4 ms·
OTOH, complete submission to scientific sources without checking the details seems exactly opposite of how science should work. HN is probably overly scientifi
by systemvoltage 4y ago
OTOH, complete submission to scientific sources without checking the details seems exactly opposite of how science should work.
HN is probably overly scientific in this sense.
- mikeyouse 4y agoNobody is "checking the details" in this thread - they're just wildly speculating based on their feelings and asserting that the absence of evidence about the virus originating at the WIV is very clearly suspicious...
- systemvoltage 4y agoSpeaking generally, every single time a new study is discussed on HN, the first comment talks about how it doesn't do what it is supposed to. For e.g., a topic about "X cures cancer" has a comment that's at the very top that claims "No, X doesn't cure cancer, except in these narrow cases" and then sources the details in the paper. That seems to me the right thing to do. HN does that very well.
- mikeyouse 4y agoIf you read closer, you'll notice that it's not at all what is happening here. Maybe 1/10th of the comments are about the actual paper? Fewer? It's just mindless evidence-free conspiracy mongering including fun little subthreads about how you can't rule out that the US actually created the pandemic to punish China; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32252553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32252553
- systemvoltage 4y agoWe are talking past each other. I’m speaking more generally since you’re talking about this entire community. But you have just this thread to point for an example.