4 ms·

Pseudoscience is when people use scientific-sounding words and phrases in non-scientific writing, particularly in support of a prescriptive belief system. That

Pseudoscience is when people use scientific-sounding words and phrases in non-scientific writing, particularly in support of a prescriptive belief system. That is what this is, and no rational person could argue otherwise. Could it have been explained with more specificity? Yes, as has been done above, admirably, by codeflo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35709930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35709930. But it is nowhere near shallow to call a spade a spade.

dang 4y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong about the paper, I'm saying that your comment was unsubstantive and broke the HN guidelines. Those are completely different points. The fact that another commenter posted a substantive explanation is admirable, but it would have been better to upvote that other comment and leave it at that. It's much better to post nothing than to post something unsubstantive/snarky/namecalling.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  > something unsubstantive/snarky/namecalling That is not remotely close to what happened. You may very well wish I had explained my comment further, but pseudoscience is an actual word with an actual, substantive meaning, and it is what I actually meant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience My comment was not shallow. It was not snarky. It was not namecalling. It was a succinct and accurate specific criticism.
  - dang 4y ago
    Sorry, but that's just not empirically accurate in terms of how these words get used in internet comments and the sort of effects they have on threads. If you sling pejoratives around like that without a substantive justification, that's name-calling and flamebait in the sense that we use those terms. This isn't some arbitrary whim of interpretation—it's based on a decade and a half of trying to dampen flamewars in this forum. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that it was your intent to produce such effects. I'm sure it wasn't. But the rest of us don't have access to someone's intent, which forms part of the state in their head. You need to include enough information to communicate it explicitly, and the burden is on you (i.e. all of us) as a commenter to do that: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      Your interpretation doesn't render a specific and concrete word ambiguous. There is nothing to disambiguate. However, even if it were ambiguous, that does not mean I broke the guidelines, as you allege. Your unwritten rule about the burden of disambiguation is not part of those guidelines. If you're going to hold people to it, and claim they broke the guidelines when they fail to follow it, perhaps it ought to be.
      - dang 4y ago
        Your GP comment definitely broke the site guidelines - at a minimum the ones asking commenters not to post shallow dismissals and not to call names. I know that's an interpretation, but it's one that's well within the standards that we've applied here for years and years. It's not a borderline call.
        torstenvl 4y ago
        In a quasirandom selection of the hundreds of instances of the term being used on this site, there are none that you claimed broke the site guidelines or you characterized as namecalling. Can you point to a single time, before my comment, that characterizing something as pseudoscience has been deemed namecalling? Or deemed to break the site guidelines?
        dang 4y ago
        "Pseudoscience" is not a neutral term, it's a pejorative. Pejoratives in internet comments are edgy to begin with, and pejoratives without explanation are name-calling, in the sense that we use the term. That's the logic, and I don't think there need to exist previous examples for it to be valid—it's surely possible for something to be valid the first time it happens—but FWIW, I found these: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286303 (July 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29553488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29553488 (Dec 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29037237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29037237 (Oct 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28379692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28379692 (Sept 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27809832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27809832 (July 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636047 (June 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975353 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685942 (Dec 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081 (Nov 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18804177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18804177 (Jan 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249487 (Oct 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17645647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17645647 (July 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15997545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15997545 (Dec 2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11421256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11421256 (April 2016) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466297 (Oct 2015)

dang 4y ago

I'm not saying you're wrong about the paper, I'm saying that your comment was unsubstantive and broke the HN guidelines. Those are completely different points. The fact that another commenter posted a substantive explanation is admirable, but it would have been better to upvote that other comment and leave it at that. It's much better to post nothing than to post something unsubstantive/snarky/namecalling.

torstenvl 4y ago
> something unsubstantive/snarky/namecalling That is not remotely close to what happened. You may very well wish I had explained my comment further, but pseudoscience is an actual word with an actual, substantive meaning, and it is what I actually meant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience My comment was not shallow. It was not snarky. It was not namecalling. It was a succinct and accurate specific criticism.
- dang 4y ago
  Sorry, but that's just not empirically accurate in terms of how these words get used in internet comments and the sort of effects they have on threads. If you sling pejoratives around like that without a substantive justification, that's name-calling and flamebait in the sense that we use those terms. This isn't some arbitrary whim of interpretation—it's based on a decade and a half of trying to dampen flamewars in this forum. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that it was your intent to produce such effects. I'm sure it wasn't. But the rest of us don't have access to someone's intent, which forms part of the state in their head. You need to include enough information to communicate it explicitly, and the burden is on you (i.e. all of us) as a commenter to do that: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    Your interpretation doesn't render a specific and concrete word ambiguous. There is nothing to disambiguate. However, even if it were ambiguous, that does not mean I broke the guidelines, as you allege. Your unwritten rule about the burden of disambiguation is not part of those guidelines. If you're going to hold people to it, and claim they broke the guidelines when they fail to follow it, perhaps it ought to be.
    - dang 4y ago
      Your GP comment definitely broke the site guidelines - at a minimum the ones asking commenters not to post shallow dismissals and not to call names. I know that's an interpretation, but it's one that's well within the standards that we've applied here for years and years. It's not a borderline call.
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        In a quasirandom selection of the hundreds of instances of the term being used on this site, there are none that you claimed broke the site guidelines or you characterized as namecalling. Can you point to a single time, before my comment, that characterizing something as pseudoscience has been deemed namecalling? Or deemed to break the site guidelines?
        dang 4y ago
        "Pseudoscience" is not a neutral term, it's a pejorative. Pejoratives in internet comments are edgy to begin with, and pejoratives without explanation are name-calling, in the sense that we use the term. That's the logic, and I don't think there need to exist previous examples for it to be valid—it's surely possible for something to be valid the first time it happens—but FWIW, I found these: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32286303 (July 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29553488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29553488 (Dec 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29037237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29037237 (Oct 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28379692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28379692 (Sept 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27809832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27809832 (July 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27636047 (June 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975353 (Jan 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685942 (Dec 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081 (Nov 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18804177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18804177 (Jan 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18249487 (Oct 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17645647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17645647 (July 2018) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15997545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15997545 (Dec 2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11421256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11421256 (April 2016) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10466297 (Oct 2015)