7 ms·

that was an interesting article

wycs 8y ago
Cochran is a genius, but not for everyone. There are certain facts that are taboo to acknowledge, possibly for good reasons. Cochran does not abide taboos. If you keep reading his stuff, it is very likely to shock and offend you.
- iguy 8y ago
  Well said. The trouble with social taboos (even ones that exist for good reasons) is that it can be hard to understand who's being polite, and who's just stupid. Many people are stupid about many things, after all, even when there are no reasons to pretend. Thus it seems valuable that there are places outside of such conventions. The internet has been very good for this -- things once known only by academic specialists are now open to anyone interested. Sometimes you return to polite society able to better decode what people really know.
- woodruffw 8y ago
  Substitute "genius" with "scientific racist" and "facts" with "unsubstantiated claims about race and sex," and you've got the rest right. Not everybody is interested in racist/anti-semetic canards[1][2] and claims about gay viruses[3]. [1]: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/the-son-also-rises/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/the-son-also-rises... [2]: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/live-not-by-lies/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/live-not-by-lies/ [3]: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/
  - wycs 8y ago
    Yes, I find those are extremely shocking and offensive.
    - woodruffw 8y ago
      And, more importantly, just plain incorrect. We praise people for speaking truth to power, not for twisting the truth to fit a reactionary worldview.
      - wycs 8y ago
        We should praise people for speaking truth. Power has nothing to do with it. Cognitive genomics will confirm or disconfirm all the really shocking and offensive stuff very shortly. I have my priors and you have yours. We will see how it pans out. In general we should do our best not to be offended by descriptive claims and hypotheses, as reality is not constrained by ideology, though we may pretend it is.
        eesmith 8y ago
        5+6 = 11. Where's my praise? 9-5=4. I deserve more praise. The cashier told me my bill was $4.33, just like it said on the display. I praised him for speaking truth. Sarcasm aside, woodruffw's emphasis was on "truth", with the clear statement that Cochrane is not expressing truths but is making "unsubstantiated claims about race and sex" which are "just plain incorrect". You earlier write that these are "facts that are taboo to acknowledge". If they are "facts", then why do we have to wait to "confirm or disconfirm all the really shocking and offensive stuff"? Shouldn't we have the facts already? If we have to wait for confirmation then that's an hypothesis.
      - iguy 8y ago
        You have an infallible source for this correctness? Offensive to some, sure, not NYT material... that's OK. We have a lot to learn about viruses. And viral-like ways in which life uses genetic material, that don't quite fit into how we're used to thinking. Probably he's wrong about this idea, but generating lots of such hypotheses & finding ways to test them seems like a great idea. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17540094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17540094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16139798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16139798

wycs 8y ago

Cochran is a genius, but not for everyone. There are certain facts that are taboo to acknowledge, possibly for good reasons. Cochran does not abide taboos. If you keep reading his stuff, it is very likely to shock and offend you.

iguy 8y ago
Well said. The trouble with social taboos (even ones that exist for good reasons) is that it can be hard to understand who's being polite, and who's just stupid. Many people are stupid about many things, after all, even when there are no reasons to pretend. Thus it seems valuable that there are places outside of such conventions. The internet has been very good for this -- things once known only by academic specialists are now open to anyone interested. Sometimes you return to polite society able to better decode what people really know.
woodruffw 8y ago
Substitute "genius" with "scientific racist" and "facts" with "unsubstantiated claims about race and sex," and you've got the rest right. Not everybody is interested in racist/anti-semetic canards[1][2] and claims about gay viruses[3]. [1]: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/the-son-also-rises/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/the-son-also-rises... [2]: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/live-not-by-lies/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/live-not-by-lies/ [3]: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/ https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/
- wycs 8y ago
  Yes, I find those are extremely shocking and offensive.
  - woodruffw 8y ago
    And, more importantly, just plain incorrect. We praise people for speaking truth to power, not for twisting the truth to fit a reactionary worldview.
    - wycs 8y ago
      We should praise people for speaking truth. Power has nothing to do with it. Cognitive genomics will confirm or disconfirm all the really shocking and offensive stuff very shortly. I have my priors and you have yours. We will see how it pans out. In general we should do our best not to be offended by descriptive claims and hypotheses, as reality is not constrained by ideology, though we may pretend it is.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        5+6 = 11. Where's my praise? 9-5=4. I deserve more praise. The cashier told me my bill was $4.33, just like it said on the display. I praised him for speaking truth. Sarcasm aside, woodruffw's emphasis was on "truth", with the clear statement that Cochrane is not expressing truths but is making "unsubstantiated claims about race and sex" which are "just plain incorrect". You earlier write that these are "facts that are taboo to acknowledge". If they are "facts", then why do we have to wait to "confirm or disconfirm all the really shocking and offensive stuff"? Shouldn't we have the facts already? If we have to wait for confirmation then that's an hypothesis.
    - iguy 8y ago
      You have an infallible source for this correctness? Offensive to some, sure, not NYT material... that's OK. We have a lot to learn about viruses. And viral-like ways in which life uses genetic material, that don't quite fit into how we're used to thinking. Probably he's wrong about this idea, but generating lots of such hypotheses & finding ways to test them seems like a great idea. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17540094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17540094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16139798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16139798