4 ms·

What kind of bad science rehashed points are you talking about specifically, which appear on HN?

mhuffman 8y ago
There are plenty of items that pop up on HN that get the almonds activated. Basically anything that has non-conclusive scientific proof and also some component of ideology gets drama churned up. Here is a short list of examples: - IQ, and how much of it is biological - Actual differences between biological sexes - Anything related to government fiscal or monetary policy - The extent (or even existence) of privilege for sexes or races - If software should be free - If software can be "stolen" - Whether it is right or wrong for people to give up so much of their privacy to FANG - ... and so on.
- hhs 8y ago
  I wonder how these would be interpreted with the author's point that: "Liberal readers preferred basic science (physics, astronomy, zoology), while conservatives went for applied and commercial science (criminology, medicine, geophysics). 'It seems like conservatives are happy to draw on science associated with economic growth—that’s what they want from science,' Evans said. “Science is more like Star Trek for liberals: traveling through worlds, searching for new meanings, searching for yourself.'" I'm curious how these examples would be categorized: when going down the list, how would a "liberal" and "conservative" group, in general, think about each example; as basic science or as applied/commercial science?
  - asdffdsa 8y ago
    That's interesting, I consider myself more or less conservative, but really enjoy basic sciences/fields like physics, math, philosophy etc
    - hhs 8y ago
      Yeah, I'm curious in the way that the author defines these terms. Did they take into account fluidity of situations as you relate to? Because I'm sure there are many groups out there just like this. And what are the boundaries to these definitions?
- misnome 8y ago
  I tend to stay away from any and all science/physics posts for these same reasons.
50656E6973 8y ago
A lot of soft "social science" (pseudoscience in my opinion) is unquestioningly defended by many because of appeal to authority, ideological, and political reasons.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  In my experience, this also happens a lot with "hard science" too, and a charge against various investigations in soft science and philosophy are led by certain "appeals to authority" themselves - including and not limited to unquestioned positivism, the unsubstantiated belief in objectivity in science etc. And these are as ideological as any other "soft science" defender - only more pernicious, since such views are rarely admitted to be ideological in themselves.
  - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
    Science is as much predicated in faith as any religion. (Faith that people correctly report the "truth", etc.). The congregations of, let's say, Newtonian physics may be pretty skeptical, as they can examine claims by throwing a ball around, but most modern "hard" science takes place on scales too small or large for any person to observe. That takes a lot of faith in instrumentation and models.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      The fact that your computer works is proof that our theories about very small scales are extremely accurate. You only have to depend on faith if you don't understand the math.
- frenchy 8y ago
  I don't want to put words in you mouth, but social science is not necessarily pseudoscience. A lot of it is, or rather, a lot of what is popularized is, because it's a lot easier to make bullshit interesting.
  - a1369209993 8y ago

There are plenty of items that pop up on HN that get the almonds activated. Basically anything that has non-conclusive scientific proof and also some component of ideology gets drama churned up. Here is a short list of examples: - IQ, and how much of it is biological - Actual differences between biological sexes - Anything related to government fiscal or monetary policy - The extent (or even existence) of privilege for sexes or races - If software should be free - If software can be "stolen" - Whether it is right or wrong for people to give up so much of their privacy to FANG - ... and so on.

hhs 8y ago
I wonder how these would be interpreted with the author's point that: "Liberal readers preferred basic science (physics, astronomy, zoology), while conservatives went for applied and commercial science (criminology, medicine, geophysics). 'It seems like conservatives are happy to draw on science associated with economic growth—that’s what they want from science,' Evans said. “Science is more like Star Trek for liberals: traveling through worlds, searching for new meanings, searching for yourself.'" I'm curious how these examples would be categorized: when going down the list, how would a "liberal" and "conservative" group, in general, think about each example; as basic science or as applied/commercial science?
- asdffdsa 8y ago
  That's interesting, I consider myself more or less conservative, but really enjoy basic sciences/fields like physics, math, philosophy etc
  - hhs 8y ago
    Yeah, I'm curious in the way that the author defines these terms. Did they take into account fluidity of situations as you relate to? Because I'm sure there are many groups out there just like this. And what are the boundaries to these definitions?
misnome 8y ago
I tend to stay away from any and all science/physics posts for these same reasons.

50656E6973 8y ago

A lot of soft "social science" (pseudoscience in my opinion) is unquestioningly defended by many because of appeal to authority, ideological, and political reasons.

claudiawerner 8y ago
In my experience, this also happens a lot with "hard science" too, and a charge against various investigations in soft science and philosophy are led by certain "appeals to authority" themselves - including and not limited to unquestioned positivism, the unsubstantiated belief in objectivity in science etc. And these are as ideological as any other "soft science" defender - only more pernicious, since such views are rarely admitted to be ideological in themselves.
- xkcd-sucks 8y ago
  Science is as much predicated in faith as any religion. (Faith that people correctly report the "truth", etc.). The congregations of, let's say, Newtonian physics may be pretty skeptical, as they can examine claims by throwing a ball around, but most modern "hard" science takes place on scales too small or large for any person to observe. That takes a lot of faith in instrumentation and models.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    The fact that your computer works is proof that our theories about very small scales are extremely accurate. You only have to depend on faith if you don't understand the math.
frenchy 8y ago
I don't want to put words in you mouth, but social science is not necessarily pseudoscience. A lot of it is, or rather, a lot of what is popularized is, because it's a lot easier to make bullshit interesting.
- a1369209993 8y ago