3 ms·

Many feel that policy is easier to grasp than tech algorithms so they feel the solutions are obvious. The amount of competing legal, administrative, and regulat

by dkn775 6y ago

Many feel that policy is easier to grasp than tech algorithms so they feel the solutions are obvious. The amount of competing legal, administrative, and regulatory obligations alone in what can be one policy is way more complex than code. While science is more rigorous, it is easier to build consensus, and it can be done with minimal human contact.

mistermann 6y ago
> While science is more rigorous, it is easier to build consensus, and it can be done with minimal human contact. Agreed, which is why I believe we should take a more scientific approach to discussions. For example: >>> Those adults watch a few conspiracy YouTube videos and Fox News and consider themselves educated and informed. Is this statement True? At best, it has some truth. But this type of language and thinking is incredibly common right here on HN, a place we consider to be a place of quality discussion. For sure, things are better here than most other places, but it is still chock full of objectively incorrect statements and erroneous thinking, much of it being very nuanced and easily dismissed by "don't be pedantic", "you know what I meant", etc. Science does not operate by ignoring details or requiring listeners to infer things from vague messages, and this is why it produces successful results. The way we manage and discuss affairs on planet earth however, is almost entirely operated in this non-scientific, error-riddled form. To be clear, this is my personal opinion (an estimate) about reality. What matters is what the true state of reality is, and almost no one seems to care about that, at least based on discussion and voting patterns here. I wonder if some sort of a browser addon that added a metadata layer to forums would be helpful in surfacing these things, such that patterns could be recognized over time, which might bring to mind ideas of how we could improve our thinking and discourse.

by dkn775 6y ago

mistermann 6y ago

> While science is more rigorous, it is easier to build consensus, and it can be done with minimal human contact. Agreed, which is why I believe we should take a more scientific approach to discussions. For example: >>> Those adults watch a few conspiracy YouTube videos and Fox News and consider themselves educated and informed. Is this statement True? At best, it has some truth. But this type of language and thinking is incredibly common right here on HN, a place we consider to be a place of quality discussion. For sure, things are better here than most other places, but it is still chock full of objectively incorrect statements and erroneous thinking, much of it being very nuanced and easily dismissed by "don't be pedantic", "you know what I meant", etc. Science does not operate by ignoring details or requiring listeners to infer things from vague messages, and this is why it produces successful results. The way we manage and discuss affairs on planet earth however, is almost entirely operated in this non-scientific, error-riddled form. To be clear, this is my personal opinion (an estimate) about reality. What matters is what the true state of reality is, and almost no one seems to care about that, at least based on discussion and voting patterns here. I wonder if some sort of a browser addon that added a metadata layer to forums would be helpful in surfacing these things, such that patterns could be recognized over time, which might bring to mind ideas of how we could improve our thinking and discourse.