3 ms·
At some point speculating about what happened 10000 years ago was “a tiny step above fortune telling”. There are several factors to consider: - some people are
by kergonath 3y ago
At some point speculating about what happened 10000 years ago was “a tiny step above fortune telling”. There are several factors to consider:
- some people are interested in different things than you are;
- you only need so much time to write such an article, it’s not like someone set millions of dollars on fire;
- this is fundamentally just extrapolation of the movement of tectonic plates, which is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
- things that are considered futile now might not be in the future, and we have no way of knowing that right now.
In the end, complaining about what gets published in the literature is about as productive as complaining about what ends up on HN’s front page: things are here because someone wrote it and others found it interesting.
- keiferski 3y agoWhat a strange comment. I am complaining about the misapplication of science toward predicting the future, not that the article is on the home page. “Some people are interested in different things than you are” has literally nothing to do with it. As a side note, I’ve noticed that comments like this, which have basically nothing to do with the parent and are instead just functioning as weird hobby horse put downs, are becoming more and more common. Very strange phenomenon.
- kergonath 3y ago> I am complaining about the misapplication of science toward predicting the future, not that the article is on the home page. Right. The sentence about the front page is just a comparison, because the complaints are similar. Sorry if it was not clear. There are 4 points just above at least partly addressing your misapplication of science point.
- d--b 3y agoI am complaining because in today's world where rationality is under siege, articles that cite "science" as a way to turn divination into fact don't do service to true scientific method.