4 ms·

On HN, it's better to address the argument directly. If he's mistaken, it doesn't matter who he is.

luckydude 9y ago
I'm not qualified to address his arguments, I never claimed I was an expert. I was just wondering how it is possible that California thinks glyphosate can cause cancer, the world health organization thinks that, the EU seems to be heading in that direction, a zillion lawyers want to talk to you if you used glyphosate and got cancer, how is it possible that there is that much smoke and no fire? I'm not an expert, I have no training in this area but that doesn't mean I can't see smoke when it is right in front of me. I don't know if it is glyphosate or something else in roundup but there are a lot of people saying that it looks like it ups the risk of non-hodgkin's lymphoma which is what got my dad and he used a lot of roundup. A statistically "valid" "data point" of 1 (in other words, I know it doesn't conclude anything but I still wonder if roundup was to blame). And whenever this topic comes up, tptacek is there to say there is no link. Which would make sense if he's an oncologist or a biologist or someone with training in this area, but that doesn't seem to be the case, go google him and he's a computer security guy. So I asked how he knows what he says he knows. Bring on the downvotes I guess, but I'd still like to understand why this person is an expert on this stuff with what appears to be no background in it. Isn't hackernews about learning and getting to the truth? Don't we like to understand our sources? It would be completely understandable if he's got actual expertise in this area and maybe that's the case, but if so, why not just say that?
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  It's rarely ok to dig into someone's personal history. If they are an oncologist or a biologist and they want you to know, they'll volunteer that info. It's more productive to ask "Do you have a source to support your claims?" rather than "Why are you speaking?" HN allows points of view from all people, qualified or not. If their arguments are valid and persuasive, the ideas are usually accepted. If it's mistaken or naive, they're typically rejected. This doesn't happen all the time, and often you have to articulate ideas far more carefully than in the old days, but it works pretty well. And the cornerstone of this system is for anyone to be able to say anything.
  - luckydude 9y ago
    I like that cornerstone. I'm also half Dutch and had an experience while living in Holland that made a big impression on me. A politician was giving a speech and there was a heckler in the crowd (something that was not common at the time, about 40 years ago). He ignored the first outburst, and the second, but after the third he turned to the guy and said "And your experience in making public policy is?" The guy had no answer and let the speech proceed. So I agree with how Hacker News works, at least how you described it, that's been my experience as well and it's cool that you don't have to have a PhD in whatever to have an opinion about whatever. On the other hand, are we sure that there are not people here who are paid by Monsanto to push their agenda? I'm not saying that's the case here but I don't know. So I asked because it felt weird to me. I'll admit I was egged on a bit by some people who sent me private mail, they didn't want the down votes but they wanted to know as well. So I asked, down votes or no down votes, I'm not going to be defined by some pile of points (as much as I appreciate how they generally filter the content here pretty nicely). On the personal history, is that really true? Because when I was talking about some stuff I've done here someone said I really ought to put my full name in my profile so people can go learn who I am and what I've done. So I did. I thought that was why you put your name in your profile. All I did was copy his name from his profile to duckduckgo and hit return. If doing that is a no-no that's news to me.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      I mean, if you're satisfying personal curiosity, then sure, dig away. But I think it crosses the line when you go gather information about someone and then post it online for all to see. tptacek doesn't try to hide anything about himself, but if you were to do this to me then I'd be pretty upset, for example. The main issue is that viewpoints from people of all backgrounds and credentials are welcome. Regarding whether someone is being paid, two points: 1. Accusing someone of being a shill without any hard evidence is strictly against the rules. If you have evidence, it's usually best to send it to hn@ycombinator.com, who will take it seriously. But try not to waste their time with spurious or coincidental connections. 2. tptacek isn't being paid by Monsanto. (Contrary to belief, Matasano wasn't a Monsanto subsidiary.)

I'm not qualified to address his arguments, I never claimed I was an expert. I was just wondering how it is possible that California thinks glyphosate can cause cancer, the world health organization thinks that, the EU seems to be heading in that direction, a zillion lawyers want to talk to you if you used glyphosate and got cancer, how is it possible that there is that much smoke and no fire? I'm not an expert, I have no training in this area but that doesn't mean I can't see smoke when it is right in front of me. I don't know if it is glyphosate or something else in roundup but there are a lot of people saying that it looks like it ups the risk of non-hodgkin's lymphoma which is what got my dad and he used a lot of roundup. A statistically "valid" "data point" of 1 (in other words, I know it doesn't conclude anything but I still wonder if roundup was to blame). And whenever this topic comes up, tptacek is there to say there is no link. Which would make sense if he's an oncologist or a biologist or someone with training in this area, but that doesn't seem to be the case, go google him and he's a computer security guy. So I asked how he knows what he says he knows. Bring on the downvotes I guess, but I'd still like to understand why this person is an expert on this stuff with what appears to be no background in it. Isn't hackernews about learning and getting to the truth? Don't we like to understand our sources? It would be completely understandable if he's got actual expertise in this area and maybe that's the case, but if so, why not just say that?

sillysaurus3 9y ago
It's rarely ok to dig into someone's personal history. If they are an oncologist or a biologist and they want you to know, they'll volunteer that info. It's more productive to ask "Do you have a source to support your claims?" rather than "Why are you speaking?" HN allows points of view from all people, qualified or not. If their arguments are valid and persuasive, the ideas are usually accepted. If it's mistaken or naive, they're typically rejected. This doesn't happen all the time, and often you have to articulate ideas far more carefully than in the old days, but it works pretty well. And the cornerstone of this system is for anyone to be able to say anything.
- luckydude 9y ago
  I like that cornerstone. I'm also half Dutch and had an experience while living in Holland that made a big impression on me. A politician was giving a speech and there was a heckler in the crowd (something that was not common at the time, about 40 years ago). He ignored the first outburst, and the second, but after the third he turned to the guy and said "And your experience in making public policy is?" The guy had no answer and let the speech proceed. So I agree with how Hacker News works, at least how you described it, that's been my experience as well and it's cool that you don't have to have a PhD in whatever to have an opinion about whatever. On the other hand, are we sure that there are not people here who are paid by Monsanto to push their agenda? I'm not saying that's the case here but I don't know. So I asked because it felt weird to me. I'll admit I was egged on a bit by some people who sent me private mail, they didn't want the down votes but they wanted to know as well. So I asked, down votes or no down votes, I'm not going to be defined by some pile of points (as much as I appreciate how they generally filter the content here pretty nicely). On the personal history, is that really true? Because when I was talking about some stuff I've done here someone said I really ought to put my full name in my profile so people can go learn who I am and what I've done. So I did. I thought that was why you put your name in your profile. All I did was copy his name from his profile to duckduckgo and hit return. If doing that is a no-no that's news to me.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I mean, if you're satisfying personal curiosity, then sure, dig away. But I think it crosses the line when you go gather information about someone and then post it online for all to see. tptacek doesn't try to hide anything about himself, but if you were to do this to me then I'd be pretty upset, for example. The main issue is that viewpoints from people of all backgrounds and credentials are welcome. Regarding whether someone is being paid, two points: 1. Accusing someone of being a shill without any hard evidence is strictly against the rules. If you have evidence, it's usually best to send it to hn@ycombinator.com, who will take it seriously. But try not to waste their time with spurious or coincidental connections. 2. tptacek isn't being paid by Monsanto. (Contrary to belief, Matasano wasn't a Monsanto subsidiary.)