3 ms·

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

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.

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.