5 ms·

For context, here's an anti-flu checklist from the same site: > https://archive.is/Lrt0F https://archive.is/Lrt0F If you want to stay healthy, wear shorts all

For context, here's an anti-flu checklist from the same site: > https://archive.is/Lrt0F https://archive.is/Lrt0F If you want to stay healthy, wear shorts all the time, run weekly half-marathons in the woods, get plenty of sleep... and avoid sick people. A few common-sense morsels wrapped in pseudoscience and self-gratifying prose.

mirekrusin 5y ago
There is something important here that will be hard for me to articulate. The main point is that if you read through this list it’s not all nonsense you should avoid because “pseudoscience“. To put it in other words - it’s not confirmed not working facts, they are more of anecdotally confirmed working facts, which have not bad chance of becoming scientifically confirmed facts. The list is highly subjective snapshot of rituals occupying spectrum of real facttnes level. Just because item X is nonsense descent imply that item Y is also nonsense. All that to say that evaluation of this list should be more thorough as opposed to total acceptance or total rejection. I have similar problem when discussing Rudolf Steiner schools/“sects”(?) - they are really good people doing really good things compared to status quo - I love buying food from their shops because I know they have incomparable quality to what I can get at nearby shops (meat, eggs, veggies etc), they grow them in harmony (no depleting monocultures, pesticides etc). At the same time I know Steiner is pseudoscience labelled - I’m aware of it but it doesn’t subtract enough from good parts. What I’m trying to say it’s not all bad period, it’s more nuanced.
- xmprt 5y ago
  I think the term psuedoscience has been shifted to mean things like snake oil and alternative medicines. While that doesn't apply to this case, I think we can still call this psuedoscience. It's trying to make scientific-ish claims without any of the rigor behind science. It's like if your mom told you that turmeric powder works great to cure certain ailments and then 5 years later a study comes out which proves her right. Mom's cure was still psuedoscience until the research is actually done.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    Pseudoscience is false, wrong science. Anecdotes and folk wisdom are quasiscience -- partial science.
    - supersrdjan 5y ago
      The author, by the way, has a separate explanation about why he promotes pseudoscience: https://supermemo.guru/wiki/SuperMemo_Guru_promotes_pseudoscience https://supermemo.guru/wiki/SuperMemo_Guru_promotes_pseudosc...
      - xmprt 5y ago
        Wow. This guy has all the hallmarks of a self-proclaimed guru. Spouting psuedoscience while giving a bunch of excuses for why his psuedoscience is valid in case any detractors come for him.
        zepto 5y ago
        That’s not what he’s doing.
        supersrdjan 5y ago
        Wow. That's an uncharitable interpretation. The way I see it it's just a guy sharing his ideas on his personal website while making it clear that the ideas are not to be taken as scientific claims.
        Jtsummers 5y ago
        https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Guru https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Guru From there: > I am no guru, but when .guru domains became available, my colleagues suggested that only I could own that domain. We bought supermemo.guru in February 2014, and I accepted the position of the guru on the understanding that the world of SuperMemo is so specialist that it may indeed be hard to find a better SuperMemo Guru.
- chillwaves 5y ago
  I appreciate this comment deeply. I am getting tired of the close-mindedness of people that stems from unjustified ego. There is a culture today of making sure people know how "wrong" they are.
- ozim 5y ago
  I am in favor of approach "if it is some BS it is all BS". Because a lot of con artist use one or two scientific facts that are for real just to attach a wagon of horseshit to it. You also probably don't need "super guru" checklists because becoming a genius is not checking off tasks. Just like reading Warren Buffet biography is not going to make you good investor.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > if it is some BS it is all BS Have you read any books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material recently?
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      All attempts at uncovering the truth will lead to error and mistakes. The difference is that the honest: - Are aware of this. - Own their mistakes. - Correct them. - And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others. Bullshit wrapped in a veneer of truth sells far more readily than the unadulterated variety. All the better if there's only one specific bullshit point that's being injected --- why go through the risk and trouble of fabulating more than is absolutely necessary.
      - zepto 5y ago
        True, but it’s hard to imagine that you are seriously suggesting that books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material, when they make mistakes: - Own their mistakes. - Correct them. - And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others
        dredmorbius 5y ago
        I am in fact seriously suggesting just that. Responsible and ethical publishers own and correct their mistakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-clarifications/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-c... The New York Times has a dedicated Corrections section: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections At the Washington Post you'll have to search for the string "Correction:" best I can tell: https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correction:%22&sort=Relevance&datefilter=All%20Since%202005 https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correcti... The Post's corrections policy is noted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corrections https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre... Where stories are significant, a substantial and highlighted retraction is issued. An example from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-our-readers-72612/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-... That was one of several notable 2014 retractons. Newsweek covers several of these: https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions-294189 https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions... Other typical language is "correction" followed by "regrets the error". Sample searches: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%2... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22corre... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction... Note that online, corrections frequently appear in an updated version of the original article, though they are then noted in an additional comment. As in this NYT example: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-fat/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-f... Every last mistake and error cannot be corrected or retracted. But serious, responsible, ethical journalism makes a very earnest attempt to correct errors when they are brought to the publication's attention. And not to double-down on insisting on being wrong. I try to do the same myself. As shown in my HN history: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20%22my%20error%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
paulcole 5y ago
> A few common-sense morsels wrapped in pseudoscience and self-gratifying prose. We’ve got a leader in the clubhouse for the 2021 Accidental HN Slogan Contest.
- imperialdrive 5y ago
  ...was about to type something similar :)
klyrs 5y ago
> I charted my own infections from the year 1980. My worst year was 1995. In 1995, I had two major SuperMemo projects on my head, and also worked over my PhD. This was a year of stress and chaos. Naturally that resulted in reduced immunity. That single year, I had 7 cases of cold that resulted in 31 days of reduced productivity. The fact that I did not bother to take breaks from work must have had its contribution as well. > In the year 2000, there was a major drop in infections and the problem of lost productivity disappeared entirely by 2003. There are only 3 factors that could have produced those dramatic shifts. In the year 1999, I dropped all forms of sleep regulation, esp. the alarm clock. In the year 2003, I added weekly winter swimming and weekly half-marathon in the woods. No other solid explanations come to my mind. Could it be the lack of exposure to university students?

mirekrusin 5y ago

There is something important here that will be hard for me to articulate. The main point is that if you read through this list it’s not all nonsense you should avoid because “pseudoscience“. To put it in other words - it’s not confirmed not working facts, they are more of anecdotally confirmed working facts, which have not bad chance of becoming scientifically confirmed facts. The list is highly subjective snapshot of rituals occupying spectrum of real facttnes level. Just because item X is nonsense descent imply that item Y is also nonsense. All that to say that evaluation of this list should be more thorough as opposed to total acceptance or total rejection. I have similar problem when discussing Rudolf Steiner schools/“sects”(?) - they are really good people doing really good things compared to status quo - I love buying food from their shops because I know they have incomparable quality to what I can get at nearby shops (meat, eggs, veggies etc), they grow them in harmony (no depleting monocultures, pesticides etc). At the same time I know Steiner is pseudoscience labelled - I’m aware of it but it doesn’t subtract enough from good parts. What I’m trying to say it’s not all bad period, it’s more nuanced.

xmprt 5y ago
I think the term psuedoscience has been shifted to mean things like snake oil and alternative medicines. While that doesn't apply to this case, I think we can still call this psuedoscience. It's trying to make scientific-ish claims without any of the rigor behind science. It's like if your mom told you that turmeric powder works great to cure certain ailments and then 5 years later a study comes out which proves her right. Mom's cure was still psuedoscience until the research is actually done.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Pseudoscience is false, wrong science. Anecdotes and folk wisdom are quasiscience -- partial science.
  - supersrdjan 5y ago
    The author, by the way, has a separate explanation about why he promotes pseudoscience: https://supermemo.guru/wiki/SuperMemo_Guru_promotes_pseudoscience https://supermemo.guru/wiki/SuperMemo_Guru_promotes_pseudosc...
    - xmprt 5y ago
      Wow. This guy has all the hallmarks of a self-proclaimed guru. Spouting psuedoscience while giving a bunch of excuses for why his psuedoscience is valid in case any detractors come for him.
      - zepto 5y ago
        That’s not what he’s doing.
      - supersrdjan 5y ago
        Wow. That's an uncharitable interpretation. The way I see it it's just a guy sharing his ideas on his personal website while making it clear that the ideas are not to be taken as scientific claims.
      - Jtsummers 5y ago
        https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Guru https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Guru From there: > I am no guru, but when .guru domains became available, my colleagues suggested that only I could own that domain. We bought supermemo.guru in February 2014, and I accepted the position of the guru on the understanding that the world of SuperMemo is so specialist that it may indeed be hard to find a better SuperMemo Guru.
chillwaves 5y ago
I appreciate this comment deeply. I am getting tired of the close-mindedness of people that stems from unjustified ego. There is a culture today of making sure people know how "wrong" they are.
ozim 5y ago
I am in favor of approach "if it is some BS it is all BS". Because a lot of con artist use one or two scientific facts that are for real just to attach a wagon of horseshit to it. You also probably don't need "super guru" checklists because becoming a genius is not checking off tasks. Just like reading Warren Buffet biography is not going to make you good investor.
- zepto 5y ago
  > if it is some BS it is all BS Have you read any books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material recently?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    All attempts at uncovering the truth will lead to error and mistakes. The difference is that the honest: - Are aware of this. - Own their mistakes. - Correct them. - And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others. Bullshit wrapped in a veneer of truth sells far more readily than the unadulterated variety. All the better if there's only one specific bullshit point that's being injected --- why go through the risk and trouble of fabulating more than is absolutely necessary.
    - zepto 5y ago
      True, but it’s hard to imagine that you are seriously suggesting that books, newspapers, scientific journals, or online material, when they make mistakes: - Own their mistakes. - Correct them. - And don't use the incidental occurrence of error as a blanket method of discrediting others
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        I am in fact seriously suggesting just that. Responsible and ethical publishers own and correct their mistakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_(newspaper) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-clarifications/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2002/corrections-c... The New York Times has a dedicated Corrections section: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections At the Washington Post you'll have to search for the string "Correction:" best I can tell: https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correction:%22&sort=Relevance&datefilter=All%20Since%202005 https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=%22correcti... The Post's corrections policy is noted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corrections https://www.washingtonpost.com/policies-and-standards/#corre... Where stories are significant, a substantial and highlighted retraction is issued. An example from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-our-readers-72612/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/a-note-to-... That was one of several notable 2014 retractons. Newsweek covers several of these: https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions-294189 https://www.newsweek.com/faults-our-stories-year-retractions... Other typical language is "correction" followed by "regrets the error". Sample searches: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22correction%2... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22corre... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction%22+%22regrets+the+error%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aeconomist.com+%22correction... Note that online, corrections frequently appear in an updated version of the original article, though they are then noted in an additional comment. As in this NYT example: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-fat/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-world-is-f... Every last mistake and error cannot be corrected or retracted. But serious, responsible, ethical journalism makes a very earnest attempt to correct errors when they are brought to the publication's attention. And not to double-down on insisting on being wrong. I try to do the same myself. As shown in my HN history: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20%22my%20error%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

paulcole 5y ago

> A few common-sense morsels wrapped in pseudoscience and self-gratifying prose. We’ve got a leader in the clubhouse for the 2021 Accidental HN Slogan Contest.

imperialdrive 5y ago
...was about to type something similar :)

klyrs 5y ago

> I charted my own infections from the year 1980. My worst year was 1995. In 1995, I had two major SuperMemo projects on my head, and also worked over my PhD. This was a year of stress and chaos. Naturally that resulted in reduced immunity. That single year, I had 7 cases of cold that resulted in 31 days of reduced productivity. The fact that I did not bother to take breaks from work must have had its contribution as well. > In the year 2000, there was a major drop in infections and the problem of lost productivity disappeared entirely by 2003. There are only 3 factors that could have produced those dramatic shifts. In the year 1999, I dropped all forms of sleep regulation, esp. the alarm clock. In the year 2003, I added weekly winter swimming and weekly half-marathon in the woods. No other solid explanations come to my mind. Could it be the lack of exposure to university students?