3 ms·

This appears to be written by someone that doesn't have a background in what I think most people would identify as "science". I admit that the combination of t

This appears to be written by someone that doesn't have a background in what I think most people would identify as "science". I admit that the combination of the headline plus the photo he uses in his sidebar made me think derp even before I started reading.

JoachimSchipper 15y ago
I don't follow DanielBMarkham closely, but I don't think his comments here on HN suggest a high level of "derp". Do try to be a bit nicer.
- create_account 15y ago
  Perhaps that was a bit blunt. I don't know who he is or read many of his comments here, but on the basis of the article alone (long, incoherent, illogical) I didn't get a favorable impression. Perhaps he should have thought a bit more about what he wanted to say, and he would have a written a better piece (which reminds me about a quote from Twain: "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one").
festivusr 15y ago
I generally put his articles firmly into the "derp" category. And before we say "hey, we all have to be polite here on HN," his articles consistently take shots at anyone and everyone he disagrees with in a disrespectful manner. Terms like "knuckle-dragger", "pseudo-scientific slime", "Mr. Smarter-than-thou", "flowering of this idiocy", all reek with contempt of his straw-man opponents. To address this particular article: the writing is all over the place. First paragraph: he doesn't like science when it's a "club to beat up people you simply disagree with." Well, good, reproducible scientific results can indeed be used as a "club" to beat up ideas that are wrong. It's one of the best uses of science. Now my assumption (from reading further) is he hates bad science. Which I actually agree with, but that is not stated up front. From the fourth paragraph. "...science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth." The next paragraph says "Bullshit." What's bullshit about it? That is indeed how good science should work. Then he goes on to talk about scientists who speculate outside either their area of expertise, or outside scientifically produced results. Later he says "It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used...". Here's the deal: it is clear. It's clear in reputable scientific journals. Read by scientists that can actually make sense of that kind of information. And even then, as a reader, you have to use critical thought to mentally junk studies that don't follow appropriate methods. Reading the most reputable peer-reviewed journals is a start, but you can't shut your brain off while reading even those. If he's talking about newspaper reporting about science, yes, it's frequently wrong, because it's written by non-scientists. As an exercise, read a regular newspaper article about anything you have deep knowledge in. I'll bet you find many problems with it based on the lack of understanding of the reporter. In his last paragraph, his conclusion seems to be that scientists should do good science, and not bad science. Again, this is what peer-reviewed journals contribute greatly to. It's not a "totally new way of doing things". Not even close.

JoachimSchipper 15y ago

I don't follow DanielBMarkham closely, but I don't think his comments here on HN suggest a high level of "derp". Do try to be a bit nicer.

create_account 15y ago
Perhaps that was a bit blunt. I don't know who he is or read many of his comments here, but on the basis of the article alone (long, incoherent, illogical) I didn't get a favorable impression. Perhaps he should have thought a bit more about what he wanted to say, and he would have a written a better piece (which reminds me about a quote from Twain: "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one").

festivusr 15y ago

I generally put his articles firmly into the "derp" category. And before we say "hey, we all have to be polite here on HN," his articles consistently take shots at anyone and everyone he disagrees with in a disrespectful manner. Terms like "knuckle-dragger", "pseudo-scientific slime", "Mr. Smarter-than-thou", "flowering of this idiocy", all reek with contempt of his straw-man opponents. To address this particular article: the writing is all over the place. First paragraph: he doesn't like science when it's a "club to beat up people you simply disagree with." Well, good, reproducible scientific results can indeed be used as a "club" to beat up ideas that are wrong. It's one of the best uses of science. Now my assumption (from reading further) is he hates bad science. Which I actually agree with, but that is not stated up front. From the fourth paragraph. "...science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth." The next paragraph says "Bullshit." What's bullshit about it? That is indeed how good science should work. Then he goes on to talk about scientists who speculate outside either their area of expertise, or outside scientifically produced results. Later he says "It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used...". Here's the deal: it is clear. It's clear in reputable scientific journals. Read by scientists that can actually make sense of that kind of information. And even then, as a reader, you have to use critical thought to mentally junk studies that don't follow appropriate methods. Reading the most reputable peer-reviewed journals is a start, but you can't shut your brain off while reading even those. If he's talking about newspaper reporting about science, yes, it's frequently wrong, because it's written by non-scientists. As an exercise, read a regular newspaper article about anything you have deep knowledge in. I'll bet you find many problems with it based on the lack of understanding of the reporter. In his last paragraph, his conclusion seems to be that scientists should do good science, and not bad science. Again, this is what peer-reviewed journals contribute greatly to. It's not a "totally new way of doing things". Not even close.