4 ms·

HN: Governments don’t fund enough scientific research projects. Also HN: Governments shouldn’t be funding this scientific research project. Can’t win with thi

HN: Governments don’t fund enough scientific research projects. Also HN: Governments shouldn’t be funding this scientific research project. Can’t win with this crowd.

Swenrekcah 6y ago
Humans: Ah, they're doing some good stuff I like. Let's move on with my day. Also humans: Oh no! They're doing some bad stuff I don't like! Let's tell'em off!
Torok 6y ago
I mean it's obviously all about funding the right projects isn't it? Going to an obviously hyperbolic extreme for the sake of the argument, say that the EU invested billions in determining if the moon is really made of cheese then that's obviously a waste of money even if it is a scientific investment. There's a non negligible amount of people, even those who have worked at CERN previously, saying that it just doesn't make sense to put more investment into a new supercollider which might just show that there's an energy desert of particles in the regime it's testing. You're also falling prey to the fallacy that HN acts as a single entity, in reality everyone here has different opinions and can't just be all lumped in one bucket saying HN thinks this or that. It's obviously going to seem contradictory if you view it as if it's a single person
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  ==I mean it's obviously all about funding the right projects isn't it?== So is everything in life, but that doesn't help us actually determine which are the "right projects". ==Going to an obviously hyperbolic extreme for the sake of the argument, say that the EU invested billions in determining if the moon is really made of cheese then that's obviously a waste of money even if it is a scientific investment.== That you have to go to such a ridiculous argument seems to say something about your stance. What would we learn if we discovered the moon was made of cheese? Why would it matter? What is the scientific impact of a cheese moon? Without those answers it isn't really a scientific investment. ==There's a non negligible amount of people, even those who have worked at CERN previously, saying that it just doesn't make sense to put more investment into a new supercollider which might just show that there's an energy desert of particles in the regime it's testing.== And a non-negligible amount of people, even those who currently work at CERN, think it is worthwhile. We could play this game all day (which is my entire point). If the test fails, we still get to learn something new. A foundation of the scientific method. ==You're also falling prey to the fallacy that HN acts as a single entity, in reality everyone here has different opinions and can't just be all lumped in one bucket saying HN thinks this or that. It's obviously going to seem contradictory if you view it as if it's a single person== You seem to be falling prey to the fallacy that all people who worked at CERN act as a single entity. In reality, people who have worked at CERN have different opinions. Similarly, I've seen many posts about how HN is a hive mind. I guess that is just when it suits the narrative.
Bayart 6y ago
HN isn't a person.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  No, it's a crowd of people like I mentioned.
  - erulabs 6y ago
    Well, crowds don't have opinions. People do. There in no hypocrisy when a group disagrees with itself - it is just people disagreeing with other people.
    - take_a_breath 6y ago
      Crowds, of people, absolutely have opinions. It's the entire foundation of politics, business, and entertainment. What is a political party platform other than a series of opinions?
      - erulabs 6y ago
        Well, _people_ have opinions, and therefore a group _contains_ opinions, but a group itself is incapable of thought - and therefore of forming opinions itself. A political party, like any other group, is simply a big pile of individuals who happen to fly the same flag. Disagreement between them is not hypocrisy of the group. Man is not the member of one group only and does not appear on the scene of human affairs solely in the role of a member of one definitive group. In speaking of social groups it must be remembered that the members of one group are at the same time members of other groups. The conflict of groups is not a conflict between neatly integrated herds of men. It is a conflict between various concerns in the minds of individuals. Ludwig von Mises - Theory and History
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The HN readership is not homogeneous. The site makes a lot more sense when you understand that.

HN: Governments don’t fund enough scientific research projects. Also HN: Governments shouldn’t be funding this scientific research project. Can’t win with this crowd.

Swenrekcah 6y ago

Humans: Ah, they're doing some good stuff I like. Let's move on with my day. Also humans: Oh no! They're doing some bad stuff I don't like! Let's tell'em off!

Torok 6y ago

I mean it's obviously all about funding the right projects isn't it? Going to an obviously hyperbolic extreme for the sake of the argument, say that the EU invested billions in determining if the moon is really made of cheese then that's obviously a waste of money even if it is a scientific investment. There's a non negligible amount of people, even those who have worked at CERN previously, saying that it just doesn't make sense to put more investment into a new supercollider which might just show that there's an energy desert of particles in the regime it's testing. You're also falling prey to the fallacy that HN acts as a single entity, in reality everyone here has different opinions and can't just be all lumped in one bucket saying HN thinks this or that. It's obviously going to seem contradictory if you view it as if it's a single person

take_a_breath 6y ago
==I mean it's obviously all about funding the right projects isn't it?== So is everything in life, but that doesn't help us actually determine which are the "right projects". ==Going to an obviously hyperbolic extreme for the sake of the argument, say that the EU invested billions in determining if the moon is really made of cheese then that's obviously a waste of money even if it is a scientific investment.== That you have to go to such a ridiculous argument seems to say something about your stance. What would we learn if we discovered the moon was made of cheese? Why would it matter? What is the scientific impact of a cheese moon? Without those answers it isn't really a scientific investment. ==There's a non negligible amount of people, even those who have worked at CERN previously, saying that it just doesn't make sense to put more investment into a new supercollider which might just show that there's an energy desert of particles in the regime it's testing.== And a non-negligible amount of people, even those who currently work at CERN, think it is worthwhile. We could play this game all day (which is my entire point). If the test fails, we still get to learn something new. A foundation of the scientific method. ==You're also falling prey to the fallacy that HN acts as a single entity, in reality everyone here has different opinions and can't just be all lumped in one bucket saying HN thinks this or that. It's obviously going to seem contradictory if you view it as if it's a single person== You seem to be falling prey to the fallacy that all people who worked at CERN act as a single entity. In reality, people who have worked at CERN have different opinions. Similarly, I've seen many posts about how HN is a hive mind. I guess that is just when it suits the narrative.

Bayart 6y ago

HN isn't a person.

take_a_breath 6y ago
No, it's a crowd of people like I mentioned.
- erulabs 6y ago
  Well, crowds don't have opinions. People do. There in no hypocrisy when a group disagrees with itself - it is just people disagreeing with other people.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    Crowds, of people, absolutely have opinions. It's the entire foundation of politics, business, and entertainment. What is a political party platform other than a series of opinions?
    - erulabs 6y ago
      Well, _people_ have opinions, and therefore a group _contains_ opinions, but a group itself is incapable of thought - and therefore of forming opinions itself. A political party, like any other group, is simply a big pile of individuals who happen to fly the same flag. Disagreement between them is not hypocrisy of the group. Man is not the member of one group only and does not appear on the scene of human affairs solely in the role of a member of one definitive group. In speaking of social groups it must be remembered that the members of one group are at the same time members of other groups. The conflict of groups is not a conflict between neatly integrated herds of men. It is a conflict between various concerns in the minds of individuals. Ludwig von Mises - Theory and History

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

The HN readership is not homogeneous. The site makes a lot more sense when you understand that.