7 ms·

While I don’t doubt your assertion that a select few are responsible for the bulk of the push-back on such issues, I think it’s good to have some resistance. Hu

While I don’t doubt your assertion that a select few are responsible for the bulk of the push-back on such issues, I think it’s good to have some resistance. Humans are so prone to wishful thinking and following consensus, it can be healthy to keep the debate alive longer than one might think necessary. It helps one clarify your position to yourself, for one.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
How is flooding a consensus forming process with information that is known to be false possibly helpful with improving the accuracy of the process?
- pmarreck 7y ago
  Precisely because “known to be false” is debatable. Known by who? To what certainty? Etc.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    The context in this thread was fabricated, known to be false doubt, so, no, that is not debatable.
  - jonbronson 7y ago
    Known by experts of the field, the ones most qualified to evaluate claims of the field. The experts of this field are in strong consensus, to such a high degree of certainty that it's basically established fact.
yawz 7y ago
As an engineer and a scientific thinker I agree with having some skepticism. After all we try to “disprove“ hypotheses in science. However, what we are suffering from as a species at the moment is more related to what Bertrand Russell described as: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.”
makomk 7y ago
Some resistance is definitely necessary if you care about whether the claims being made are true, yes. For example, take this article about the oceans supposedly soaking up much more heat than previously thought, which made it to HN a year or so ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 The comments are full of people confidently taking it as yet more inevitable evidence that we're even more doomed than previously thought, we need to overthrow the entire system of global industry, etc. The article was retracted, followed by the underlying study. One of those pesky members of the climate denial movement spotted that they'd messed up their calculations, and the authors basically copped to this. This shouldn't have been necessary. They were using a bizarre, indirect method to try and estimate something we'd already measured directly, and got an answer that contradicted that existing measurement. The first assumption should've been that their method was wrong and it should've taken a hell of a lot of evidence to overcome it, but there's such a strong bias towards claims of climate doom that it got a spot in Nature and uncritical regurgitation in the global press instead. (Part of the problem is that Nature has a general bias towards shocking, novel claims that leads to them publishing dubious work, but it's hard to imagine them being so gung-ho about work leaning in the opposite direction.) Naturally, most people who read the existing coverage will never see the retractions and will continue to be influenced by the now-retracted claim.
- dd36 7y ago
  Primary difference is good faith and bad faith. Most denialism is bad faith and doesn’t make honest retractions.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The distinction you'll find leads your 2nd paragraph: the study was retracted. The climate denial movement never budges a nanometer on any of its points. The scientific movement admits its mistakes and errors. And yes, there's dispute in small details of the matter. The grander narrative has been clear since the 19th century. No, not a typo. Not since the 20th, but the 19th.
  - makomk 7y ago
awinder 7y ago
So the scientific process actually is extremely accountable & includes ideas like pushback through processes like peer review. There are bad studies but this is the classic case of getting no credit for the good job done 99% of the time and hyper focus on the mistakes that occur 1% of the time. People here would (rightfully) quit a job in that environment, they’d label it toxic, and they’d be right.
cortesoft 7y ago
Not all push back is equal... does it really helpful to "keep the debate alive" by pushing back on the idea that the earth is not flat?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

How is flooding a consensus forming process with information that is known to be false possibly helpful with improving the accuracy of the process?

pmarreck 7y ago
Precisely because “known to be false” is debatable. Known by who? To what certainty? Etc.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  The context in this thread was fabricated, known to be false doubt, so, no, that is not debatable.
- jonbronson 7y ago
  Known by experts of the field, the ones most qualified to evaluate claims of the field. The experts of this field are in strong consensus, to such a high degree of certainty that it's basically established fact.

yawz 7y ago

As an engineer and a scientific thinker I agree with having some skepticism. After all we try to “disprove“ hypotheses in science. However, what we are suffering from as a species at the moment is more related to what Bertrand Russell described as: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.”

makomk 7y ago

Some resistance is definitely necessary if you care about whether the claims being made are true, yes. For example, take this article about the oceans supposedly soaking up much more heat than previously thought, which made it to HN a year or so ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 The comments are full of people confidently taking it as yet more inevitable evidence that we're even more doomed than previously thought, we need to overthrow the entire system of global industry, etc. The article was retracted, followed by the underlying study. One of those pesky members of the climate denial movement spotted that they'd messed up their calculations, and the authors basically copped to this. This shouldn't have been necessary. They were using a bizarre, indirect method to try and estimate something we'd already measured directly, and got an answer that contradicted that existing measurement. The first assumption should've been that their method was wrong and it should've taken a hell of a lot of evidence to overcome it, but there's such a strong bias towards claims of climate doom that it got a spot in Nature and uncritical regurgitation in the global press instead. (Part of the problem is that Nature has a general bias towards shocking, novel claims that leads to them publishing dubious work, but it's hard to imagine them being so gung-ho about work leaning in the opposite direction.) Naturally, most people who read the existing coverage will never see the retractions and will continue to be influenced by the now-retracted claim.

dd36 7y ago
Primary difference is good faith and bad faith. Most denialism is bad faith and doesn’t make honest retractions.
dredmorbius 7y ago
The distinction you'll find leads your 2nd paragraph: the study was retracted. The climate denial movement never budges a nanometer on any of its points. The scientific movement admits its mistakes and errors. And yes, there's dispute in small details of the matter. The grander narrative has been clear since the 19th century. No, not a typo. Not since the 20th, but the 19th.
- makomk 7y ago

awinder 7y ago

So the scientific process actually is extremely accountable & includes ideas like pushback through processes like peer review. There are bad studies but this is the classic case of getting no credit for the good job done 99% of the time and hyper focus on the mistakes that occur 1% of the time. People here would (rightfully) quit a job in that environment, they’d label it toxic, and they’d be right.

cortesoft 7y ago

Not all push back is equal... does it really helpful to "keep the debate alive" by pushing back on the idea that the earth is not flat?