6 ms·

> Tangential to this article, but can I just say that this is HN at its best. Random, curious, snippets of learning on topics that I can’t imagine hearing about

> Tangential to this article, but can I just say that this is HN at its best. Random, curious, snippets of learning on topics that I can’t imagine hearing about anywhere else. The submission, I agree is the best of HN; the comments, however, are the worst. Tons of 'bikeshedding' comments offering flippant uninformed analyses that belittle established and well-researched theories. By offering 'back of a cocktail napkin' comments like 'I think such and such theory doesn't get enough attention because of my random opinion', or 'I think such and such likely happened, based on me just ruminating about this for a few minutes, versus doing years of research on'; the comments are tacitly disrespecting the work researchers whose specialty this is put into formulating theories. We HN users need to learn to just say 'we don't know', instead of playing internet experts in every single discipline a given submission is about.

egeozcan 6y ago
We are not here to do science though, and while completely unsubstantiated ideas are frowned upon, it's okay to do some mind exercise and share theories with others. It's fun to read, fun to write, and well above the populist karma-stunts.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chucky 6y ago
This seems like a more general problem with the Internet or even of people (and in particular men of a more technical and nerdy persuasion, in my own experience). The majority have nothing of value to say, so will post nothing. The only ones who can realistically offer comments on this article are experts and those who will offer "back of a cocktail napkin" comments (as you put it), and the latter group is so much larger than the former.
- animal_spirits 6y ago
  Agreed, I wasn't going to comment on this post because this is something I've never heard of before. There's no point for me to add a comment like "I don't know the reason behind this" because that adds no value to the discussion. Actually discussing ideas whether or not they are researched for years or not adds value to the discussion, because then you can actually discuss where those ideas are wrong or where they could be right.
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    The point is that any idea you could come up with in 5 minutes has probably been done to death by researchers who actually focus on the topic so no, you're not contributing anything. But it's beside the point because HN isn't there to add anything to actual research, nor is it going to. It's for people to discuss random interesting Internet things, it's for entertainment. But there does seem to be a nerd contingent that can't accept that it's entertainment and have to believe its some kind of intellectual pursuit.
    - animal_spirits 6y ago
      Exactly, I'm not claiming to be contributing anything to the research, but contributing to the discussion of the research.
      - beaconstudios 6y ago
        which is great, as long as you're not deluding yourself into thinking that researchers would benefit at all from reading HN discussions of their work. Some people seem to think that they would.
scribu 6y ago
I don't see any "belittling" comments here, except perhaps yours. People enjoy talking about the stuff they read. Discussion is part of how one learns. If you don't find value in reading non-expert commentary, then don't read it.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  > The real reason must be... > When something makes little sense it's probably based in religion. > Maybe nobody thought of it so far. Plus a good handful of comments that don't acknowledge the countervailing evidence in the Wikipedia article much less evidencing any familiarity with the broader literature. Not gonna quibble about whether "belittling" is the right word, but there's certainly some casual hubris in some of these threads. Bigger picture: it isn't about enjoying amateur commentary or not. There's arguably been a rise, with the democratization of information access, of poorly-grounded self-confidence about understanding every topic one encounters. This attitude, for example, rejects mask-wearing on the grounds that the virus is too small to be caught by the mask (ignoring that the virus is carried in larger droplets/particles). An intelligent person armed with a factoid sometimes needs a reminder like the comment you replied to.
  - clairity 6y ago
    > "...poorly-grounded self-confidence about understanding every topic one encounters. This attitude, for example, rejects mask-wearing on the grounds that the virus is too small to be caught by the mask..." deliciously ironic, considering your continued focus on exactly the wrong thing when it comes to mask effectiveness and policy. you're looking at the base of a tree and trying to draw conclusions about the forest by assuming frictionless cylindrical planes.
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      I didn't say anything about mask-wearing itself - just offering an example of naive but faulty reasoning. You're looking for a fight that I'm not interested in having.
coldtea 6y ago
>the comments are tacitly disrespecting the work researchers whose specialty this is put into formulating theories. So? Besides flippant comments (who don't matter anyway), this can also produce valuable new developments. People who establish new theories and findings about X aren't often the same people who have well examined and respect the old theories on X. To quote Max Planck (and similar to Kuhn's idea of the same process): "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  They do matter because they decrease signal:noise, lower the quality of conversation, and reinforce a troubling assumption that expertise brings nothing to the table.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

egeozcan 6y ago

We are not here to do science though, and while completely unsubstantiated ideas are frowned upon, it's okay to do some mind exercise and share theories with others. It's fun to read, fun to write, and well above the populist karma-stunts.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chucky 6y ago

This seems like a more general problem with the Internet or even of people (and in particular men of a more technical and nerdy persuasion, in my own experience). The majority have nothing of value to say, so will post nothing. The only ones who can realistically offer comments on this article are experts and those who will offer "back of a cocktail napkin" comments (as you put it), and the latter group is so much larger than the former.

animal_spirits 6y ago
Agreed, I wasn't going to comment on this post because this is something I've never heard of before. There's no point for me to add a comment like "I don't know the reason behind this" because that adds no value to the discussion. Actually discussing ideas whether or not they are researched for years or not adds value to the discussion, because then you can actually discuss where those ideas are wrong or where they could be right.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  The point is that any idea you could come up with in 5 minutes has probably been done to death by researchers who actually focus on the topic so no, you're not contributing anything. But it's beside the point because HN isn't there to add anything to actual research, nor is it going to. It's for people to discuss random interesting Internet things, it's for entertainment. But there does seem to be a nerd contingent that can't accept that it's entertainment and have to believe its some kind of intellectual pursuit.
  - animal_spirits 6y ago
    Exactly, I'm not claiming to be contributing anything to the research, but contributing to the discussion of the research.
    - beaconstudios 6y ago
      which is great, as long as you're not deluding yourself into thinking that researchers would benefit at all from reading HN discussions of their work. Some people seem to think that they would.

scribu 6y ago

I don't see any "belittling" comments here, except perhaps yours. People enjoy talking about the stuff they read. Discussion is part of how one learns. If you don't find value in reading non-expert commentary, then don't read it.

GavinMcG 6y ago
> The real reason must be... > When something makes little sense it's probably based in religion. > Maybe nobody thought of it so far. Plus a good handful of comments that don't acknowledge the countervailing evidence in the Wikipedia article much less evidencing any familiarity with the broader literature. Not gonna quibble about whether "belittling" is the right word, but there's certainly some casual hubris in some of these threads. Bigger picture: it isn't about enjoying amateur commentary or not. There's arguably been a rise, with the democratization of information access, of poorly-grounded self-confidence about understanding every topic one encounters. This attitude, for example, rejects mask-wearing on the grounds that the virus is too small to be caught by the mask (ignoring that the virus is carried in larger droplets/particles). An intelligent person armed with a factoid sometimes needs a reminder like the comment you replied to.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "...poorly-grounded self-confidence about understanding every topic one encounters. This attitude, for example, rejects mask-wearing on the grounds that the virus is too small to be caught by the mask..." deliciously ironic, considering your continued focus on exactly the wrong thing when it comes to mask effectiveness and policy. you're looking at the base of a tree and trying to draw conclusions about the forest by assuming frictionless cylindrical planes.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    I didn't say anything about mask-wearing itself - just offering an example of naive but faulty reasoning. You're looking for a fight that I'm not interested in having.

coldtea 6y ago

>the comments are tacitly disrespecting the work researchers whose specialty this is put into formulating theories. So? Besides flippant comments (who don't matter anyway), this can also produce valuable new developments. People who establish new theories and findings about X aren't often the same people who have well examined and respect the old theories on X. To quote Max Planck (and similar to Kuhn's idea of the same process): "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

GavinMcG 6y ago
They do matter because they decrease signal:noise, lower the quality of conversation, and reinforce a troubling assumption that expertise brings nothing to the table.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]