9 ms·

This comment is not satire, I'm being brutally honest: I don't believe everything for the right reasons. I believe in global warming, but not because of resea

This comment is not satire, I'm being brutally honest: I don't believe everything for the right reasons. I believe in global warming, but not because of research papers or books I've read on climate change. I've clicked on research papers but I often find the scientific terminology and information in them overwhelming. I think, "It looks like they know what they're talking about." Sometimes I don't even click. I look around at people commenting on it, and if an articulate person makes a case one way or another, it influences my beliefs. I know this is wrong but frankly it would be impossible to be educated enough on all these matters to justify having an opinion. Imagine if everyone who felt strongly about global warming had read and understood at least one research paper on it. That would mean half my friends, family, and coworkers have read and understood a research paper. I'll take the under... What makes matters worse is being around people socially who have strong opinions. Not having one can make you look boring or dimwitted. If the conversation wanders into an area in which you do have an opinion--based on facts and research--citing those facts can feel like reading off box score statistics at a Yankees-Red Sox game. No one gets excited! That makes me cynical. I think, people just want to feel strongly about something, kind of like they want to have a baseball team. It binds them together. I guess that's fine, I just wish we treated it more like sports and less like religion.

beat 8y ago
On something like global warming, I find it easy to trust the Scientific Method, rather than individual papers or individual scientists (or worse, the media translation thereof). The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic. And, while the phrasing may get prettier, that's what most of these arguments lead to, what most of the people who reject global warming believe. In a related manner, I tend to judge ideas by who agrees with them. Be careful who you're standing with, they can tell you a lot about the validity of where you're standing. (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".) So, for something like global warming, if you're standing with people who believe in and work within the scientific method, you're probably good (assuming you believe in science), and if you're standing with people who believe the world was created in seven days 5500 years ago and corporations whose core business model is to put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... well.
- 1337biz 8y ago
  I think the general problem behind issues like these are that the public has repeatedly been over and over deceived by autoritative voices - might it be experts, academics or government positions. As a consequence, when people have the gut feeling that something might be off many trust that feeling over whatever truth is them presented. Also: >> (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".) is just amazingly simple minded. By the same logic all dogs are Nazis just because Hitler's dog (probably) loved him and Hitler was a Nazi after all.
  - FeteCommuniste 8y ago
    It would be the same logic if Hitler’s dog loved him for being a Nazi (killing Jews, conquering Europe), rather than because of petting and food and playtime.
    - 1337biz 8y ago
      Thanks for understanding my point. Hitler's dog loved him because the dog cared about food and getting petted. The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. Just caring about one thing and not caring about the other does not make the dog a Nazi. Even more ridiculous, in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay, Nazi dogs.
      - josefresco 8y ago
        > The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. The dog has no concept of "the bad elements".
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        > caring about one thing and not caring about the other > in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay No. The OP did not talk about approval. They talked about specifically thinking the candidate is racist.
threatofrain 8y ago
If you wanted to talk about core CS ideas, would you just ask anyone? If you knew you were making progress on an academic discourse, would you think to talk about your readings with just anyone? As soon as you want to make deep progress on anything you need to talk with people who match you on preparation and energy. This is true even on HN and core CS topics.
tathougies 8y ago
When I dont know about something and someone has a strong opinion, I asked to be explained to. Then I ask critical questions designed to undercut their arguments until I am satisfied. This is a way to ckme across as intelligent without having to know about everything.
anitil 8y ago
> I don't believe everything for the right reasons I can't imagine how it would be any other way. Only on the internet can people be experts on everything. The rest of us just kind of wing it and hope for the best.
_cs2017_ 8y ago
You can develop a (mental) trust chain. Verify yourself that a few people seem both well-informed and unbiased, using your personal experience or research. Put a decent amount of trust in them. When a person you trust appears to have high regard for another person's opinion, add some trust to that other person. When you notice someone says dumb or biased stuff, reduce your trust in them by a lot. Continue like that for years, mixing some independent verification here and there, and you'll have some idea of what's going on.

beat 8y ago

On something like global warming, I find it easy to trust the Scientific Method, rather than individual papers or individual scientists (or worse, the media translation thereof). The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic. And, while the phrasing may get prettier, that's what most of these arguments lead to, what most of the people who reject global warming believe. In a related manner, I tend to judge ideas by who agrees with them. Be careful who you're standing with, they can tell you a lot about the validity of where you're standing. (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".) So, for something like global warming, if you're standing with people who believe in and work within the scientific method, you're probably good (assuming you believe in science), and if you're standing with people who believe the world was created in seven days 5500 years ago and corporations whose core business model is to put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... well.

1337biz 8y ago
I think the general problem behind issues like these are that the public has repeatedly been over and over deceived by autoritative voices - might it be experts, academics or government positions. As a consequence, when people have the gut feeling that something might be off many trust that feeling over whatever truth is them presented. Also: >> (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".) is just amazingly simple minded. By the same logic all dogs are Nazis just because Hitler's dog (probably) loved him and Hitler was a Nazi after all.
- FeteCommuniste 8y ago
  It would be the same logic if Hitler’s dog loved him for being a Nazi (killing Jews, conquering Europe), rather than because of petting and food and playtime.
  - 1337biz 8y ago
    Thanks for understanding my point. Hitler's dog loved him because the dog cared about food and getting petted. The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. Just caring about one thing and not caring about the other does not make the dog a Nazi. Even more ridiculous, in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay, Nazi dogs.
    - josefresco 8y ago
      > The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. The dog has no concept of "the bad elements".
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      > caring about one thing and not caring about the other > in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay No. The OP did not talk about approval. They talked about specifically thinking the candidate is racist.

threatofrain 8y ago

If you wanted to talk about core CS ideas, would you just ask anyone? If you knew you were making progress on an academic discourse, would you think to talk about your readings with just anyone? As soon as you want to make deep progress on anything you need to talk with people who match you on preparation and energy. This is true even on HN and core CS topics.

tathougies 8y ago

When I dont know about something and someone has a strong opinion, I asked to be explained to. Then I ask critical questions designed to undercut their arguments until I am satisfied. This is a way to ckme across as intelligent without having to know about everything.

anitil 8y ago

> I don't believe everything for the right reasons I can't imagine how it would be any other way. Only on the internet can people be experts on everything. The rest of us just kind of wing it and hope for the best.

_cs2017_ 8y ago

You can develop a (mental) trust chain. Verify yourself that a few people seem both well-informed and unbiased, using your personal experience or research. Put a decent amount of trust in them. When a person you trust appears to have high regard for another person's opinion, add some trust to that other person. When you notice someone says dumb or biased stuff, reduce your trust in them by a lot. Continue like that for years, mixing some independent verification here and there, and you'll have some idea of what's going on.