7 ms·
Sorry, I would have cited specific chapters and paragraphs if I had more time. I don’t even know where my copy of the book is, at the moment (somewhere around h
by afpx 8y ago
Sorry, I would have cited specific chapters and paragraphs if I had more time. I don’t even know where my copy of the book is, at the moment (somewhere around here).
I figured a ‘pop sci’ reference could at least help guide the way. My bad.
- rusk 8y agoI think there's an emerging etiquette around this kind discourse that where "research" conflicts with personal experiences that attempts be made to cross-check and reconcile that. These days with all the bad science around we have to be a lot more careful about what we accept as fact.
- emodendroket 8y agoA pop-sci book seems like it's at least as good as personal anecdote, which is used on HN to claim all sorts of bizarre things.
- rusk 8y agoI would rate personal anecdote higher. Pop-sci often adopts sensationalism at the expense of rigour in order to shift volumes. At least personal, lived experience can be taken at face value, if accepted in good faith as a truthful account, and can be cross-examined.
- emodendroket 8y agoI'd say the opposite, because pop-science books at least represent an effort to collate multiple examples in support of some thesis and do not exclusively rely on the experiences of one individual. Of course we can see this used maliciously all the time (I think people are finally starting to turn on Malcolm Gladwell), but to me that just suggests both are fairly low-quality sources.
- rusk 8y agoExcept, you can't deny personal experience. The onus on science is to explain experience, not the other way round. If you have an observer giving a truthful account that conflicts with an established fact then surely something must account for that discrepancy. See for instance radio-waves vs Kirchoffs law. It's not that Kirchoff was wrong, it's just that he didn't account for frequency as a variable, which was solved by Maxwell. Now, that's for established facts. If you're talking about commercially adulterated science then you have an even higher burden to bear.
- emodendroket 8y agoOf course you can, or I'd have to accept all sorts of wild claims about alien abductions and near-death experiences. Even discounting such extreme examples, personal experience, as presented by anecdote, is colored by the person's perceptions and beliefs, both before and after the experience they relate.
- rusk 8y agoah you're just being facaetious now. We are discussing a very specific phenomenon where prevalent observer experience can't just be chalked down to fantasy.
- emodendroket 8y agoPeople rejected the germ theory of disease because, among other reasons, they didn't feel it was in accord with their personal experience. Personal experience is the root of baseless superstition. Tell me what's wrong with these different examples, which fit the new criteria you've added.
- rusk 8y agoWe're discussing the experience of educated, and critical truthful observers, vs sensationalistic scientism and you throw up alien abductions, life-after-death experience and something about germ theory. I don't know which people you're talking about but it's been known for time immemorial among many cultures that cleanliness is a good way to avoid disease. You are cherry-picking narratives to suite your rhetoric. We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked. Just because "some guy wrote it", doesn't make it so.
- emodendroket 8y agoI can't see what was wrong with your post; whatever we might say of any of the books in question, it seems to me like you're answering a question and helping us understand where Pinker's claims come from. If someone is going to carp that the sources of "pop-sci," let them cite what they feel is a higher-quality source.
- rusk 8y agoNo, but it's just that controversial claims require more rigor in how they are substantiated.
- emodendroket 8y agoI see zero rigor in any side of this discussion. Physician, heal thyself.
- rusk 8y agoI think that's kind of harsh. I'd go so far as you're just trying to hurtful.
- emodendroket 8y agoI'm not trying to hurt anyone; I just don't see why you've singled out this one guy, who at least had a citation, for a lack of rigor.
- rusk 8y agoBecause 0% parental influence is a pretty extravagant claim.
- emodendroket 8y agoIt seems obvious to me that "environment" includes parental influence; your reading strikes me as eccentric.