3 ms·

I've noticed this on HN for genetics- and especially evolution-related topics. Many commenters here confidently state as fact things which turn out to be dead w

I've noticed this on HN for genetics- and especially evolution-related topics. Many commenters here confidently state as fact things which turn out to be dead wrong. If your knowledge of evolution is limited to having read 'The Selfish Gene', you should be aware that you likely carry several misconceptions and also have many large gaps in your knowledge. It turns out that, although possibly a virtue when programming, hubris can easily lead you astray if you're outside your field of expertise. Humility is more useful in these situations. I am sure that this holds true for many other topics; it should give us all pause before we accept statements as true just because they sound agreeable to us, or before we regurgitate opinions whose veracity we're not in a position to verify. Incidentally, I've also spotted this on the TV show QI, many of whose clever 'facts' are misleading at best or just plain incorrect.

Retric 10y ago
There are three options when you disagree with something on on HN. It's Wrong. It's Correct, and you are mistaken. It's Correct, but poorly communicated. IMO, the poorly communicated issue shows up far more than most people assume. I have seen several discussion between two experts go X, that's wrong Y, that's not true X(1)... then after 10 posts they end up agreeing that X ~= Y if Z. PS: This is also far worse on the softer ends of hard science. Diet, Economics, Climate, Astronomy, and Evolution all suffer from studying complex things with limited ability to experiment.
Udo 10y ago
> If your knowledge of evolution is limited to having read 'The Selfish Gene', you should be aware that you likely carry several misconceptions I know this is veering wildly offtopic, but when I see misconceptions about evolution on HN, they're usually not being displayed by people with too rudimentary a science background, it's mostly people with an altogether unscientific background such as creationism or other religious and philosophical ideas that are in conflict with factual information. > Incidentally, I've also spotted this on the TV show QI, many of whose clever 'facts' are misleading at best or just plain incorrect. I'm not familiar with that show, but that's a common problem in science journalism now, and it's not even confined to "popular" science anymore either. Maybe it's always been that way, and I just notice it more nowadays.

Retric 10y ago

There are three options when you disagree with something on on HN. It's Wrong. It's Correct, and you are mistaken. It's Correct, but poorly communicated. IMO, the poorly communicated issue shows up far more than most people assume. I have seen several discussion between two experts go X, that's wrong Y, that's not true X(1)... then after 10 posts they end up agreeing that X ~= Y if Z. PS: This is also far worse on the softer ends of hard science. Diet, Economics, Climate, Astronomy, and Evolution all suffer from studying complex things with limited ability to experiment.

Udo 10y ago

> If your knowledge of evolution is limited to having read 'The Selfish Gene', you should be aware that you likely carry several misconceptions I know this is veering wildly offtopic, but when I see misconceptions about evolution on HN, they're usually not being displayed by people with too rudimentary a science background, it's mostly people with an altogether unscientific background such as creationism or other religious and philosophical ideas that are in conflict with factual information. > Incidentally, I've also spotted this on the TV show QI, many of whose clever 'facts' are misleading at best or just plain incorrect. I'm not familiar with that show, but that's a common problem in science journalism now, and it's not even confined to "popular" science anymore either. Maybe it's always been that way, and I just notice it more nowadays.