5 ms·

This article is literal nonsense from start to finish without a single compelling or novel point.

crazydoggers 8y ago
I’m actually starting to worry about how much of this type of anti science stuff is getting pushed. It really feels like a campaign of some sort.
- aldoushuxley001 8y ago
  I'm more worried about the science zealots who try to push some faux purity test on legitimate scientific pursuits
  - crazydoggers 8y ago
    Can you give me an example? Is intelligent design your example of legitimate scientific pursuits?
    - dang 8y ago
      You're way overposting in this thread and turning it into a mediocre flamewar. Please stop. We don't need bickering about 'intelligent design' or 'Bill Nye'. Those topics are extremely well covered elsewhere, and HN is for things that haven't been repeated a million times. Let me put it this way: if it would sound repetitive on Reddit, it's definitely off topic for HN. It's clear you didn't like the article, and that was clear a dozen or two comments ago.
      - crazydoggers 8y ago
        You’re right. I’m sorry. I’ve spoken with the moderators and won’t continue. I did flag the article now, not because I didn’t like it, but because I genuinely think it’s off topic and meant to insight political flame wars. I also genuinely want HN users to be aware of subtle disinformation campaigns that seem to be growing in social media from the alt-right. Sorry for exacerbating it. Won’t happen again.
131012 8y ago
The question at hand makes sense: it is rather hard (impossible?) to distinguish clearly and with a perfect model what is pure science and what is not. Like everything in life, separating the whole world in a single dichotomic variable (science/not science) will yield disappointing results. But the whole article is built on failed sociological theories brought back from the dead. The science wars are over[1] and the realists won, because studying (real) science with cultural studies tools is impotent. That guy just didn't get the memo or is playing deaf because it is pleasing the conservative agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars "Writing about these developments in the context of global warming, Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said?"
JackFr 8y ago
You get that this is basically a book review of "Lost in Math" and "The Secret Life of Science", right?

I’m actually starting to worry about how much of this type of anti science stuff is getting pushed. It really feels like a campaign of some sort.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago
I'm more worried about the science zealots who try to push some faux purity test on legitimate scientific pursuits
- crazydoggers 8y ago
  Can you give me an example? Is intelligent design your example of legitimate scientific pursuits?
  - dang 8y ago
    You're way overposting in this thread and turning it into a mediocre flamewar. Please stop. We don't need bickering about 'intelligent design' or 'Bill Nye'. Those topics are extremely well covered elsewhere, and HN is for things that haven't been repeated a million times. Let me put it this way: if it would sound repetitive on Reddit, it's definitely off topic for HN. It's clear you didn't like the article, and that was clear a dozen or two comments ago.
    - crazydoggers 8y ago
      You’re right. I’m sorry. I’ve spoken with the moderators and won’t continue. I did flag the article now, not because I didn’t like it, but because I genuinely think it’s off topic and meant to insight political flame wars. I also genuinely want HN users to be aware of subtle disinformation campaigns that seem to be growing in social media from the alt-right. Sorry for exacerbating it. Won’t happen again.

131012 8y ago

The question at hand makes sense: it is rather hard (impossible?) to distinguish clearly and with a perfect model what is pure science and what is not. Like everything in life, separating the whole world in a single dichotomic variable (science/not science) will yield disappointing results. But the whole article is built on failed sociological theories brought back from the dead. The science wars are over[1] and the realists won, because studying (real) science with cultural studies tools is impotent. That guy just didn't get the memo or is playing deaf because it is pleasing the conservative agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars "Writing about these developments in the context of global warming, Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said?"

JackFr 8y ago

You get that this is basically a book review of "Lost in Math" and "The Secret Life of Science", right?