OP's point 2. To expand. Evidence can be selectively gathered and selectively presented. This is what peer review attempts to mitigate. A publication funded by a libertarian think-tank would (like a publication by a socialist think tank) face severe questions during peer review to try to determine whether there is bias. Neither TFA nor the stuff refereed to by the OP are (yet) citable research sources.

4 ms·

I honestly don't mind the downvotes. Obviously libertarians would downvote. I did mind the bit where dang decided for whatever reason to move the whole thread f

by JupiterMoon 11y ago

I honestly don't mind the downvotes. Obviously libertarians would downvote. I did mind the bit where dang decided for whatever reason to move the whole thread from it's correct position.

zo1 11y ago
I did so not because I'm a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist to be more precise. I did so because you're flat out not adding anything to the conversation, as well as seemingly dismissing valid points because you dislike the political ideology that the publication is associated with. Either the ideas/points are valid, backed-up by evidence, etc. Or they're not.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Actually the OP had two points (and an agenda). Let's break them down. 1. I did well therefore why can't everyone be like me? This is rather tired argument that I have seen dismissed 3 times last week on HN alone. Refuting this is a waste of everyone's time hence I ignored it. 2. Here is a think tank publishing sponsored pseudo-science with a political agenda. This is what I commented on. In science, especially in controversial fields, the source of funding and acknowledgement of conflicting interests is almost as important as the findings for any given study. Not mentioning funding or conflicting interest is a viable grounds for withdrawal of peer reviewed publication. Your point: > Either the ideas/points are valid, backed-up by evidence, etc. Or they're not. Refer to my comment on the OP's point 2. To expand. Evidence can be selectively gathered and selectively presented. This is what peer review attempts to mitigate. A publication funded by a libertarian think-tank would (like a publication by a socialist think tank) face severe questions during peer review to try to determine whether there is bias. Neither TFA nor the stuff refereed to by the OP are (yet) citable research sources.