3 ms·

I’m sorry, but why is the neo-con anti science article on HN? The article is attempting to say that modern particle physics is not science because there are a

I’m sorry, but why is the neo-con anti science article on HN? The article is attempting to say that modern particle physics is not science because there are a ton of failed experiments to find exotic particles and test theories. This is how science works!! Your doing science correctly if you fail a lot. Yes it costs money to set up an experiment that fails to prove a hypothesis. That’s just science. Read more about “The Weekly Standard” here.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard Edit: Here’s an excerpt “Of course the standard explanation of the difficulties with theoretical physics would simply be that science advances by failing, that it is self-correcting over time, and that all this flailing about is just what has to happen when you’re trying to understand something hard. Some version of this sort of failing-forward story is what Hossenfelder hears from many of her colleagues. But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then why not call alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific socialism science as well...” Umm... seriously?

crazydoggers 8y ago
Immediately downvoted without comment. Clearly someone here is attempting to push these neo-con anti-science pieces as news.
- sctb 8y ago
  Could you please stop with these off-topic insinuations? They're rather unscientific. If you have concerns, the guidelines ask you to email hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at the data.
jonstewart 8y ago
It's hard to think of a publication that has done more to degrade science over the entirety of its lifetime. The Weekly Standard is how we wound up with Darwin deniers serving on Congressional science & technology committees.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  Links? I'm a very strong science supporter and found the article to have some interesting (yet debatable) points. I'd like to know if that publication isn't reputable. I haven't seen it before.
  - crazydoggers 8y ago
    Calling climate change a religion: https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/the-sacred-science https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/the-sacred-sc... Some Hawking bashing about climate change: https://www.weeklystandard.com/nathan-cofnas/dadaist-science https://www.weeklystandard.com/nathan-cofnas/dadaist-science Or how about some Bill Nye smashing: https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/bill-nye-the-quisling-guy https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/bill-nye-the-qu... An attempt to show that Democrats are astrologers: https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/anti-science-liberals https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/anti-science-li... This list goes on...
    - dwaltrip 8y ago
      Thanks for finding those links. Good to know more about the publication.
coldtea 8y ago
>I’m sorry, but why is the neo-con anti science article on HN? Knee-jerk labelling much? What exactly do you disagree with the article with and why? Reading things outside of one's echo chamber and comfort zone is not something to be avoided. Even if it's something "anti-science" and "neo-con" -- you get to learn the ACTUAL points of anti-science people and neo-cons (as opposed to just second-hand reading your favorite writers disparaging their claims)
- crazydoggers 8y ago
  Okay, shall we upvote articles about how the earth is flat, or how evolution is false? Those are outside the echo chamber. How about considering if an article has points that are valid rather than nut case propaganda.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Okay, shall we upvote articles about how the earth is flat, or how evolution is false? Why not? The scientific method doesn't preclude anything a priori. >How about considering if an article has points that are valid rather than nut case propaganda. Where is this consideration though? And where are the counter arguments? I only see a quick labelling?
    - crazydoggers 8y ago
      > Why not? The scientific method doesn't preclude anything a priori. You're right it doesn't. But my criteria for an interesting and worthwhile article isn't one about crazy ideas that have been beaten to death 1000s of times already. If HN front page had tons of those types of stories, no one would come here!
- 131012 8y ago
  Because the underpinning theories are bullshit and been abandoned for almost 20 years in serious sociological circles. I gave more arguments lower in the comments.
- maxerickson 8y ago
3pt14159 8y ago
Disclosure: Even though I'm a centre-left neo-liberal, I've written an article that appeared in The Weekly Standard. I wanted to make sure that the GOP controlled US government saw it. It is true that the Weekly Standard is right wing—they make no qualms about it—but it is not true that they mis-report facts. Bill Kristol (editor at large) is a vocal supporter of the Never Trump movement and he is against fake news of all types. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/weekly-standard/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/weekly-standard/ The core point at the centre of this article is interesting (the boundaries of what is and isn't science aren't well demarked), but I agree that the author makes his point in a way that isn't how I would have written it.
emodendroket 8y ago
It is interesting that you chose to elide the last part of that sentence, which completes the thought.

crazydoggers 8y ago

Immediately downvoted without comment. Clearly someone here is attempting to push these neo-con anti-science pieces as news.

sctb 8y ago
Could you please stop with these off-topic insinuations? They're rather unscientific. If you have concerns, the guidelines ask you to email hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at the data.

jonstewart 8y ago

It's hard to think of a publication that has done more to degrade science over the entirety of its lifetime. The Weekly Standard is how we wound up with Darwin deniers serving on Congressional science & technology committees.

dwaltrip 8y ago
Links? I'm a very strong science supporter and found the article to have some interesting (yet debatable) points. I'd like to know if that publication isn't reputable. I haven't seen it before.
- crazydoggers 8y ago
  Calling climate change a religion: https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/the-sacred-science https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/the-sacred-sc... Some Hawking bashing about climate change: https://www.weeklystandard.com/nathan-cofnas/dadaist-science https://www.weeklystandard.com/nathan-cofnas/dadaist-science Or how about some Bill Nye smashing: https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/bill-nye-the-quisling-guy https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/bill-nye-the-qu... An attempt to show that Democrats are astrologers: https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/anti-science-liberals https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/anti-science-li... This list goes on...
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    Thanks for finding those links. Good to know more about the publication.

coldtea 8y ago

>I’m sorry, but why is the neo-con anti science article on HN? Knee-jerk labelling much? What exactly do you disagree with the article with and why? Reading things outside of one's echo chamber and comfort zone is not something to be avoided. Even if it's something "anti-science" and "neo-con" -- you get to learn the ACTUAL points of anti-science people and neo-cons (as opposed to just second-hand reading your favorite writers disparaging their claims)

crazydoggers 8y ago
Okay, shall we upvote articles about how the earth is flat, or how evolution is false? Those are outside the echo chamber. How about considering if an article has points that are valid rather than nut case propaganda.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Okay, shall we upvote articles about how the earth is flat, or how evolution is false? Why not? The scientific method doesn't preclude anything a priori. >How about considering if an article has points that are valid rather than nut case propaganda. Where is this consideration though? And where are the counter arguments? I only see a quick labelling?
  - crazydoggers 8y ago
    > Why not? The scientific method doesn't preclude anything a priori. You're right it doesn't. But my criteria for an interesting and worthwhile article isn't one about crazy ideas that have been beaten to death 1000s of times already. If HN front page had tons of those types of stories, no one would come here!
131012 8y ago
Because the underpinning theories are bullshit and been abandoned for almost 20 years in serious sociological circles. I gave more arguments lower in the comments.
maxerickson 8y ago

3pt14159 8y ago

Disclosure: Even though I'm a centre-left neo-liberal, I've written an article that appeared in The Weekly Standard. I wanted to make sure that the GOP controlled US government saw it. It is true that the Weekly Standard is right wing—they make no qualms about it—but it is not true that they mis-report facts. Bill Kristol (editor at large) is a vocal supporter of the Never Trump movement and he is against fake news of all types. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/weekly-standard/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/weekly-standard/ The core point at the centre of this article is interesting (the boundaries of what is and isn't science aren't well demarked), but I agree that the author makes his point in a way that isn't how I would have written it.

emodendroket 8y ago

It is interesting that you chose to elide the last part of that sentence, which completes the thought.