10 ms·

That paragraph is a smug, flowery dismissal of the kind of evidence-based discussion that happens on HN. It's passive aggressively accusing HN commenters of wr

That paragraph is a smug, flowery dismissal of the kind of evidence-based discussion that happens on HN. It's passive aggressively accusing HN commenters of wrongthink and of abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments" (read: emotional arguments). It basically dismisses the role of data in debate by suggesting that it is malleable or selective--we've all probably encountered this type of weaselly thinking, one that demands proof for an argument and, when provided, attacks the source as biased or the data as flawed. You can argue for pretty much any position when you embrace a brand of anti-intellectualism which believes that all data is fake/flawed and reality is subjective. If you strip it down, the author is basically saying "I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking so much and get onboard my bandwagon."

dhshahsndeisjwn 7y ago
No, specifically they say: > The most admired arguments are made with data, > but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data > tend to be ancillary concerns. That's a concern I often share: "the data" can so often be a "winner's history".
- cloakandswagger 7y ago
  Data is the best tool we have. It can be cherry-picked and tainted for sure, but I'd much prefer debates be governed by that instead of whose argument is the most "humane"/morally superior
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    > prefer debates be governed by [cherry-picked data] instead of whose argument is the most "humane" To be overly generous, that's a false dichotomy. There's a time and place for humane arguments and, in the absence of complete "data" (whatever THAT means), that may be all you have. At the end of the day, we're all emotional creatures and this often justifiably dominates considerations of human affairs. Not everything can be boiled down to problems in first order logic.
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      > There's a time and place for humane arguments and, in the absence of complete "data" (whatever THAT means), that may be all you have. I'm trying to be charitable here, but it's difficult not to conclude that you're setting up the data as never being sufficient e.g. "whatever THAT means" in order to support humane arguments over data based arguments.
    - crumpets 7y ago
      >"data" (whatever THAT means) Holy shit. Observable evidence.
  - ckris 7y ago
    I don't really see it though. The article seems pretty clear on what kind of discussion they think is unproductive. One can argue whether text is data, but it still has structure and meaning. When they say "ill-advised citation" or "logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify" that is what they are arguing. You own argument seem much more a moral one though. For one it doesn't even say what you said it says. For example: > accusing HN commenters [...] abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments" Actually says: > humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational It doesn't say that human arguments are countered with data or logic. That statement is never made. It doesn't imply it either. If it was to be read as implied it would still be logic and data used in incorrect ways. So it seems hard to favor data if you don't even look at the text at hand. Instead you seem to pretty much make a "slippery slope" argument, which if not outright is at least close to a moral argument. That questioning data dismisses the role of data, and that this leads to anti-intellectualism. Therefor we shouldn't question data in this way. That is, they are morally wrong to do it. Instead of the less moral argument that misuse of data is what leads to people questioning it. You also back this up with all kinds of appeal to emotion from it being "a smug, flowery dismissal" to "basically saying I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking". I don't see that reading as factual. If anything the article seems to argue that people should start thinking. One could argue that their reasoning for why people isn't thinking is incorrect, but that doesn't change the actual meaning in relation to thinking (that they think people should be thinking more). So again you are not arguing the text, but your moral conclusion from the text. The more critical reading of your comments would simply be that you don't see the problem with data and therefor you don't understand the article's concerns nor the problems with your own comments. Which is pretty much what the article argues people don't do after observing this very forum. I have a hard time even reconciling your one sentence in this comment. Because you are essentially saying that you rather have flawed data than a humane or morally superior argument. But that again seems very much in itself like a morally superior argument. It rests on that data is always better than a humane argument. Even when incorrect, and potentially more incorrect, than a humane argument.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      I saw parent commenter as making an epistemological argument rather than a moral one. There are two fundamentally different sources of truth: ethical consensus and physical data. They are ultimately incompatible, in that only a single option can be your ultimate source of truth. Albeit other(s) can be valued to some degree. The issue they took, and I would take too, with that portion of the New Yorker article is that it attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth. Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point. Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.
- AcerbicZero 7y ago
  The nice thing about having discussions based on fact is that if "the data" is bad, its just another avenue for discussion. That doesn't mean we have to re-hash everything from first principals, and it certainly doesn't mean that compelling rhetoric + poor data might "win", but it sure does help. People can have a productive discussion on the veracity (origins/malleability are not good reasons to ignore data by themselves in my opinion) of the data, other data can be presented to support or contradict the original point, and in a perfect world perhaps both sides would come away a little more aware of an issue.
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    > The nice thing about having discussions based on fact... Certainly that kind of positivist approach is valuable and warranted for much but not all of the subject-matter on HN. If you're discussing technical subject matter, stuff like the inner workings of regular expressions, programming language features, electronic components, sure, it's all about "the facts". Things are different, however, in discussions about human affairs, political, inter-personal topics, social movements, historical interpretations, art, design, music, aesthetics, business and other topics in the human experience. These discussions DO EXIST on HN. And NO, sorry, pure facts may not be enough or might be incomplete or out-of-reach for that subject-matter.
    - eitland 7y ago
      > Things are different, however, in discussions about human affairs, political, inter-personal topics, social movements, historical interpretations, art, design, music, aesthetics, business and other topics in the human experience. These discussions DO EXIST on HN. I'll bite. Data can do a lot to improve discussions about history, politics and business. I'd also argue that data can improve discussions about seemingly subjective things such as design. > And NO, sorry, pure facts many not be enough or might be incomplete or out-of-reach for that subject-matter. In fact I'd say that I'm close to saying those are the only discussions worth having about certain topics. If I like a design and you don't that brings us nowhere. If either of us can bring some data and say 72% of the testers prefered it strongly, - but colorblind people struggled with it - that is something that might give both of us some value and might lead to better results.
crispyambulance 7y ago
> ...dismisses the role of data in debate by suggesting that it is malleable or selective... "Data" absolutely can be malleable or selective, it all depends on how the argument is constructed and is easily prone to abuse. The points she makes are rock-solid. That said, I still do enjoy HN immensely and can tolerate the warts and libertarians.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Indeed so, but the scientific process (in the general, Enlightenment sense) is more robust and abuse / fault -tolerant than anything else we've come up with. Reproducibility crises or statistical hacking news articles are evidence of success. In a less-introspective system, those self-reevaluations didn't even happen! Viz, the 300+ years it took for a shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric consensus.
ckris 7y ago
That seems like a huge straw man. What they say is that people use data improperly on Hacker News, which is also my experience. Very frequently things like papers posted as supporting evidence don't really support the posters position. Sometimes they don't say even remotely what the poster thinks. But that takes time to figure it out, at that point it has already fulfilled its purpose and people don't care anymore. The structure of Hacker News just makes it very favorable to muddy the waters until the story disappears. And I think they correctly call that out in the article.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  This is exactly what I've seen here. I've had to read through reports and papers people have cited to see whether or not the paper supported what they were arguing. Or sometimes, people would link to incredibly biased sources whom bury the lede of the stories they cite which in turn only tangentially support what they said.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Isn't that still an improvement over the alternative though? If the fundamental nature of short-duration comment consumption is antithetical to fact checking, that's certainly a problem. But it's still superior to uncited points, as it is ultimately verifiable. In a choice between the two, I'll take the ill (claims appearing more supported than they are) for the good (inculcating a culture of transparent citation).
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      I'd honestly argue that it can be worse. If someone cites a claim with a bogus citation and no one chooses to challenge it, then that becomes something that's not just an opinion, but something that's viewed to be scientific fact. For example have you ever been in an argument where you recall reading a paper or statistic, but don't have it on hand? What if that statistic was a false correlation drummed up by a highly politicized thinktank? This is why it's so important to not leave potentially misleading or outright wrong citations unchallenged. This is sort of how the 'vaccines cause autism' claims can quickly spiral out of control. It requires people to behave earnestly and not mislead with their citations.
notathing 7y ago
> when you embrace a brand of anti-intellectualism which believes that all data is fake/flawed and reality is subjective. That's not wrong though. Reality is a social construct.

dhshahsndeisjwn 7y ago

No, specifically they say: > The most admired arguments are made with data, > but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data > tend to be ancillary concerns. That's a concern I often share: "the data" can so often be a "winner's history".

cloakandswagger 7y ago
Data is the best tool we have. It can be cherry-picked and tainted for sure, but I'd much prefer debates be governed by that instead of whose argument is the most "humane"/morally superior
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  > prefer debates be governed by [cherry-picked data] instead of whose argument is the most "humane" To be overly generous, that's a false dichotomy. There's a time and place for humane arguments and, in the absence of complete "data" (whatever THAT means), that may be all you have. At the end of the day, we're all emotional creatures and this often justifiably dominates considerations of human affairs. Not everything can be boiled down to problems in first order logic.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    > There's a time and place for humane arguments and, in the absence of complete "data" (whatever THAT means), that may be all you have. I'm trying to be charitable here, but it's difficult not to conclude that you're setting up the data as never being sufficient e.g. "whatever THAT means" in order to support humane arguments over data based arguments.
  - crumpets 7y ago
    >"data" (whatever THAT means) Holy shit. Observable evidence.
- ckris 7y ago
  I don't really see it though. The article seems pretty clear on what kind of discussion they think is unproductive. One can argue whether text is data, but it still has structure and meaning. When they say "ill-advised citation" or "logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify" that is what they are arguing. You own argument seem much more a moral one though. For one it doesn't even say what you said it says. For example: > accusing HN commenters [...] abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments" Actually says: > humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational It doesn't say that human arguments are countered with data or logic. That statement is never made. It doesn't imply it either. If it was to be read as implied it would still be logic and data used in incorrect ways. So it seems hard to favor data if you don't even look at the text at hand. Instead you seem to pretty much make a "slippery slope" argument, which if not outright is at least close to a moral argument. That questioning data dismisses the role of data, and that this leads to anti-intellectualism. Therefor we shouldn't question data in this way. That is, they are morally wrong to do it. Instead of the less moral argument that misuse of data is what leads to people questioning it. You also back this up with all kinds of appeal to emotion from it being "a smug, flowery dismissal" to "basically saying I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking". I don't see that reading as factual. If anything the article seems to argue that people should start thinking. One could argue that their reasoning for why people isn't thinking is incorrect, but that doesn't change the actual meaning in relation to thinking (that they think people should be thinking more). So again you are not arguing the text, but your moral conclusion from the text. The more critical reading of your comments would simply be that you don't see the problem with data and therefor you don't understand the article's concerns nor the problems with your own comments. Which is pretty much what the article argues people don't do after observing this very forum. I have a hard time even reconciling your one sentence in this comment. Because you are essentially saying that you rather have flawed data than a humane or morally superior argument. But that again seems very much in itself like a morally superior argument. It rests on that data is always better than a humane argument. Even when incorrect, and potentially more incorrect, than a humane argument.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    I saw parent commenter as making an epistemological argument rather than a moral one. There are two fundamentally different sources of truth: ethical consensus and physical data. They are ultimately incompatible, in that only a single option can be your ultimate source of truth. Albeit other(s) can be valued to some degree. The issue they took, and I would take too, with that portion of the New Yorker article is that it attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth. Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point. Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.
AcerbicZero 7y ago
The nice thing about having discussions based on fact is that if "the data" is bad, its just another avenue for discussion. That doesn't mean we have to re-hash everything from first principals, and it certainly doesn't mean that compelling rhetoric + poor data might "win", but it sure does help. People can have a productive discussion on the veracity (origins/malleability are not good reasons to ignore data by themselves in my opinion) of the data, other data can be presented to support or contradict the original point, and in a perfect world perhaps both sides would come away a little more aware of an issue.
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  > The nice thing about having discussions based on fact... Certainly that kind of positivist approach is valuable and warranted for much but not all of the subject-matter on HN. If you're discussing technical subject matter, stuff like the inner workings of regular expressions, programming language features, electronic components, sure, it's all about "the facts". Things are different, however, in discussions about human affairs, political, inter-personal topics, social movements, historical interpretations, art, design, music, aesthetics, business and other topics in the human experience. These discussions DO EXIST on HN. And NO, sorry, pure facts may not be enough or might be incomplete or out-of-reach for that subject-matter.
  - eitland 7y ago
    > Things are different, however, in discussions about human affairs, political, inter-personal topics, social movements, historical interpretations, art, design, music, aesthetics, business and other topics in the human experience. These discussions DO EXIST on HN. I'll bite. Data can do a lot to improve discussions about history, politics and business. I'd also argue that data can improve discussions about seemingly subjective things such as design. > And NO, sorry, pure facts many not be enough or might be incomplete or out-of-reach for that subject-matter. In fact I'd say that I'm close to saying those are the only discussions worth having about certain topics. If I like a design and you don't that brings us nowhere. If either of us can bring some data and say 72% of the testers prefered it strongly, - but colorblind people struggled with it - that is something that might give both of us some value and might lead to better results.

crispyambulance 7y ago

> ...dismisses the role of data in debate by suggesting that it is malleable or selective... "Data" absolutely can be malleable or selective, it all depends on how the argument is constructed and is easily prone to abuse. The points she makes are rock-solid. That said, I still do enjoy HN immensely and can tolerate the warts and libertarians.

ethbro 7y ago
Indeed so, but the scientific process (in the general, Enlightenment sense) is more robust and abuse / fault -tolerant than anything else we've come up with. Reproducibility crises or statistical hacking news articles are evidence of success. In a less-introspective system, those self-reevaluations didn't even happen! Viz, the 300+ years it took for a shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric consensus.

ckris 7y ago

That seems like a huge straw man. What they say is that people use data improperly on Hacker News, which is also my experience. Very frequently things like papers posted as supporting evidence don't really support the posters position. Sometimes they don't say even remotely what the poster thinks. But that takes time to figure it out, at that point it has already fulfilled its purpose and people don't care anymore. The structure of Hacker News just makes it very favorable to muddy the waters until the story disappears. And I think they correctly call that out in the article.

fzeroracer 7y ago
This is exactly what I've seen here. I've had to read through reports and papers people have cited to see whether or not the paper supported what they were arguing. Or sometimes, people would link to incredibly biased sources whom bury the lede of the stories they cite which in turn only tangentially support what they said.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Isn't that still an improvement over the alternative though? If the fundamental nature of short-duration comment consumption is antithetical to fact checking, that's certainly a problem. But it's still superior to uncited points, as it is ultimately verifiable. In a choice between the two, I'll take the ill (claims appearing more supported than they are) for the good (inculcating a culture of transparent citation).
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    I'd honestly argue that it can be worse. If someone cites a claim with a bogus citation and no one chooses to challenge it, then that becomes something that's not just an opinion, but something that's viewed to be scientific fact. For example have you ever been in an argument where you recall reading a paper or statistic, but don't have it on hand? What if that statistic was a false correlation drummed up by a highly politicized thinktank? This is why it's so important to not leave potentially misleading or outright wrong citations unchallenged. This is sort of how the 'vaccines cause autism' claims can quickly spiral out of control. It requires people to behave earnestly and not mislead with their citations.

notathing 7y ago

> when you embrace a brand of anti-intellectualism which believes that all data is fake/flawed and reality is subjective. That's not wrong though. Reality is a social construct.