8 ms·

The attitude was that if their claims weren't 100% right and 100% reproducible, they're scum. You're describing every internet forum I've ever encountered.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
No, that's only true when claiming something that is not compatible with the currently prevailing social/political narrative. If you're backing up the current narrative you're free to spew falsehoods. If you're studying something nobody else cares about then it's probably wise to at least try and stick to the facts.
wallace_f 10y ago
To respectfully offer a different point of view, I have never found an internet forum that requires the veracity of claims be held to that level of scrutiny. In fact, I've been downvoted and ridiculed for things like requesting a source be given, or quoting a mainstream textbook (which disagreed with a user. HN is better than most imho, but most internet forums seem to be characterized by groupthink rather than vehement adherence to an ability to verify the truth of what one is claiming. I'd rather be in the company of the latter, even if they do ridicule you if your claims are not verifiable.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  I can think of one such forum, which deals with issues around audio and compression. From observing that I'd suggest it's very hard to maintain both friendliness and an adherence to the scientific method, simply because there is an endless number of people who have no understanding of or respect for what you're trying to do. They'll interpret friendly corrections as rudeness, and won't actually stop making wild unsubstantiated claims until you escalate to genuine abrupt rudeness and/or banning. Also, they'd probably be accused of "groupthink" for trying to maintain that objectivity by those who disagree with the conclusions. Humans are hard to deal with.
amelius 10y ago
I would call it the "ad hominem filter". It's a heuristic to more effectively divide one's attention. Sadly, most people's ad hominem filters are configured incorrectly and produce far too many false positives.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago

No, that's only true when claiming something that is not compatible with the currently prevailing social/political narrative. If you're backing up the current narrative you're free to spew falsehoods. If you're studying something nobody else cares about then it's probably wise to at least try and stick to the facts.

wallace_f 10y ago

To respectfully offer a different point of view, I have never found an internet forum that requires the veracity of claims be held to that level of scrutiny. In fact, I've been downvoted and ridiculed for things like requesting a source be given, or quoting a mainstream textbook (which disagreed with a user. HN is better than most imho, but most internet forums seem to be characterized by groupthink rather than vehement adherence to an ability to verify the truth of what one is claiming. I'd rather be in the company of the latter, even if they do ridicule you if your claims are not verifiable.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
I can think of one such forum, which deals with issues around audio and compression. From observing that I'd suggest it's very hard to maintain both friendliness and an adherence to the scientific method, simply because there is an endless number of people who have no understanding of or respect for what you're trying to do. They'll interpret friendly corrections as rudeness, and won't actually stop making wild unsubstantiated claims until you escalate to genuine abrupt rudeness and/or banning. Also, they'd probably be accused of "groupthink" for trying to maintain that objectivity by those who disagree with the conclusions. Humans are hard to deal with.

amelius 10y ago

I would call it the "ad hominem filter". It's a heuristic to more effectively divide one's attention. Sadly, most people's ad hominem filters are configured incorrectly and produce far too many false positives.