5 ms·

You got it wrong. He complained that speculation is considered non-PC here. Speculation is at the heart of science. We shouldn't forget that.

by madez 9y ago

danso 9y ago
It sounded like he was complaining that the downvotes were out of "PC", as if we were offended that suicide could be the cause. I downvoted him because I don't think speculation without evidence is useful.
- madez 9y ago
  Speculation without evidence is a fundamental tool to figure stuff out. You are given a situation you don't understand (He died young). You make a speculation that seems plausible (Maybe suicide). You look for evidence (They asked here). Seems naively fine to me.
  - danso 9y ago
    This is someone whose cause of death is unknown because, as far as we know at this point, the revelation of his death is new, not because it's a scientific field of inquiry and experiment.
    - madez 9y ago
      I disagree politely. Even the death of a beloved person is not above the scientific method. One may choose not to investigate, but that is a personal decision. I don't see a problem if someone far away speculates. Also, I don't see a problem talking about these speculation. As long as speculations stay speculations in the absence of evidence and are discarded in front of conflicting evidence, it seems sound to me.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        Nonsense. Someone died. This is disrespectful and distasteful. Elsewhere in the thread people are speculating he died of alcoholism. Just stop.
        madez 9y ago
        That is an arrogant and aggressive appeal to emotion. But even following that non-logic, as soon as someone dies we are supposed to turn our head off and to shut up? I think quite the contrary, we should think even harder why it happened, and learn from that. After all, it is a significant event, and, in this case, a loss for all of us. Ironically, your comment was putting fuel into the fire of speculation because here we weren't even conversing about the details and circmustances of the death. Now, a debate about the danger of alcohol, and, more interesting, the causes of alcoholism would be helpful. Alcoholism often has a cause, in my experience. Is that really so? Are these causes identifiable and fixable? That are questions that I wish we knew more about.
        abiox 9y ago
        perhaps we should then idly speculate that a stash of child pornography was discovered by a longtime gay lover, who flew into a rage and killed him for it. then we random internet posters can idly discuss hard hitting topics like exploiting children, suppressed sexuality and violence in relationships. and undoubtedly solve them fully before getting distracted by the announcement of a new cpu or something. nobody in the world thinks or talks about these things other than we concern trolls on the internet, so we have a sacred duty to the world.
        35bge57dtjku 9y ago
        Your self-righteous indignation and attempting to police this whole comment page are at least as disrespectful and distasteful.
naasking 9y ago
Speculation without justification is not part of science. The original post didn't add anything substantive to the discussion. Anyone seeing the age of the deceased would consider suicide as a possibility. It's completely obvious. Now if the OP had said "possibly suicide because ...", that would have been a valuable contribution. As it stands, saying "suicide?" is no more a contribution than me saying "flying blue elephant landed on him?"
- madez 9y ago
  Is talking about the obvious explanation now taboo? Do we really want to pretend the emporer is wearing cloths? I certainly do not. What is obvious to me might not be obvious to others. I learned that time and time again. That is why I'll tell the emporer that he is naked. But besides that, speculation without evidence is part of science. The scientific method does not restrict how to come up with hypotheses to test. We may have heuristics, like intuition, but they are not required. Random guessing is sound, while it might not be efficient. In this case, the speculation was ironically completely motiviated by reason.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > Is talking about the obvious explanation now taboo? Except that's not what happened. Ridiculing a post for non-substantive content is not labeling that post taboo, it's labeling that post pointless. > But besides that, speculation without evidence is part of science. It's not. Speculation is still founded on reasons. No serious scientific paper, ever, just tossed out an idea without justifying why it might be true, for instance, by explaining why it's consistent with existing evidence, why it might in fact be a better explanation than alternatives, why it might provide a better foundation for future work, and what sort of predictions the idea might make if it were true. There were literally no reasons given in the OP's post. This repeated appeal to science is beyond absurd, and is frankly indicative of people who seem to have no idea how science really works. > In this case, the speculation was ironically completely motiviated by reason. No it wasn't. Where is the reason why it might have been suicide in a post that consists entirely of the word "Suicide?"

You got it wrong. He complained that speculation is considered non-PC here. Speculation is at the heart of science. We shouldn't forget that.

by madez 9y ago

You got it wrong. He complained that speculation is considered non-PC here. Speculation is at the heart of science. We shouldn't forget that.

danso 9y ago

It sounded like he was complaining that the downvotes were out of "PC", as if we were offended that suicide could be the cause. I downvoted him because I don't think speculation without evidence is useful.

madez 9y ago
Speculation without evidence is a fundamental tool to figure stuff out. You are given a situation you don't understand (He died young). You make a speculation that seems plausible (Maybe suicide). You look for evidence (They asked here). Seems naively fine to me.
- danso 9y ago
  This is someone whose cause of death is unknown because, as far as we know at this point, the revelation of his death is new, not because it's a scientific field of inquiry and experiment.
  - madez 9y ago
    I disagree politely. Even the death of a beloved person is not above the scientific method. One may choose not to investigate, but that is a personal decision. I don't see a problem if someone far away speculates. Also, I don't see a problem talking about these speculation. As long as speculations stay speculations in the absence of evidence and are discarded in front of conflicting evidence, it seems sound to me.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Nonsense. Someone died. This is disrespectful and distasteful. Elsewhere in the thread people are speculating he died of alcoholism. Just stop.
      - madez 9y ago
        That is an arrogant and aggressive appeal to emotion. But even following that non-logic, as soon as someone dies we are supposed to turn our head off and to shut up? I think quite the contrary, we should think even harder why it happened, and learn from that. After all, it is a significant event, and, in this case, a loss for all of us. Ironically, your comment was putting fuel into the fire of speculation because here we weren't even conversing about the details and circmustances of the death. Now, a debate about the danger of alcohol, and, more interesting, the causes of alcoholism would be helpful. Alcoholism often has a cause, in my experience. Is that really so? Are these causes identifiable and fixable? That are questions that I wish we knew more about.
        abiox 9y ago
        perhaps we should then idly speculate that a stash of child pornography was discovered by a longtime gay lover, who flew into a rage and killed him for it. then we random internet posters can idly discuss hard hitting topics like exploiting children, suppressed sexuality and violence in relationships. and undoubtedly solve them fully before getting distracted by the announcement of a new cpu or something. nobody in the world thinks or talks about these things other than we concern trolls on the internet, so we have a sacred duty to the world.
      - 35bge57dtjku 9y ago
        Your self-righteous indignation and attempting to police this whole comment page are at least as disrespectful and distasteful.

naasking 9y ago

Speculation without justification is not part of science. The original post didn't add anything substantive to the discussion. Anyone seeing the age of the deceased would consider suicide as a possibility. It's completely obvious. Now if the OP had said "possibly suicide because ...", that would have been a valuable contribution. As it stands, saying "suicide?" is no more a contribution than me saying "flying blue elephant landed on him?"

madez 9y ago
Is talking about the obvious explanation now taboo? Do we really want to pretend the emporer is wearing cloths? I certainly do not. What is obvious to me might not be obvious to others. I learned that time and time again. That is why I'll tell the emporer that he is naked. But besides that, speculation without evidence is part of science. The scientific method does not restrict how to come up with hypotheses to test. We may have heuristics, like intuition, but they are not required. Random guessing is sound, while it might not be efficient. In this case, the speculation was ironically completely motiviated by reason.
- naasking 9y ago
  > Is talking about the obvious explanation now taboo? Except that's not what happened. Ridiculing a post for non-substantive content is not labeling that post taboo, it's labeling that post pointless. > But besides that, speculation without evidence is part of science. It's not. Speculation is still founded on reasons. No serious scientific paper, ever, just tossed out an idea without justifying why it might be true, for instance, by explaining why it's consistent with existing evidence, why it might in fact be a better explanation than alternatives, why it might provide a better foundation for future work, and what sort of predictions the idea might make if it were true. There were literally no reasons given in the OP's post. This repeated appeal to science is beyond absurd, and is frankly indicative of people who seem to have no idea how science really works. > In this case, the speculation was ironically completely motiviated by reason. No it wasn't. Where is the reason why it might have been suicide in a post that consists entirely of the word "Suicide?"