4 ms·

>> There does seem to be darker political overtones that are exacerbated by commenters > Are we reading the same comments section? Which specific comments are

>> There does seem to be darker political overtones that are exacerbated by commenters > Are we reading the same comments section? Which specific comments are you talking about? The comments section I read seemed quite apolitical, except for this particular sub-thread. Please. >> Low-IF journals are easier to publish to by definition. > (...) By definition, Low-IF journals are journals whose papers are less-cited (this is an oversimplification, of course). For example, IF tends to vary a lot by field, so in your comment where you casually dismissed anything with IF<4 as a joke, you inadvertently dismissed whole entire fields. (...) Accepted. So in this specific case, do we talk about a journal in a field where an IF of 4 is low or high?

xamuel 7y ago
>Please. No, you please. I'm genuinely trying to reach a better understanding of your side. What comment did you think was the most political, outside of this sub-thread? Was it the one by car12 [1] which pointed out a quantitative observation about Muslim fertility rates and imagined a future where Islamic parties gain a bigger voice in politics through demographics? If so, what is it about that that's so political? Or if not that, then can you point to another comment that you think was particularly political? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361236
- j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
  Thank you, really good example for that. This is also a good one: > If an antibiotic doesn't wipe out its target, then its target's numbers will be devastated in the short-term, but in the long-term, its target will evolve immunity to the antibiotic and ultimately recover. > If you think about it, contraceptives are extremely similar to an antibiotic whose target is human beings. We're still living in the short-term when the antibiotic seems to be effective. Without any further detail or reasoning, just by "thinking about it" (whatever the author meant by that, he did not elaborate), the author draws a pretty extreme conclusion. This seems to be a rather unscientific, political attempt to reply to the original question: > If this is true, then how do they explain population stabilization in, e.g., Europe, and other developed areas? Why shouldn't what worked for Europe work for the rest of the world?
  - xamuel 7y ago
    You didn't explain what's political about any of those posts. Just because there's a political party committed to believing "the sky is red" doesn't make it political to say "the sky is blue". I was the author of the "contraceptives are like antibiotics" comment btw. The point wasn't to make any extreme conclusion (I admit I can see how it could be taken that way in e.g. an abortion debate, but only by reading words between the lines that simply are not there). The point of that comment was not to score points in any political debate but to suggest an intuitive way to think about the results of the paper. Some commenters make the error of extrapolating straight lines, essentially saying "We observe reverse-correlation between education and birthrates over several decades, therefore they must be reverse-correlated forever". I pointed out an example, in a similar context[1], where such linear thinking would be wrong ("We observe the bacteria numbers are declining, therefore they must continue declining forever"). [1] Similar in the sense that they both involve living populations, population growth and decline, growth and decline caused by particular changes, etc.
    - j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
      > Just because there's a political party committed to believing "the sky is red" doesn't make it political to say "the sky is blue". Just to clarify this. Why is the former political and the latter not? Because one is false, and one is true? I would argue that something is scientific or political no matter if its true or false. What counts is the way you try to convince others that it is true. Just as an example: > The point of that comment was not to score points in any political debate but to suggest an intuitive way to think about the results of the paper. Some commenters make the error of extrapolating straight lines, essentially saying "We observe reverse-correlation between education and birthrates over several decades, therefore they must be reverse-correlated forever". I pointed out an example, in a similar context[1], where such linear thinking would be wrong Here, you do not really explain why the intuitive thinking used by other authors (extrapolation) is less valid than the intuitive thinking you suggest: you do not explain why the comparison between humans and bacteria in the area of reproduction is valid, given the huge differences between humans and bacteria. So when you say that "I admit I can see how it could be taken that way in e.g. an abortion debate, but only by reading words between the lines that simply are not there", that is kind of true: it is about the words that are not there - the words you have to provide to explain why your theory might not be wrong.

xamuel 7y ago

>Please. No, you please. I'm genuinely trying to reach a better understanding of your side. What comment did you think was the most political, outside of this sub-thread? Was it the one by car12 [1] which pointed out a quantitative observation about Muslim fertility rates and imagined a future where Islamic parties gain a bigger voice in politics through demographics? If so, what is it about that that's so political? Or if not that, then can you point to another comment that you think was particularly political? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361236

j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
Thank you, really good example for that. This is also a good one: > If an antibiotic doesn't wipe out its target, then its target's numbers will be devastated in the short-term, but in the long-term, its target will evolve immunity to the antibiotic and ultimately recover. > If you think about it, contraceptives are extremely similar to an antibiotic whose target is human beings. We're still living in the short-term when the antibiotic seems to be effective. Without any further detail or reasoning, just by "thinking about it" (whatever the author meant by that, he did not elaborate), the author draws a pretty extreme conclusion. This seems to be a rather unscientific, political attempt to reply to the original question: > If this is true, then how do they explain population stabilization in, e.g., Europe, and other developed areas? Why shouldn't what worked for Europe work for the rest of the world?
- xamuel 7y ago
  You didn't explain what's political about any of those posts. Just because there's a political party committed to believing "the sky is red" doesn't make it political to say "the sky is blue". I was the author of the "contraceptives are like antibiotics" comment btw. The point wasn't to make any extreme conclusion (I admit I can see how it could be taken that way in e.g. an abortion debate, but only by reading words between the lines that simply are not there). The point of that comment was not to score points in any political debate but to suggest an intuitive way to think about the results of the paper. Some commenters make the error of extrapolating straight lines, essentially saying "We observe reverse-correlation between education and birthrates over several decades, therefore they must be reverse-correlated forever". I pointed out an example, in a similar context[1], where such linear thinking would be wrong ("We observe the bacteria numbers are declining, therefore they must continue declining forever"). [1] Similar in the sense that they both involve living populations, population growth and decline, growth and decline caused by particular changes, etc.
  - j_wtf_all_taken 7y ago
    > Just because there's a political party committed to believing "the sky is red" doesn't make it political to say "the sky is blue". Just to clarify this. Why is the former political and the latter not? Because one is false, and one is true? I would argue that something is scientific or political no matter if its true or false. What counts is the way you try to convince others that it is true. Just as an example: > The point of that comment was not to score points in any political debate but to suggest an intuitive way to think about the results of the paper. Some commenters make the error of extrapolating straight lines, essentially saying "We observe reverse-correlation between education and birthrates over several decades, therefore they must be reverse-correlated forever". I pointed out an example, in a similar context[1], where such linear thinking would be wrong Here, you do not really explain why the intuitive thinking used by other authors (extrapolation) is less valid than the intuitive thinking you suggest: you do not explain why the comparison between humans and bacteria in the area of reproduction is valid, given the huge differences between humans and bacteria. So when you say that "I admit I can see how it could be taken that way in e.g. an abortion debate, but only by reading words between the lines that simply are not there", that is kind of true: it is about the words that are not there - the words you have to provide to explain why your theory might not be wrong.