6 ms·

Ask HN: What important truth do very few (informed) people agree with you on?

15 points by arikr 10y ago

wayn3 10y ago
Its conceptually impossible to disagree with a hard truth if you are informed about it.
- arikr 10y ago
  What? I completely disagree. Unless you and I have different definitions of "informed". My definition of informed is that the person feels they are informed, and they have sought out all the information they can. Therefore, with that definition, it's entirely possible for two humans to look at the same information, and draw two different conclusions (perhaps because they filter the information according to their pre-existing beliefs, perhaps for other reasons), and therefore disagree on a hard truth. e.g. Climate change.
  - wayn3 10y ago
    By hard truth I mean absolute truth. Facts. 2+2 = 4. If you understand all the rules that go into addition, there's no way for you to arrive at another conclusion. Another example: The earth is not flat. If you spend any amount of time studying just one of the many reasons why it can't be flat, you will have to agree. Climate Change is not something we can know for sure. "Climate change" itself is not very well defined. Do you mean man-made climate change? Do you mean global warming? What exactly do you mean? You can, of course, draw different conclusions because its not well specified. Out of that complex of issues, one good example would be the ozone hole. It's pretty clear that in the 70s we ejected a class of chemical substances (FCKW etc.) into the atmosphere that messed with the ozone layer. That's provable. If you study the facts, you have to agree. Likewise, you have to agree that the human race has contributed to an increase in carbon oxides in the atmosphere. All hard truths. Then you have truths that we do not have direct evidence for but can verify conceptually - like this one: "The universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time". How can we know? Hawking makes the following argument: "Had the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, it would have had an infinite amount of time to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium. But it is obviously not in equilibrium (us being able to observe it necessitates it not being in equilibrium); therefore, it must be finite" You can not possibly find a counterargument to that. I differentiate between absolute truth and "what we know". We can be wrong about things because we have access to a limited amount of knowledge, but that doesn't change truth. Faster than light travel is either possible or it is not. We don't know. But that doesn't make the truth any less deterministic.
    - arikr 10y ago
      Ah, I see what you mean. I did not correctly interpret your use of "hard truth". I agree with your comment. That said, I don't believe it is relevant if my/your/someone's goal is to learn about the world to create things/etc. Many (most?) of the things I know that are useful are not absolute truths, they are just hypotheses.
- pizza 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem Aumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree. More specifically, if two people are genuine Bayesian rationalists with common priors, and if they each have common knowledge of their individual posterior probabilities, then their posteriors must be equal. This theorem holds even if the people's individual posteriors are based on different observed information about the world. Simply knowing that another agent observed some information and came to their respective conclusion will force each to revise their beliefs, resulting eventually in total agreement on the correct posterior. Thus, two rational Bayesian agents with the same priors and who know each other's posteriors will have to agree.
Raed667 10y ago
The causes and consiquences of the Arab spring
- partisan 10y ago
  Explain.
exolymph 10y ago
"Elitism" is a way to rebrand not countenancing idiots.
- hacknat 10y ago
  I'm with you on this (especially because if this election).
soulchild37 10y ago
I saw this question from Zero to One written by Peter Thiel. Nice one.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ebfe 10y ago
The mean IQ of African-Americans is a standard deviation below that of whites and Asians, and a non-zero component of this is genetic.
- wayn3 10y ago
  You believe that the average african-american has an IQ of 90?
  - ebfe 10y ago
    The average is actually 85, but yes. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jense...
    - wayn3 10y ago
      takes a special kind of person to conduct such a study
      - ebfe 10y ago
        What do you mean? I've always found it telling that only one side of the argument wants to research it.
        wayn3 10y ago
        one side of the argument. scientists do not generally take sides in a battle to denounce "races" through flawed metrics. unless its politically motivated. "oh look we figured out that the black people have lower iqs. not saying this means anything. obviously. just saying. claiming the scientific method here. sorry about the results but they are what they are." repulsive
        ebfe 10y ago
        My point is that you don't see the opposite- there aren't researchers purporting to have shown that the means are the same, flawed research or otherwise. They don't want to study it, even though doing so could prove their position. Imagine if there was an easy way to check whether or not God existed, but Christians virulently fought against anyone who tried to do so. Wouldn't this be a pretty good indicator that they were wrong?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Mz 10y ago
People with Cystic Fibrosis are not "drowning in their own mucus." They underproduce mucus, not overproduce it. They are drowning in phlegm.
- paulcole 10y ago
  drowning in mucus vs. drowning in phlegm is still drowning isn't it? pretty pedantic.
  - Mz 10y ago
    No, it's really not. It is a major key to solving it. Not "The" key, because there are a few pieces to the puzzle. But it is a really major detail.
    - paulcole 10y ago
      > It is a major key to solving it The average person is not solving it. And the average person isn't going to go, "oh it's phlegm, I only donate to mucus-related causes"?
happycodeworks 10y ago
short: https://i.redd.it/tqiydv3ymchx.jpg https://i.redd.it/tqiydv3ymchx.jpg long: https://www.reddit.com/r/gangstalkingmkultra/comments/4fb98a/science_lies_relevant_to_mind_control/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gangstalkingmkultra/comments/4fb98a...
PerfectElement 10y ago
Sentient animals should not be treated as commodities.
- ud0 10y ago
  What's an example of a sentient animal?
  - arnold_palmur 10y ago
    as an example, my guess would be a pig?
falloutx 10y ago
Strong AI cannot be achieved, atleast not with current tech. AND If We get them, Strongly intelligent machines will be totally useless. Suppose you could make an (strongly) Intelligent machine, and tell to analyze some data, it can just say "Fuck no, you're not a boss of me now!".

15 points by arikr 10y ago

wayn3 10y ago

Its conceptually impossible to disagree with a hard truth if you are informed about it.

arikr 10y ago
What? I completely disagree. Unless you and I have different definitions of "informed". My definition of informed is that the person feels they are informed, and they have sought out all the information they can. Therefore, with that definition, it's entirely possible for two humans to look at the same information, and draw two different conclusions (perhaps because they filter the information according to their pre-existing beliefs, perhaps for other reasons), and therefore disagree on a hard truth. e.g. Climate change.
- wayn3 10y ago
  By hard truth I mean absolute truth. Facts. 2+2 = 4. If you understand all the rules that go into addition, there's no way for you to arrive at another conclusion. Another example: The earth is not flat. If you spend any amount of time studying just one of the many reasons why it can't be flat, you will have to agree. Climate Change is not something we can know for sure. "Climate change" itself is not very well defined. Do you mean man-made climate change? Do you mean global warming? What exactly do you mean? You can, of course, draw different conclusions because its not well specified. Out of that complex of issues, one good example would be the ozone hole. It's pretty clear that in the 70s we ejected a class of chemical substances (FCKW etc.) into the atmosphere that messed with the ozone layer. That's provable. If you study the facts, you have to agree. Likewise, you have to agree that the human race has contributed to an increase in carbon oxides in the atmosphere. All hard truths. Then you have truths that we do not have direct evidence for but can verify conceptually - like this one: "The universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time". How can we know? Hawking makes the following argument: "Had the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, it would have had an infinite amount of time to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium. But it is obviously not in equilibrium (us being able to observe it necessitates it not being in equilibrium); therefore, it must be finite" You can not possibly find a counterargument to that. I differentiate between absolute truth and "what we know". We can be wrong about things because we have access to a limited amount of knowledge, but that doesn't change truth. Faster than light travel is either possible or it is not. We don't know. But that doesn't make the truth any less deterministic.
  - arikr 10y ago
    Ah, I see what you mean. I did not correctly interpret your use of "hard truth". I agree with your comment. That said, I don't believe it is relevant if my/your/someone's goal is to learn about the world to create things/etc. Many (most?) of the things I know that are useful are not absolute truths, they are just hypotheses.
pizza 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem Aumann's agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree. More specifically, if two people are genuine Bayesian rationalists with common priors, and if they each have common knowledge of their individual posterior probabilities, then their posteriors must be equal. This theorem holds even if the people's individual posteriors are based on different observed information about the world. Simply knowing that another agent observed some information and came to their respective conclusion will force each to revise their beliefs, resulting eventually in total agreement on the correct posterior. Thus, two rational Bayesian agents with the same priors and who know each other's posteriors will have to agree.

Raed667 10y ago

The causes and consiquences of the Arab spring

partisan 10y ago
Explain.

exolymph 10y ago

"Elitism" is a way to rebrand not countenancing idiots.

hacknat 10y ago
I'm with you on this (especially because if this election).

soulchild37 10y ago

I saw this question from Zero to One written by Peter Thiel. Nice one.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ebfe 10y ago

The mean IQ of African-Americans is a standard deviation below that of whites and Asians, and a non-zero component of this is genetic.

wayn3 10y ago
You believe that the average african-american has an IQ of 90?
- ebfe 10y ago
  The average is actually 85, but yes. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jense...
  - wayn3 10y ago
    takes a special kind of person to conduct such a study
    - ebfe 10y ago
      What do you mean? I've always found it telling that only one side of the argument wants to research it.
      - wayn3 10y ago
        one side of the argument. scientists do not generally take sides in a battle to denounce "races" through flawed metrics. unless its politically motivated. "oh look we figured out that the black people have lower iqs. not saying this means anything. obviously. just saying. claiming the scientific method here. sorry about the results but they are what they are." repulsive
        ebfe 10y ago
        My point is that you don't see the opposite- there aren't researchers purporting to have shown that the means are the same, flawed research or otherwise. They don't want to study it, even though doing so could prove their position. Imagine if there was an easy way to check whether or not God existed, but Christians virulently fought against anyone who tried to do so. Wouldn't this be a pretty good indicator that they were wrong?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Mz 10y ago

People with Cystic Fibrosis are not "drowning in their own mucus." They underproduce mucus, not overproduce it. They are drowning in phlegm.

paulcole 10y ago
drowning in mucus vs. drowning in phlegm is still drowning isn't it? pretty pedantic.
- Mz 10y ago
  No, it's really not. It is a major key to solving it. Not "The" key, because there are a few pieces to the puzzle. But it is a really major detail.
  - paulcole 10y ago
    > It is a major key to solving it The average person is not solving it. And the average person isn't going to go, "oh it's phlegm, I only donate to mucus-related causes"?

happycodeworks 10y ago

short: https://i.redd.it/tqiydv3ymchx.jpg https://i.redd.it/tqiydv3ymchx.jpg long: https://www.reddit.com/r/gangstalkingmkultra/comments/4fb98a/science_lies_relevant_to_mind_control/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gangstalkingmkultra/comments/4fb98a...

PerfectElement 10y ago

Sentient animals should not be treated as commodities.

ud0 10y ago
What's an example of a sentient animal?
- arnold_palmur 10y ago
  as an example, my guess would be a pig?

falloutx 10y ago

Strong AI cannot be achieved, atleast not with current tech. AND If We get them, Strongly intelligent machines will be totally useless. Suppose you could make an (strongly) Intelligent machine, and tell to analyze some data, it can just say "Fuck no, you're not a boss of me now!".