6 ms·

When does preference for "actual science" become satisfied, given we on HN skeptically pick apart all presented evidence of anything? The above is in Nature for

When does preference for "actual science" become satisfied, given we on HN skeptically pick apart all presented evidence of anything? The above is in Nature for goodness sakes, is that too weak of a journal? If so I'm weaker than a weak scientist who publishes there. I'd say entomologists should judge what is actually good science, the rest of us? We do have valid if flawed memories of more insects previously. Combined with the invasive species, widespread pesticide use, and all this evidence, I don't think it's wise to slow-walk our response to such a pivotal biological foundation's crisis. We slow walked cigarettes, millions died. We slow walked climate, and we're on a path of worst outcomes. Shall insects be another failure of humans to respond? When do the skeptical technicians lay down their doubtful instincts and push for change?

pfdietz 5y ago
"Anyone with eyeballs" is clearly below the threshold.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Not in this case. I really don't know how anyone can deny the massive cuts in insect numbers. Even if you missed the news about bees dying, even if you don't follow the science showing unprecedented and extremely alarming drops in biomass and species counts, even if you haven't noticed the loss of fireflies and mantises and crickets, even if you haven't noticed the extreme drop-off in bugs on windscreens - how the fuck do you ignore everyone else talking about these things?
ABCLAW 5y ago
I think this is interesting because it's such a common issue on this board. You can tell when people are requesting evidence to shut down a discussion vs. to broaden a discussion by the way they reply - if they bring in their own counter evidence and address the points being raised they're probably engaging in good faith and using evidence to find nuance.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
staticassertion 5y ago
I think it's OK to say "hey we need to really think about our usage of pesticides" and less ok to say "anyone with eyeballs can tell". I don't recall there being more/ less insects at any given point in my life, I haven't noticed anything at all in that regard. I'm completely willing to believe that insecticide use is bad and that there are less insects, fwiw.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  > I haven't noticed anything at all in that regard. ... My jaw drops. Try not to be too offended, but, do you go outside? Do you have eyes and ears, to see the extreme drop-off in bees, moths, fireflies, crickets, mantises? Do you really have no experience with other people talking about this stuff? I can't think of anywhere on the planet where these issues could have passed you by.
  - esyir 5y ago
    I'm in one of the heaviest pesticide laden areas of the world. I haven't noticed any notable drop.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    I've lived in numerous parts of the US, hiked and camped, and traveled across Europe. I don't think insects have ever come up as a conversation of topic. I'm not really offended at all because, again, I don't find this whole type of argument to be compelling or valid. You're also entirely off base in your implication that I don't go outside (this last year is obviously exceptional). It's interesting that this seems to come up for you quite a lot, but I don't find it compelling in terms of evidence, which is what I stated earlier. Again, I'm entirely willing to believe (and would even naively assume) that pesticides and human behavior have negatively impacted insect populations, even greatly so. But "open your eyes" and "do you go outside?" are not helping anyone.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    > ... My jaw drops Apparently anecdotal evidence is only valid when it agrees with you. You see the problem now with the "open your eyeballs" approach to science?

pfdietz 5y ago

"Anyone with eyeballs" is clearly below the threshold.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mandmandam 5y ago
Not in this case. I really don't know how anyone can deny the massive cuts in insect numbers. Even if you missed the news about bees dying, even if you don't follow the science showing unprecedented and extremely alarming drops in biomass and species counts, even if you haven't noticed the loss of fireflies and mantises and crickets, even if you haven't noticed the extreme drop-off in bugs on windscreens - how the fuck do you ignore everyone else talking about these things?

ABCLAW 5y ago

I think this is interesting because it's such a common issue on this board. You can tell when people are requesting evidence to shut down a discussion vs. to broaden a discussion by the way they reply - if they bring in their own counter evidence and address the points being raised they're probably engaging in good faith and using evidence to find nuance.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

staticassertion 5y ago

I think it's OK to say "hey we need to really think about our usage of pesticides" and less ok to say "anyone with eyeballs can tell". I don't recall there being more/ less insects at any given point in my life, I haven't noticed anything at all in that regard. I'm completely willing to believe that insecticide use is bad and that there are less insects, fwiw.

mandmandam 5y ago
> I haven't noticed anything at all in that regard. ... My jaw drops. Try not to be too offended, but, do you go outside? Do you have eyes and ears, to see the extreme drop-off in bees, moths, fireflies, crickets, mantises? Do you really have no experience with other people talking about this stuff? I can't think of anywhere on the planet where these issues could have passed you by.
- esyir 5y ago
  I'm in one of the heaviest pesticide laden areas of the world. I haven't noticed any notable drop.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  I've lived in numerous parts of the US, hiked and camped, and traveled across Europe. I don't think insects have ever come up as a conversation of topic. I'm not really offended at all because, again, I don't find this whole type of argument to be compelling or valid. You're also entirely off base in your implication that I don't go outside (this last year is obviously exceptional). It's interesting that this seems to come up for you quite a lot, but I don't find it compelling in terms of evidence, which is what I stated earlier. Again, I'm entirely willing to believe (and would even naively assume) that pesticides and human behavior have negatively impacted insect populations, even greatly so. But "open your eyes" and "do you go outside?" are not helping anyone.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  > ... My jaw drops Apparently anecdotal evidence is only valid when it agrees with you. You see the problem now with the "open your eyeballs" approach to science?