9 ms·

Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738 https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/121677066847525

Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738 https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738

euroPoor 7y ago
Wanted to post exactly this. WSJ doing some terrific propaganda here.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  It's been sad to watch such a storied institution reduced to another Murdoch mouthpiece over the last 10 years. The WSJ never had much of an ideological bent other than "capitalism" until News Corp took over.
  - camjohnson26 7y ago
    Murdoch could’ve spiked the Theranos story that led to its collapse and cost him millions, but he didn’t.
    - not2b 7y ago
      Spiking that story would have delayed Theranos's collapse a bit (it isn't like if one news organization doesn't report a story no one else will ever find it), but had Murdoch spiked the story and unloaded his stock while it was still worth a lot, he could have been in legal trouble for trading on inside information, something only sources within the company knew. This kind of spiking backfires badly when discovered (NBC blocking Ronan Farrow because they had their own related problems, he wound up taking the story elsewhere).
      - susijdjdjxa 7y ago
        Trading based on inside information? This is verging on “not even wrong”. Are you aware that Theranos was not a public company?
    - wayoutthere 7y ago
      That still feels like a "wheels of capitalism" thing -- the writing was on the wall and someone else would have run the Theranos article if the WSJ hadn't. But the overall editorial tone went from centrist to hard-right in the course of a decade, to the point it's not taken seriously as a financial publication anymore.
sandoooo 7y ago
Since twitter is horrible on mobile, here's a summary: # Nasorg sounds like NAS and could be mistaken for it. # Nasorg is conservative and have published material with conservative slant. # 7 out of 21 speakers are climate denialists. # Therefore it is righteous to deplatform them.
- sandoooo 7y ago
  The wsj article is actually fairly accurate, since it has basically listed all the same arguments. The question is the last point: assuming everything else here is true, is this sufficient grounds for deplatforming? Do you want to live in a world where it is? Edit: apparently the HN answer is: yes, we totes do.
  - euroPoor 7y ago
    Do you want your children to live in a world with +4 degrees because some purely financially motivated people stopped progress on the environmental protection front?
    - sandoooo 7y ago
      Is the chance of this higher or lower in a world where scientists with opposing views are allowed to deplatform one another instead of applying the scientific method?
      - CalChris 7y ago
        The scientific method deplatforms. It is skeptical. It is observational. It is experimental. It refines and eliminates failed hypotheses. It is not fair to all viewpoints. For example, the scientific method deplatformed geocentrism.
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      I want my children to live in a world where they are free to think and to read and to listen to a wide variety of opinions, and not just parrot those that come from the loudest voices.
scythe 7y ago
Key quotes: >The @NASorg [National Association of Scholars] sounds like the National Academy of Science, but it's not. >The conference they are organizing has 21 speakers. Of them, 7 are hard core climate change deniers and 0 are climate experts. Sounds like a pretty shady group to me.
- rhino369 7y ago
  What does a "hard core climate change denier" look like according him though? I took an environmental law seminar at Northwestern, and one of the invited guests was read the riot act by faculty who accused him for being a climate change denier. But he didn't actually deny climate change, he just had a model that predicted 50% as much increase in temperate at IPCC average models. And, for that, many called him a denier. So just because Teytelman makes this claim, doesn't mean its true. Teytelman might also be 100% correct.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
starik36 7y ago
Even after reading his tweets I have a distaste for what he is doing. He doesn't want this conference going forward because they are of different political leaning or are saying things he doesn't agree with. What business is that of his? If these people want to meet, they can meet without his stamp of approval.
- CalChris 7y ago
  > He doesn't want this conference going forward That is NOT what his Tweets say. He is warning that the conference is not what it says it is but nowhere does he argue for canceling the conference. I've been warning people not to attend it. It IS his business, literally, to warn people of this. And finally, we agree, if these people want to meet, they CAN meet without his stamp of approval.
beaner 7y ago
This guy's Twitter thread doesn't seem like a great defense, because he doesn't make any specific scientific claims. It's all just ad-hominem that this org are "climate deniers." More troubling is his claim that they are "weaponizing" reproducibility against climate change. Doesn't that raise a red flag? If you're worried that reproducibility poses a problem for something, doesn't that mean you might just a little bit probably have beliefs not based on reproducible science, but on faith? And that the irreproducible science has a chance of being wrong? I'm not trying to deny climate science, I think it's real. But it seems like there's a real problem with this person's stance and how they're trying to argue and obstruct. I'm kind of a believer that people can think for themselves. Let anybody attend anything - if it's a science convention that isn't promoting science it seems like it's not going to get very far, no protesting required. Who are these people who feel that simply listening to someone speak is equivalent to endorsing them?
- triceratops 7y ago
  > Who are these people who feel that simply listening to someone speak is equivalent to endorsing them? There are certain topics that are so settled, that to engage with anyone with a contrary view is tantamount to giving them credibility and a platform to reach the uninformed. Some topics simply don't have "both sides" in any meaningful sense. Flat eartherism, Holocaust denial, and antivaxxerism are ones that immediately come to mind. Anyone who denies the mainstream consensus on those subjects is either a moron, a dishonest person with selfish or malicious motives, or both. Denial of human-caused climate change is close to being in that bucket by this point (the next 2 decades will determine the truth of it). From the perspective of those advocating for action against climate change, deniers have blocked any sort of meaningful action for nearly 30 years. Their actions have led to unprecedented, potential economic, humanitarian, and ecological crises.
  - beaner 7y ago
    Yeah but climate science is complicated by the fact that it is overwhelmingly political. You could say the same thing about geocentrism, germs [1], fat vs sugars, etc. - which all turned out to be false, given time and scrutiny. Scientists have to learn the science to understand it, and that means encountering it from all perspectives. As new generations of people learn, they all have to go through it all again. To not do so is to promote faith, not science. Plus if denialism is wrong, then there should be nothing to worry about anyway. Assuming scientists are scientific, they will consider it, consider other evidence, and come to the correct conclusion. [1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/532074/how-promoting-handwashing-got-one-19th-century-doctor-institutionalized https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/532074/how-promoting-han...
thekashifmalik 7y ago
It seems disingenuous that Mr. Teytelman calls this article an attack. He himself is reaching out to speakers at this event to get them to cancel. Agree or disagree with the event's motivations, trying to get it shut down is an outright attack. Defending against that publicly, like this article seems so do, is warranted and not an attack on Mr. Teytelman.

Some relevant context here contesting this view: https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738 https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1216770668475252738

euroPoor 7y ago

Wanted to post exactly this. WSJ doing some terrific propaganda here.

wayoutthere 7y ago
It's been sad to watch such a storied institution reduced to another Murdoch mouthpiece over the last 10 years. The WSJ never had much of an ideological bent other than "capitalism" until News Corp took over.
- camjohnson26 7y ago
  Murdoch could’ve spiked the Theranos story that led to its collapse and cost him millions, but he didn’t.
  - not2b 7y ago
    Spiking that story would have delayed Theranos's collapse a bit (it isn't like if one news organization doesn't report a story no one else will ever find it), but had Murdoch spiked the story and unloaded his stock while it was still worth a lot, he could have been in legal trouble for trading on inside information, something only sources within the company knew. This kind of spiking backfires badly when discovered (NBC blocking Ronan Farrow because they had their own related problems, he wound up taking the story elsewhere).
    - susijdjdjxa 7y ago
      Trading based on inside information? This is verging on “not even wrong”. Are you aware that Theranos was not a public company?
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    That still feels like a "wheels of capitalism" thing -- the writing was on the wall and someone else would have run the Theranos article if the WSJ hadn't. But the overall editorial tone went from centrist to hard-right in the course of a decade, to the point it's not taken seriously as a financial publication anymore.

sandoooo 7y ago

Since twitter is horrible on mobile, here's a summary: # Nasorg sounds like NAS and could be mistaken for it. # Nasorg is conservative and have published material with conservative slant. # 7 out of 21 speakers are climate denialists. # Therefore it is righteous to deplatform them.

sandoooo 7y ago
The wsj article is actually fairly accurate, since it has basically listed all the same arguments. The question is the last point: assuming everything else here is true, is this sufficient grounds for deplatforming? Do you want to live in a world where it is? Edit: apparently the HN answer is: yes, we totes do.
- euroPoor 7y ago
  Do you want your children to live in a world with +4 degrees because some purely financially motivated people stopped progress on the environmental protection front?
  - sandoooo 7y ago
    Is the chance of this higher or lower in a world where scientists with opposing views are allowed to deplatform one another instead of applying the scientific method?
    - CalChris 7y ago
      The scientific method deplatforms. It is skeptical. It is observational. It is experimental. It refines and eliminates failed hypotheses. It is not fair to all viewpoints. For example, the scientific method deplatformed geocentrism.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    I want my children to live in a world where they are free to think and to read and to listen to a wide variety of opinions, and not just parrot those that come from the loudest voices.

scythe 7y ago

Key quotes: >The @NASorg [National Association of Scholars] sounds like the National Academy of Science, but it's not. >The conference they are organizing has 21 speakers. Of them, 7 are hard core climate change deniers and 0 are climate experts. Sounds like a pretty shady group to me.

rhino369 7y ago
What does a "hard core climate change denier" look like according him though? I took an environmental law seminar at Northwestern, and one of the invited guests was read the riot act by faculty who accused him for being a climate change denier. But he didn't actually deny climate change, he just had a model that predicted 50% as much increase in temperate at IPCC average models. And, for that, many called him a denier. So just because Teytelman makes this claim, doesn't mean its true. Teytelman might also be 100% correct.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

starik36 7y ago

Even after reading his tweets I have a distaste for what he is doing. He doesn't want this conference going forward because they are of different political leaning or are saying things he doesn't agree with. What business is that of his? If these people want to meet, they can meet without his stamp of approval.

CalChris 7y ago
> He doesn't want this conference going forward That is NOT what his Tweets say. He is warning that the conference is not what it says it is but nowhere does he argue for canceling the conference. I've been warning people not to attend it. It IS his business, literally, to warn people of this. And finally, we agree, if these people want to meet, they CAN meet without his stamp of approval.

beaner 7y ago

This guy's Twitter thread doesn't seem like a great defense, because he doesn't make any specific scientific claims. It's all just ad-hominem that this org are "climate deniers." More troubling is his claim that they are "weaponizing" reproducibility against climate change. Doesn't that raise a red flag? If you're worried that reproducibility poses a problem for something, doesn't that mean you might just a little bit probably have beliefs not based on reproducible science, but on faith? And that the irreproducible science has a chance of being wrong? I'm not trying to deny climate science, I think it's real. But it seems like there's a real problem with this person's stance and how they're trying to argue and obstruct. I'm kind of a believer that people can think for themselves. Let anybody attend anything - if it's a science convention that isn't promoting science it seems like it's not going to get very far, no protesting required. Who are these people who feel that simply listening to someone speak is equivalent to endorsing them?

triceratops 7y ago
> Who are these people who feel that simply listening to someone speak is equivalent to endorsing them? There are certain topics that are so settled, that to engage with anyone with a contrary view is tantamount to giving them credibility and a platform to reach the uninformed. Some topics simply don't have "both sides" in any meaningful sense. Flat eartherism, Holocaust denial, and antivaxxerism are ones that immediately come to mind. Anyone who denies the mainstream consensus on those subjects is either a moron, a dishonest person with selfish or malicious motives, or both. Denial of human-caused climate change is close to being in that bucket by this point (the next 2 decades will determine the truth of it). From the perspective of those advocating for action against climate change, deniers have blocked any sort of meaningful action for nearly 30 years. Their actions have led to unprecedented, potential economic, humanitarian, and ecological crises.
- beaner 7y ago
  Yeah but climate science is complicated by the fact that it is overwhelmingly political. You could say the same thing about geocentrism, germs [1], fat vs sugars, etc. - which all turned out to be false, given time and scrutiny. Scientists have to learn the science to understand it, and that means encountering it from all perspectives. As new generations of people learn, they all have to go through it all again. To not do so is to promote faith, not science. Plus if denialism is wrong, then there should be nothing to worry about anyway. Assuming scientists are scientific, they will consider it, consider other evidence, and come to the correct conclusion. [1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/532074/how-promoting-handwashing-got-one-19th-century-doctor-institutionalized https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/532074/how-promoting-han...

thekashifmalik 7y ago

It seems disingenuous that Mr. Teytelman calls this article an attack. He himself is reaching out to speakers at this event to get them to cancel. Agree or disagree with the event's motivations, trying to get it shut down is an outright attack. Defending against that publicly, like this article seems so do, is warranted and not an attack on Mr. Teytelman.