5 ms·

Experts, such as the author should be listened to. Because they are experts. And you should listen to them /s I dislike when someone needs to inflate the worth

Experts, such as the author should be listened to. Because they are experts. And you should listen to them /s I dislike when someone needs to inflate the worth of their ideas by repeatedly reminding us they are experts. Show me facts. Briefly, and I mean briefly, introduce your background up front and let your evidence and ideas talk, not "I am an expert, trust me". Especially on issues such as this one. This is not to say credible people should always be challenged constantly for facts, but said credible don't need to make such a deal out of it.

yborg 9y ago
I dislike the general feeling among some in the HN community to conflate tone with message and, generally within one paragraph of a linked article, determine that the style of delivery is not within the community standard of humorlessness and pedantry and thus requires a metaphorical (or literal) downvote. Actually reading this article, we discover that the author refers to himself exactly once as an 'expert'. He cites a number of other professionals, mostly in order to provide linked journal references supporting his position. It's generally difficult to get published in a peer-reviewed journal without some kind of credentials in a field, so if the presence of opinions by professionals in an area is offensive, it's going to be hard to find anything of substance to read.
- dhimes 9y ago
  I read the entire article before I posted. Despite the downvotes, I stand by my original claim. This article sheds no insight on the mechanism, and takes a supercilious tone towards those who believed in the "old" ideas. This is akin to someone announcing a paper that shows evidence of a "fifth force" (baryonic) after all (30 years or so later) and dismisses everybody who believed in the old law of mass attraction (gravity only) as being silly. IMHO, it's a shitty way to be, especially when you don't even bother to present the new insight.
  - jwilk 9y ago
    From the HN guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
    - dhimes 9y ago
      The downvote comment was ancillary to my message. I'm new here, y'know.
- bitexploder 9y ago
  You know, you are right in a way. It was just a knee jerk reaction, and the author has an extremely important message. How to present factual information so that most people will accept it as fact is an issue that is raging in our lives right now. Facts have died in the minds of many, with FB, the US president, and the media constantly just completely making shit up. That is why I have such a strong reaction to the word expert. And I fall victim to this myself, being, gulp, an "expert" at something that at times really needs people to listen to my advice and findings without spending 3 hours convincing them. But in the media, on Facebook... anywhere, people say they are an expert at some random bullshit or non-bullshit thing, state some stuff, and if it fits within someone's world view it is then accepted as fact. If it doesn't fit within their world view it is rejected for any number of reasons. To reach the people who will be the hardest convince, the people who run to the doctor and ask for antibiotics every time their head gets stuffy linking to studies is pointless. Saying you are an expert is pointless. Using any sort of logical reasoning is pointless. Because those people KNOW they feel better when they take antibiotics. You literally have to market your value to them and probably lie or cast things in an extreme way to be heard these days. Yet on HN and among the technologists, though we are susceptible to the same things, as a broad group, we are one of the few that still respects facts and experts. If Richard Feynmann tells me this is how magnets work, I believe the guy. My default approach is that someone claiming to be an expert is just a big giant red flag these days. It is a real problem of how to figure out who we can trust. I am just trigger happy and jumpy about people who claim to be experts because in modern media that usually means the opposite. Anyhow, I don't know what the right answer is, but I should definitely overlook writing style a little more and focus on what facts, if any, an author is providing.

yborg 9y ago

I dislike the general feeling among some in the HN community to conflate tone with message and, generally within one paragraph of a linked article, determine that the style of delivery is not within the community standard of humorlessness and pedantry and thus requires a metaphorical (or literal) downvote. Actually reading this article, we discover that the author refers to himself exactly once as an 'expert'. He cites a number of other professionals, mostly in order to provide linked journal references supporting his position. It's generally difficult to get published in a peer-reviewed journal without some kind of credentials in a field, so if the presence of opinions by professionals in an area is offensive, it's going to be hard to find anything of substance to read.

dhimes 9y ago
I read the entire article before I posted. Despite the downvotes, I stand by my original claim. This article sheds no insight on the mechanism, and takes a supercilious tone towards those who believed in the "old" ideas. This is akin to someone announcing a paper that shows evidence of a "fifth force" (baryonic) after all (30 years or so later) and dismisses everybody who believed in the old law of mass attraction (gravity only) as being silly. IMHO, it's a shitty way to be, especially when you don't even bother to present the new insight.
- jwilk 9y ago
  From the HN guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
  - dhimes 9y ago
    The downvote comment was ancillary to my message. I'm new here, y'know.
bitexploder 9y ago
You know, you are right in a way. It was just a knee jerk reaction, and the author has an extremely important message. How to present factual information so that most people will accept it as fact is an issue that is raging in our lives right now. Facts have died in the minds of many, with FB, the US president, and the media constantly just completely making shit up. That is why I have such a strong reaction to the word expert. And I fall victim to this myself, being, gulp, an "expert" at something that at times really needs people to listen to my advice and findings without spending 3 hours convincing them. But in the media, on Facebook... anywhere, people say they are an expert at some random bullshit or non-bullshit thing, state some stuff, and if it fits within someone's world view it is then accepted as fact. If it doesn't fit within their world view it is rejected for any number of reasons. To reach the people who will be the hardest convince, the people who run to the doctor and ask for antibiotics every time their head gets stuffy linking to studies is pointless. Saying you are an expert is pointless. Using any sort of logical reasoning is pointless. Because those people KNOW they feel better when they take antibiotics. You literally have to market your value to them and probably lie or cast things in an extreme way to be heard these days. Yet on HN and among the technologists, though we are susceptible to the same things, as a broad group, we are one of the few that still respects facts and experts. If Richard Feynmann tells me this is how magnets work, I believe the guy. My default approach is that someone claiming to be an expert is just a big giant red flag these days. It is a real problem of how to figure out who we can trust. I am just trigger happy and jumpy about people who claim to be experts because in modern media that usually means the opposite. Anyhow, I don't know what the right answer is, but I should definitely overlook writing style a little more and focus on what facts, if any, an author is providing.