4 ms·

pseudoscience is the worst kind of "science". its amazing how graphs and pretty rhetoric trick uneducated readers. see: current HN post #1 -- http://news.ycom

by fbbwsa 18y ago

pseudoscience is the worst kind of "science". its amazing how graphs and pretty rhetoric trick uneducated readers. see: current HN post #1 -- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=366857 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=366857

randomwalker 18y ago
What? Pseudoscience is junk that claims to be science. If I claimed that were science, I would have tried to get it published instead of writing a blog post. I wrote the article a year and a half ago, and I've been living by it for 3-4 years now. It's worked out amazingly well. I wrote it in order to share my experience and thinking with other people. Got a problem with that? As for references, see my comment above.
- delackner 18y ago
  Ignore the negative kickback. If you had a conversation with a friend about this kind of idea they would say you might be onto something. Write something on the web and suddenly people are complaining that your blog is not a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal. On the topic itself, if you are really interested in improved creative task focus, whole-brain stimulants like caffeine are a sledgehammer approach.
- fbbwsa 18y ago
  hmm... correct. my apologies, offense not intended, though looking back I can see that wasn't the nicest post by me. You didn't claim it was science and you're right it shouldn't be critiqued as such. i AM a scientist by training, so sometimes the stuff i see on the internet people try to pass off as science perturbs me. i wrote that hastily after a quick read of the article and i confess i was out of line. And you know what? I don't have a problem with it, and even if someone does, you should tell 'em to screw off. Worse than bad science, is when one person tries to prevent others from the act of content/idea creation. naysayers provide no value and you're right to be annoyed by my response. my initial response to your article wasn't intended to be in that spirit, so my bad, guy. keep it up.
  - randomwalker 18y ago
    no worries. i'm a scientist as well, look up my profile :)
    - fbbwsa 18y ago
      since we've already established that i was out of line, i just thought i'd revisit this topic of pseudoscience vs science since:http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/18.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/18.html currently (as of Nov 19, 7:40am CST) is the number one ranked post on HN. I think it reflects both of our sentiments. Incidentally, I went to UT Austin as well.

by fbbwsa 18y ago

randomwalker 18y ago

What? Pseudoscience is junk that claims to be science. If I claimed that were science, I would have tried to get it published instead of writing a blog post. I wrote the article a year and a half ago, and I've been living by it for 3-4 years now. It's worked out amazingly well. I wrote it in order to share my experience and thinking with other people. Got a problem with that? As for references, see my comment above.

delackner 18y ago
Ignore the negative kickback. If you had a conversation with a friend about this kind of idea they would say you might be onto something. Write something on the web and suddenly people are complaining that your blog is not a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal. On the topic itself, if you are really interested in improved creative task focus, whole-brain stimulants like caffeine are a sledgehammer approach.
fbbwsa 18y ago
hmm... correct. my apologies, offense not intended, though looking back I can see that wasn't the nicest post by me. You didn't claim it was science and you're right it shouldn't be critiqued as such. i AM a scientist by training, so sometimes the stuff i see on the internet people try to pass off as science perturbs me. i wrote that hastily after a quick read of the article and i confess i was out of line. And you know what? I don't have a problem with it, and even if someone does, you should tell 'em to screw off. Worse than bad science, is when one person tries to prevent others from the act of content/idea creation. naysayers provide no value and you're right to be annoyed by my response. my initial response to your article wasn't intended to be in that spirit, so my bad, guy. keep it up.
- randomwalker 18y ago
  no worries. i'm a scientist as well, look up my profile :)
  - fbbwsa 18y ago
    since we've already established that i was out of line, i just thought i'd revisit this topic of pseudoscience vs science since:http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/18.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/18.html currently (as of Nov 19, 7:40am CST) is the number one ranked post on HN. I think it reflects both of our sentiments. Incidentally, I went to UT Austin as well.