4 ms·

As though a) we actually know that particle flavors come in threes and b) any human being's opinion on this is worth more than that of the schizophrenic on the

As though a) we actually know that particle flavors come in threes and b) any human being's opinion on this is worth more than that of the schizophrenic on the corner who at least believes he is talking to God.

dang 7y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  Yes, I think I was in a particularly bad mood when I wrote this. But I also stand by the sentiment that a schizophrenic is in a better position than Weinberg because the schizophrenic hears God directly and so has reason for believing what he hears. Weinberg doesn't believe in God but somehow has convinced himself that his aesthetic preferences have something to do with the intrinsic nature of the universe. Weinberg has been out of the physics game in and in the world of letters for my entire lifetime. He won a Nobel Prize (which is generally a tombstone for careers) before I was born. I don't want to say that his insights are completely worthless, but they're already conventional wisdom (so they don't add much to what we already commonly think) and he's just gotten so used to talking about the nature of the universe that he isn't trouble by the fact that he has nothing more than a hunch to back him up. In this case, I have to be ad hominem because there's nothing but the man to discuss. He has a hunch. His hunch is worth printing because he's a Great Physicist (or whatever the original title was). To point out that the hunch is just a hunch, I have to point out that the Great Physicist is just a person and the hunch has no grounding whatsoever.
  - dang 7y ago
    This includes much more information and so is less shallow, and therefore much a much better post than upthread. There's an interesting phenomenon where people often reply to moderation comments with a post that says what they meant in the first place. The personal aspect is arguably still a problem. But it's also true that critiquing celebrities isn't the same thing as garden-variety personal attack, since they represent more than just themselves individually, and you make it clear that the intention isn't personal. There's at least one revision a comment like this could go through to get better: a little more information about what the specific ideas are. For example, which insights are already conventional wisdom? Readers who are not steeped in the field could learn something from that.

dang 7y ago

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

earthboundkid 7y ago
Yes, I think I was in a particularly bad mood when I wrote this. But I also stand by the sentiment that a schizophrenic is in a better position than Weinberg because the schizophrenic hears God directly and so has reason for believing what he hears. Weinberg doesn't believe in God but somehow has convinced himself that his aesthetic preferences have something to do with the intrinsic nature of the universe. Weinberg has been out of the physics game in and in the world of letters for my entire lifetime. He won a Nobel Prize (which is generally a tombstone for careers) before I was born. I don't want to say that his insights are completely worthless, but they're already conventional wisdom (so they don't add much to what we already commonly think) and he's just gotten so used to talking about the nature of the universe that he isn't trouble by the fact that he has nothing more than a hunch to back him up. In this case, I have to be ad hominem because there's nothing but the man to discuss. He has a hunch. His hunch is worth printing because he's a Great Physicist (or whatever the original title was). To point out that the hunch is just a hunch, I have to point out that the Great Physicist is just a person and the hunch has no grounding whatsoever.
- dang 7y ago
  This includes much more information and so is less shallow, and therefore much a much better post than upthread. There's an interesting phenomenon where people often reply to moderation comments with a post that says what they meant in the first place. The personal aspect is arguably still a problem. But it's also true that critiquing celebrities isn't the same thing as garden-variety personal attack, since they represent more than just themselves individually, and you make it clear that the intention isn't personal. There's at least one revision a comment like this could go through to get better: a little more information about what the specific ideas are. For example, which insights are already conventional wisdom? Readers who are not steeped in the field could learn something from that.