5 ms·

The Man Who Studies the Spread of Ignorance

50 points by bpolania 11y ago

tokenadult 11y ago
I confess I am ignorant about how this second submission of an article recently discussed here[1] got through the duplicate submission filter. I do enjoy the article, as it illustrates a point I have often observed as a teacher: learners don't start out with blank slates in their minds, but often have all kinds of preexisting misconceptions that have to be actively undone in any educational process. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554
- bpolania 11y ago
  I found the reason, I found the article on LinkedIn, if you compare both links you'll see that mine is different because linkedIn added some stuff at the end of the url.
  - DrScump 11y ago
    Of course, but that doesn't make checking before submitting difficult at all: bottom search box, enter a relevant keyword (e.g. "ignorance"), then sort by date. You'd see that it was posted twice before with the first getting 104 comments. linkedIn added some stuff at the end of the url Yes, many sites (e.g. medium, signalvnoise) add phony fragment identifiers to URLs now; I can't think of a reason to do so other than to evade dupe detection.
VLM 11y ago
Looking at the dozens of "chewing gum for the mind" links surrounding the story, before I even read the article I wonder: 1) Is it possible to have real content on a clickbait site? Is this story, any story, worth an exception on the "no platform for clickbait" standard? 2) When did the BBC go full on tabloid clickbait? And on the tech side of clickbait, Ghostery only blocked ten trackers, and of course I block flash. BBC had (had!) an amazing reputation, but that was the BBC worldwide shortwave service in 1975, etc, but this is an internet clickbait site in 2016... what in the world happened?
11thEarlOfMar 11y ago
Here is one of my favorites: 'Microwave Ovens Cause Cancer': http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/why-you-should-never-microwave-your-food/ http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/why-you-sh... I mean, look at all the acronyms after this doctor's name. Clearly he is expert. And his argument seems plausible to anyone who has not studied physics. Here's another one that is not quite as clear-cut: 'Anti-perspirants Cause Cancer'. http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/features/antiperspirant-facts-safety?page=2 http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/features/a... ""There is no convincing evidence that antiperspirant or deodorant use increases cancer risk," Ted S. Gansler, MD, MBA, director of medical content for the American Cancer Society" Ah. Good. The American Cancer Society says anti-perspirants don't cause cancer. To be safe, let's check one more... "Because studies of antiperspirants and deodorants and breast cancer have provided conflicting results, additional research is needed to investigate this relationship and other factors that may be involved." http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/antiperspirants-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/my... oh... but a US government site says it is unclear. Better dig a little more... "Clinical studies ... provide supporting evidence for a role for locally applied cosmetic chemicals in the development of breast cancer." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045991 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045991 Shit. The NIH says it does? Better check Snopes before throwing away the Right Guard... http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp FALSE. 'Nuff said. /s/
- pcurve 11y ago
  The first article is gold. "Microwaving cooks the food at very high temperatures" lol...
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  Your analysis of antiperspirants and cancer is completely wrong, and you've likely fooled several people because you claim to have analyzed it correctly. The fourth link isn't the NIH's official position — it's just a paper hosted on an NIH paper-hosting service (PubMed). The Snopes link doesn't say that antiperspirants don't cause cancer — it merely states that they aren't the leading cause of breast cancer. The real takeaway is that the studies are inconclusive and more research is needed before you can state that they are or are not carcinogenic with any degree of confidence.
dexterdog 11y ago
Trump is a very good example of his hypothesis on the Republican side but he left an impression of bias by not balancing that with an example from the other side of which there are also plenty.
- skywhopper 11y ago
  I see Trump's rhetoric as so detached from reality, that I can't think of any current, relevant people on "the other side" that would come close. Who do you have in mind, exactly?
  - jeremyt 11y ago
    Seriously? You can't think of one person on the Democratic side who is "suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional"?
    - bendableFigure 11y ago
      Yeah, seriously. Please tell us all who you are conflating with the outright stupidity, jingoism, and racism that is Trump.
      - jack9 11y ago
        Rightfully, Hillary and Sanders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI
        outlace 11y ago
        This is just manipulation of decent people. You can always get some percentage of people to agree with something you've propositioned with a camera and mic in their face and when they don't really understand what you mean (and then edit out all the people that didn't). Basic psychology phenom. Repealing the bill of rights is obviously not something Clinton or Sanders have ever proposed and certainly have not been screaming it on national television like Trump This is absurdity of the tribe of Alex Jones
dlsx 11y ago
This article literally states there is not two sides of every debate. This is typical BBC propaganda if I have ever read it. To be honest, we all know smokers who have lived past 80 and in to their 90s. The mystery of smokers who live long is astounding to me, but how dare I speak a lie of such dark deceit on the inter webs? I am smoking a pack a day, loving life, this article and everyone who believes smoking is bad is an idiot. You didn't do your own research, you just believed whatever the fuck they told you.
fiatmoney 11y ago
I find it really ironic that he feels the need to make contentless jabs at current political candidates in an effort to show how those candidates "spread ignorance".
- rybosome 11y ago
  Is your concern that there are an unnecessarily large number of references to political candidates, or that there are references at all? While I am tired of the constant jockeying for position and tribalism of politics, I also wonder what would have been said of the most horrific leaders of the past during their rise to power. Without totally diverting this discussion or fulfilling Godwin's Law, there is a genuine fear among some US citizens that certain candidates could be horrific in this manner.
  - lostlogin 11y ago
    As a someone outside the US, his policies would likely make more difference to us than US citizens. And we don't get a vote.
- mkhpalm 11y ago
  It read like a very politically driven article to me too.
magicmu 11y ago
Interesting read, but not very much information underneath the fluff -- the definition of "demagogue" combined with a cursory knowledge of common logical fallacies covers pretty much everything here. It's also interesting that an article like this is being published by an organization like the BBC; punditry is (I think) one of the most common examples of the phenomenon of obfuscation through constructed debate.
FreedomToCreate 11y ago
I recently read a statistics books by Charles Wheelman in which he covers the topic of using statistics to manipulate facts. I have always taken statistical facts with a grain of salt, but when you understand the methods of manipulation and then review papers debating climate change for example, its mind blowing to see the manipulation of facts...by both sides of the argument.
- peter_l_downs 11y ago
  Any pointers to good examples on both sides for the less knowledgeable (me)? Something I assume is happening in any argument, but I'd love to see exactly what you're talking about.
  - FreedomToCreate 11y ago
    Naked Statistics is the book I read a while back on the topic. There are two particularly interesting chapters, one on Descriptive Description and one on Statistical biases.
- outlace 11y ago
  That's why we go by consensus. Of course any one paper could be BS, but if 98% of scientists agree on something, then I feel fairly confident in that consensus.
dang 11y ago
This is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554. (Yes, we're working on a better dupe detector.)
- EvanPlaice 11y ago
  Thank you for working on dupe detection. Dupes of 'reaction' and/or controversial news posts have been pretty common lately. Ex 'Dear GitHub' 'Dear Dear GitHub'. One pattern I've noticed is there's almost always a comment with a link to the previous post. A shortcut solution could be to encourage users to use a common convention. Ex 'Dupe: [link-to-dupe]'. That way it would be especially easy to pattern match and list dupes for moderation. To prevent dupe creation to begin with might involve some creativity. Such as checking the post link against existing links and notifying the user of an existing post. Similar to what Stack Overflow's 'related posts' listing in the question creation page.
  - dang 11y ago
    Follow-up posts like the example you mention aren't strictly dupes. Some of them are good submissions in their own right, others (probably most) are a bit lame. A similar category that's a lot more problematic for HN is the spate of me-too stories that inevitably pop up as every website in the business publishes its copycat article about story Foo. Again, those aren't not strictly dupes, but morally they are. > A shortcut solution could be to encourage users to use a common convention Too much like cat herding to succeed. But some kind of software support for reporting dupes is on the agenda.

50 points by bpolania 11y ago

I confess I am ignorant about how this second submission of an article recently discussed here[1] got through the duplicate submission filter. I do enjoy the article, as it illustrates a point I have often observed as a teacher: learners don't start out with blank slates in their minds, but often have all kinds of preexisting misconceptions that have to be actively undone in any educational process. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554

bpolania 11y ago
I found the reason, I found the article on LinkedIn, if you compare both links you'll see that mine is different because linkedIn added some stuff at the end of the url.
- DrScump 11y ago
  Of course, but that doesn't make checking before submitting difficult at all: bottom search box, enter a relevant keyword (e.g. "ignorance"), then sort by date. You'd see that it was posted twice before with the first getting 104 comments. linkedIn added some stuff at the end of the url Yes, many sites (e.g. medium, signalvnoise) add phony fragment identifiers to URLs now; I can't think of a reason to do so other than to evade dupe detection.

VLM 11y ago

Looking at the dozens of "chewing gum for the mind" links surrounding the story, before I even read the article I wonder: 1) Is it possible to have real content on a clickbait site? Is this story, any story, worth an exception on the "no platform for clickbait" standard? 2) When did the BBC go full on tabloid clickbait? And on the tech side of clickbait, Ghostery only blocked ten trackers, and of course I block flash. BBC had (had!) an amazing reputation, but that was the BBC worldwide shortwave service in 1975, etc, but this is an internet clickbait site in 2016... what in the world happened?

11thEarlOfMar 11y ago

Here is one of my favorites: 'Microwave Ovens Cause Cancer': http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/why-you-should-never-microwave-your-food/ http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/why-you-sh... I mean, look at all the acronyms after this doctor's name. Clearly he is expert. And his argument seems plausible to anyone who has not studied physics. Here's another one that is not quite as clear-cut: 'Anti-perspirants Cause Cancer'. http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/features/antiperspirant-facts-safety?page=2 http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/features/a... ""There is no convincing evidence that antiperspirant or deodorant use increases cancer risk," Ted S. Gansler, MD, MBA, director of medical content for the American Cancer Society" Ah. Good. The American Cancer Society says anti-perspirants don't cause cancer. To be safe, let's check one more... "Because studies of antiperspirants and deodorants and breast cancer have provided conflicting results, additional research is needed to investigate this relationship and other factors that may be involved." http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/antiperspirants-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/my... oh... but a US government site says it is unclear. Better dig a little more... "Clinical studies ... provide supporting evidence for a role for locally applied cosmetic chemicals in the development of breast cancer." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045991 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045991 Shit. The NIH says it does? Better check Snopes before throwing away the Right Guard... http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp FALSE. 'Nuff said. /s/

pcurve 11y ago
The first article is gold. "Microwaving cooks the food at very high temperatures" lol...
lern_too_spel 11y ago
Your analysis of antiperspirants and cancer is completely wrong, and you've likely fooled several people because you claim to have analyzed it correctly. The fourth link isn't the NIH's official position — it's just a paper hosted on an NIH paper-hosting service (PubMed). The Snopes link doesn't say that antiperspirants don't cause cancer — it merely states that they aren't the leading cause of breast cancer. The real takeaway is that the studies are inconclusive and more research is needed before you can state that they are or are not carcinogenic with any degree of confidence.

dexterdog 11y ago

Trump is a very good example of his hypothesis on the Republican side but he left an impression of bias by not balancing that with an example from the other side of which there are also plenty.

skywhopper 11y ago
I see Trump's rhetoric as so detached from reality, that I can't think of any current, relevant people on "the other side" that would come close. Who do you have in mind, exactly?
- jeremyt 11y ago
  Seriously? You can't think of one person on the Democratic side who is "suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional"?
  - bendableFigure 11y ago
    Yeah, seriously. Please tell us all who you are conflating with the outright stupidity, jingoism, and racism that is Trump.
    - jack9 11y ago
      Rightfully, Hillary and Sanders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI
      - outlace 11y ago
        This is just manipulation of decent people. You can always get some percentage of people to agree with something you've propositioned with a camera and mic in their face and when they don't really understand what you mean (and then edit out all the people that didn't). Basic psychology phenom. Repealing the bill of rights is obviously not something Clinton or Sanders have ever proposed and certainly have not been screaming it on national television like Trump This is absurdity of the tribe of Alex Jones

dlsx 11y ago

This article literally states there is not two sides of every debate. This is typical BBC propaganda if I have ever read it. To be honest, we all know smokers who have lived past 80 and in to their 90s. The mystery of smokers who live long is astounding to me, but how dare I speak a lie of such dark deceit on the inter webs? I am smoking a pack a day, loving life, this article and everyone who believes smoking is bad is an idiot. You didn't do your own research, you just believed whatever the fuck they told you.

fiatmoney 11y ago

I find it really ironic that he feels the need to make contentless jabs at current political candidates in an effort to show how those candidates "spread ignorance".

rybosome 11y ago
Is your concern that there are an unnecessarily large number of references to political candidates, or that there are references at all? While I am tired of the constant jockeying for position and tribalism of politics, I also wonder what would have been said of the most horrific leaders of the past during their rise to power. Without totally diverting this discussion or fulfilling Godwin's Law, there is a genuine fear among some US citizens that certain candidates could be horrific in this manner.
- lostlogin 11y ago
  As a someone outside the US, his policies would likely make more difference to us than US citizens. And we don't get a vote.
mkhpalm 11y ago
It read like a very politically driven article to me too.

magicmu 11y ago

Interesting read, but not very much information underneath the fluff -- the definition of "demagogue" combined with a cursory knowledge of common logical fallacies covers pretty much everything here. It's also interesting that an article like this is being published by an organization like the BBC; punditry is (I think) one of the most common examples of the phenomenon of obfuscation through constructed debate.

FreedomToCreate 11y ago

I recently read a statistics books by Charles Wheelman in which he covers the topic of using statistics to manipulate facts. I have always taken statistical facts with a grain of salt, but when you understand the methods of manipulation and then review papers debating climate change for example, its mind blowing to see the manipulation of facts...by both sides of the argument.

peter_l_downs 11y ago
Any pointers to good examples on both sides for the less knowledgeable (me)? Something I assume is happening in any argument, but I'd love to see exactly what you're talking about.
- FreedomToCreate 11y ago
  Naked Statistics is the book I read a while back on the topic. There are two particularly interesting chapters, one on Descriptive Description and one on Statistical biases.
outlace 11y ago
That's why we go by consensus. Of course any one paper could be BS, but if 98% of scientists agree on something, then I feel fairly confident in that consensus.

dang 11y ago

This is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554. (Yes, we're working on a better dupe detector.)

EvanPlaice 11y ago
Thank you for working on dupe detection. Dupes of 'reaction' and/or controversial news posts have been pretty common lately. Ex 'Dear GitHub' 'Dear Dear GitHub'. One pattern I've noticed is there's almost always a comment with a link to the previous post. A shortcut solution could be to encourage users to use a common convention. Ex 'Dupe: [link-to-dupe]'. That way it would be especially easy to pattern match and list dupes for moderation. To prevent dupe creation to begin with might involve some creativity. Such as checking the post link against existing links and notifying the user of an existing post. Similar to what Stack Overflow's 'related posts' listing in the question creation page.
- dang 11y ago
  Follow-up posts like the example you mention aren't strictly dupes. Some of them are good submissions in their own right, others (probably most) are a bit lame. A similar category that's a lot more problematic for HN is the spate of me-too stories that inevitably pop up as every website in the business publishes its copycat article about story Foo. Again, those aren't not strictly dupes, but morally they are. > A shortcut solution could be to encourage users to use a common convention Too much like cat herding to succeed. But some kind of software support for reporting dupes is on the agenda.