11 ms·

As someone who has studied science extensively (geology, geochemistry, microbiology) there is nothing wrong with this and I find it refreshing. There is no su

As someone who has studied science extensively (geology, geochemistry, microbiology) there is nothing wrong with this and I find it refreshing. There is no such thing as "settled science" and whenever you see that phrase you should become immediately skeptical. It's a dangerous term that is an imminent threat to scientific progress. Think about all of the "settled science" that has been upended across human history.

nabla9 8y ago
There is a difference between an open mind and a hole in the head.
- charliesharding 8y ago
  What is there to be afraid of? Put it out there so it is open to criticism. Why suppress it? Think of it through the lens of emergence, or the shotgun effect.. The more competing, different theories that are out there, the more likely that we will get closer to the truth. This allows future researchers to draw from a larger pool of diverse thought. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I mean, with climate change the thing to be afraid of is that the populace remains complacent and human beings fail to address and properly respond to an existential threat.
    - charliesharding 8y ago
      If their assertions fall apart under scrutiny then that is a misplaced fear because nobody will take it seriously. If not, and other researchers can back it up - then you don't have to be afraid of an existential threat! win-win Being a scientist means you have to adopt a mentality of passive observation and openness to being wrong, otherwise you'll just fall into the trap of confirmation bias which necessarily results in bad science.
      - munk-a 8y ago
        That's a wonderfully optimistic view to take, unfortunately most of the population of America doesn't subject information placed in front of them to close scrutiny, in part because we're all bombarded with some much information that we simply can't try and make expert assessments on it. Additionally, click-bait is a thing, just pushing a headline with "based on a scientific paper" out there can be dangerous - there is the old adage that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I mean, with climate change the thing to be afraid of is that the populace remains complacent and human beings fail to address and properly respond to an existential threat. If you want persuasive arguments, check out potholer54's channel on YouTube. He's demolished just about the entire corpus of anti-climate change propaganda.
  - jhayward 8y ago
    > What is there to be afraid of? Propaganda and asymmetric warfare trying to disrupt the information commons is something to be afraid of. The idealistic tropes that you are quoting are not born out in real-life experience, and we have some large eveents of the last 100 years that make us wary of people who use propaganda as warfare tactics.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Propaganda and asymmetric warfare trying to disrupt the information commons is something to be afraid of...we have some large events of the last 100 years that make us wary of people who use propaganda as warfare tactics. In the short term, propaganda can get an entire country of people to do just about anything. In the long term, people come back to themselves and tell the charlatans to take a hike. The big danger, as borne out all across history, is to invest concentrated power in someone to take care of the problem. People like Cincinnatus are rare, and most people don't give up power once they have it. The public discourse will eventually relegate the nutters. Lose Free Speech, not just in the letter of the law, but in the spirit throughout society, and you lose the public discourse. That's not somewhere we want to go.
      - glangdale 8y ago
        Who is suggesting that the solution to this is to restrict speech? I think it's fair enough to accurately label this as a high-end disinformation campaign, and Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        I think it's fair enough to accurately label this as a high-end disinformation campaign That is very apt. Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship. Likewise, we don't want to encourage the habit of not thinking, not reading, and just going by emotional name association. To quote one of Frank Miller's more popular characters, "These of the tools of the enemy. We do not need them. We will not use them."
  - naasking 8y ago
    > What is there to be afraid of? Put it out there so it is open to criticism. Why suppress it? Wasting time and money that would be better served publishing better science. Not sure if these articles qualify, but it's a legitimate concern.
    - charliesharding 8y ago
      Better science? Better to whom? Better based off of what criteria? While I admire your bravery for supporting popular opinion, I think we could all benefit from being more open minded
      - naasking 8y ago
        Better based off of what criteria? Are you serious? There exist criteria for evaluating he robustness scientific results that we've developed over centuries. And points off for not being uncharitable and flippant. If this is the quality of discourse I can expect from you, this will be my last reply.
whatshisface 8y ago
I'm not sure if I trust MotherJones to be the arbiter of this, but I believe the accusation is that the published articles are not actually science, but are instead ideological stickbats. If you flip the political parties, you have the "grievance studies" fiasco that was on the HN front page the other day. People are complaining that the other political factions are slipping rousing speeches into the scientific water supply.
- nilkn 8y ago
  Well, let's just go to the source. Here's one of the articles in question: https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-one https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-c... I don't have time to read it right now and form a judgment, but if anyone else here does I think that'd the most useful/productive way of figuring out if the article has any basis.
  - ReadEvalPost 8y ago
    I jumped to the last couple paragraphs of that piece as most of it appears to be issues that do not have proofs within the theory of evolution. Assuming these issues are presented truthfully, they are valid and should be addressed. If they cannot be addressed within the evolutionary framework this does indeed mean an alternate theory is needed. The author's alternate theory is that "the basic laws of physics have been designed to generate a cosmos adapted for life as it exists on earth." This theory is not falsifiable. It does not provide any insight into why things are the way they are, while evolution provides incredible insight. I see zero reason to believe this work is anything but ideological.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      If they cannot be addressed within the evolutionary framework this does indeed mean an alternate theory is needed. All we know is they cannot be addressed yet. Lots of people need to make a good faith effort before an alternate theory is justified. That said, some gaps are always going to remain with any theory. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire field.
kuhhk 8y ago
And if you click on the article about evolution that is being claimed as "dismissive", it does not seem dismissive. It posed a challenge from the 80's that apparently was popular at the time. This seems like a hit piece that people are upvoting because of the title.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I agree. I think the point of this headline is the headline. They know that most people will see Peter Thiel and something about dismissing evolution, and most people won't read the article. (At least one other commenter has confessed to falling into this pattern.) I don't agree, but if contrarianism is done civilly and in good faith, it should be allowed. What we don't want is a general regime of squashing all discourse. Here is a link to part 1 of the article. I skimmed it. This guy could be an anti-evolution bigot if you dig deeply enough, but at least he's not pounding on the usual debunked tropes. (Maybe I should thank him for bringing issues to my attention that are new to me.) He also has a good enough grasp of science, I can't dismiss him outright, other than that I'm convinced evolution by natural selection is correct. https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-one https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-c...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > but at least he's not pounding on the usual debunked tropes. The argument he makes is the standard absence-of-transitional-forms argument, which is pretty high on any list of “usual debunked tropes” of the dishonest creationist crowd, to the point where even at least one creationist has debunked it.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      The argument he makes is the standard absence-of-transitional-forms argument Yes, that's in there, actually. which is pretty high on any list of “usual debunked tropes” of the dishonest creationist crowd I only skimmed the article, so mea culpa. (There's value for the side of truth if the best effort of the opposition so easily, functionally falls into a usual debunked trope.) However, I don't think people like that are all dishonest. I think a lot of them have some kind of mental block. I'm reminded of when I've taught coding and when I've taught music. Some people can't distinguish fine degrees of pitch difference, and those are the same people who can't distinguish little differences in rhythmic placement. (Some scientists have actually studied these "amusical" people.) Some people simply can't grasp the values of variables changing over iterations. Others may have an axe to grind. to the point where even at least one creationist has debunked it. That sounds interesting.
yongjik 8y ago
> When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. - Isaac Asimov
rinchik 8y ago
Absolutely. Similar The Tenth Man rule that I got from one of the Erik Meijer's talks, who got it from World War Z novel, which probably took it from Argumentative Theory: > if nine people agree on a particular course of action, the tenth person must, in the context of the strategy, take a contrary approach so that all alternatives can be considered
ykevinator 8y ago
Come on..., Evolution is not settled science? That's refreshing?

nabla9 8y ago

There is a difference between an open mind and a hole in the head.

charliesharding 8y ago
What is there to be afraid of? Put it out there so it is open to criticism. Why suppress it? Think of it through the lens of emergence, or the shotgun effect.. The more competing, different theories that are out there, the more likely that we will get closer to the truth. This allows future researchers to draw from a larger pool of diverse thought. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
- munk-a 8y ago
  I mean, with climate change the thing to be afraid of is that the populace remains complacent and human beings fail to address and properly respond to an existential threat.
  - charliesharding 8y ago
    If their assertions fall apart under scrutiny then that is a misplaced fear because nobody will take it seriously. If not, and other researchers can back it up - then you don't have to be afraid of an existential threat! win-win Being a scientist means you have to adopt a mentality of passive observation and openness to being wrong, otherwise you'll just fall into the trap of confirmation bias which necessarily results in bad science.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      That's a wonderfully optimistic view to take, unfortunately most of the population of America doesn't subject information placed in front of them to close scrutiny, in part because we're all bombarded with some much information that we simply can't try and make expert assessments on it. Additionally, click-bait is a thing, just pushing a headline with "based on a scientific paper" out there can be dangerous - there is the old adage that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I mean, with climate change the thing to be afraid of is that the populace remains complacent and human beings fail to address and properly respond to an existential threat. If you want persuasive arguments, check out potholer54's channel on YouTube. He's demolished just about the entire corpus of anti-climate change propaganda.
- jhayward 8y ago
  > What is there to be afraid of? Propaganda and asymmetric warfare trying to disrupt the information commons is something to be afraid of. The idealistic tropes that you are quoting are not born out in real-life experience, and we have some large eveents of the last 100 years that make us wary of people who use propaganda as warfare tactics.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Propaganda and asymmetric warfare trying to disrupt the information commons is something to be afraid of...we have some large events of the last 100 years that make us wary of people who use propaganda as warfare tactics. In the short term, propaganda can get an entire country of people to do just about anything. In the long term, people come back to themselves and tell the charlatans to take a hike. The big danger, as borne out all across history, is to invest concentrated power in someone to take care of the problem. People like Cincinnatus are rare, and most people don't give up power once they have it. The public discourse will eventually relegate the nutters. Lose Free Speech, not just in the letter of the law, but in the spirit throughout society, and you lose the public discourse. That's not somewhere we want to go.
    - glangdale 8y ago
      Who is suggesting that the solution to this is to restrict speech? I think it's fair enough to accurately label this as a high-end disinformation campaign, and Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        I think it's fair enough to accurately label this as a high-end disinformation campaign That is very apt. Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship. Likewise, we don't want to encourage the habit of not thinking, not reading, and just going by emotional name association. To quote one of Frank Miller's more popular characters, "These of the tools of the enemy. We do not need them. We will not use them."
- naasking 8y ago
  > What is there to be afraid of? Put it out there so it is open to criticism. Why suppress it? Wasting time and money that would be better served publishing better science. Not sure if these articles qualify, but it's a legitimate concern.
  - charliesharding 8y ago
    Better science? Better to whom? Better based off of what criteria? While I admire your bravery for supporting popular opinion, I think we could all benefit from being more open minded
    - naasking 8y ago
      Better based off of what criteria? Are you serious? There exist criteria for evaluating he robustness scientific results that we've developed over centuries. And points off for not being uncharitable and flippant. If this is the quality of discourse I can expect from you, this will be my last reply.

whatshisface 8y ago

I'm not sure if I trust MotherJones to be the arbiter of this, but I believe the accusation is that the published articles are not actually science, but are instead ideological stickbats. If you flip the political parties, you have the "grievance studies" fiasco that was on the HN front page the other day. People are complaining that the other political factions are slipping rousing speeches into the scientific water supply.

nilkn 8y ago
Well, let's just go to the source. Here's one of the articles in question: https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-one https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-c... I don't have time to read it right now and form a judgment, but if anyone else here does I think that'd the most useful/productive way of figuring out if the article has any basis.
- ReadEvalPost 8y ago
  I jumped to the last couple paragraphs of that piece as most of it appears to be issues that do not have proofs within the theory of evolution. Assuming these issues are presented truthfully, they are valid and should be addressed. If they cannot be addressed within the evolutionary framework this does indeed mean an alternate theory is needed. The author's alternate theory is that "the basic laws of physics have been designed to generate a cosmos adapted for life as it exists on earth." This theory is not falsifiable. It does not provide any insight into why things are the way they are, while evolution provides incredible insight. I see zero reason to believe this work is anything but ideological.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    If they cannot be addressed within the evolutionary framework this does indeed mean an alternate theory is needed. All we know is they cannot be addressed yet. Lots of people need to make a good faith effort before an alternate theory is justified. That said, some gaps are always going to remain with any theory. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire field.

kuhhk 8y ago

And if you click on the article about evolution that is being claimed as "dismissive", it does not seem dismissive. It posed a challenge from the 80's that apparently was popular at the time. This seems like a hit piece that people are upvoting because of the title.

stcredzero 8y ago
I agree. I think the point of this headline is the headline. They know that most people will see Peter Thiel and something about dismissing evolution, and most people won't read the article. (At least one other commenter has confessed to falling into this pattern.) I don't agree, but if contrarianism is done civilly and in good faith, it should be allowed. What we don't want is a general regime of squashing all discourse. Here is a link to part 1 of the article. I skimmed it. This guy could be an anti-evolution bigot if you dig deeply enough, but at least he's not pounding on the usual debunked tropes. (Maybe I should thank him for bringing issues to my attention that are new to me.) He also has a good enough grasp of science, I can't dismiss him outright, other than that I'm convinced evolution by natural selection is correct. https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-crisis-revisited-part-one https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-a-theory-in-c...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > but at least he's not pounding on the usual debunked tropes. The argument he makes is the standard absence-of-transitional-forms argument, which is pretty high on any list of “usual debunked tropes” of the dishonest creationist crowd, to the point where even at least one creationist has debunked it.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The argument he makes is the standard absence-of-transitional-forms argument Yes, that's in there, actually. which is pretty high on any list of “usual debunked tropes” of the dishonest creationist crowd I only skimmed the article, so mea culpa. (There's value for the side of truth if the best effort of the opposition so easily, functionally falls into a usual debunked trope.) However, I don't think people like that are all dishonest. I think a lot of them have some kind of mental block. I'm reminded of when I've taught coding and when I've taught music. Some people can't distinguish fine degrees of pitch difference, and those are the same people who can't distinguish little differences in rhythmic placement. (Some scientists have actually studied these "amusical" people.) Some people simply can't grasp the values of variables changing over iterations. Others may have an axe to grind. to the point where even at least one creationist has debunked it. That sounds interesting.

yongjik 8y ago

> When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. - Isaac Asimov

rinchik 8y ago

Absolutely. Similar The Tenth Man rule that I got from one of the Erik Meijer's talks, who got it from World War Z novel, which probably took it from Argumentative Theory: > if nine people agree on a particular course of action, the tenth person must, in the context of the strategy, take a contrary approach so that all alternatives can be considered

ykevinator 8y ago

Come on..., Evolution is not settled science? That's refreshing?