4 ms·

I know I’m going to get downvoted for going against the crowd, but as a biochemist my impression here is that there’s at least as much pseudoscience as there is

by epgui 3y ago

I know I’m going to get downvoted for going against the crowd, but as a biochemist my impression here is that there’s at least as much pseudoscience as there is science.

TuringNYC 3y ago
As someone training more in CS/stats, without formal bio training, can you point out the main items of pseudoscience? Seems like he's doing the classic "management" tactic of setting targets, measuring progress, and coming up with models to best represent/simplify complex systems.
voisin 3y ago
Any specific things you can call out?
dang 3y ago
Please make your substantive points without the downvote complaint. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Also, if you know more than others, that's great, but in that case it would be better to share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. Simply posting a putdown doesn't do that.
- epgui 3y ago
  Sometimes it takes an enormous amount of effort to put years and years of expertise down in writing. I’m sorry but here it’s just not feasible, it would require pages and I don’t think it would do much to persuade anyone here.
  - dang 3y ago
    Ok, but in that case it's best to sigh at how wrong the internet is and not post.
    - epgui 3y ago
      Is it? I don’t agree with you here. My contribution was weak, but I do believe scientists have an ethical duty to say something, even if it’s not in the form of a complete lecture.
      - dang 3y ago
        If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive. If don't have time or don't want to do that, please don't post. This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        epgui 3y ago
        > If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive. I believe calling out pseudoscience as such is substantive. To be perfectly clear, I think not doing it would even be irresponsible. Also, substantiveness does not always require great detail, under most common usages of the term that I know of. > This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters. That is not at issue.
        dang 3y ago
        Sorry, (and I promise it's nothing personal!) but just using the putdown "pseudoscience" is not enough to make a comment substantive. This is just standard HN moderation, and it's not a borderline call. Generally speaking if what you're doing can be described as "calling out", it's probably better to just not post it to HN anyhow. That's not the curious conversation we're looking for. For the comment to count as substantive you have to explain something about why, and then you don't need the putdown part. People are slinging pejoratives and tropes like "pseudoscience" all over the internet. Adding "I'm a scientist" doesn't overcome this; besides which of course, anybody can say "I"m a" anything.
        3y ago

by epgui 3y ago

I know I’m going to get downvoted for going against the crowd, but as a biochemist my impression here is that there’s at least as much pseudoscience as there is science.

TuringNYC 3y ago

As someone training more in CS/stats, without formal bio training, can you point out the main items of pseudoscience? Seems like he's doing the classic "management" tactic of setting targets, measuring progress, and coming up with models to best represent/simplify complex systems.

voisin 3y ago

Any specific things you can call out?

dang 3y ago

Please make your substantive points without the downvote complaint. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Also, if you know more than others, that's great, but in that case it would be better to share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. Simply posting a putdown doesn't do that.

epgui 3y ago
Sometimes it takes an enormous amount of effort to put years and years of expertise down in writing. I’m sorry but here it’s just not feasible, it would require pages and I don’t think it would do much to persuade anyone here.
- dang 3y ago
  Ok, but in that case it's best to sigh at how wrong the internet is and not post.
  - epgui 3y ago
    Is it? I don’t agree with you here. My contribution was weak, but I do believe scientists have an ethical duty to say something, even if it’s not in the form of a complete lecture.
    - dang 3y ago
      If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive. If don't have time or don't want to do that, please don't post. This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - epgui 3y ago
        > If you're going to say something on HN, please make it substantive. I believe calling out pseudoscience as such is substantive. To be perfectly clear, I think not doing it would even be irresponsible. Also, substantiveness does not always require great detail, under most common usages of the term that I know of. > This applies to scientists the same as any other commenters. That is not at issue.
        dang 3y ago
        Sorry, (and I promise it's nothing personal!) but just using the putdown "pseudoscience" is not enough to make a comment substantive. This is just standard HN moderation, and it's not a borderline call. Generally speaking if what you're doing can be described as "calling out", it's probably better to just not post it to HN anyhow. That's not the curious conversation we're looking for. For the comment to count as substantive you have to explain something about why, and then you don't need the putdown part. People are slinging pejoratives and tropes like "pseudoscience" all over the internet. Adding "I'm a scientist" doesn't overcome this; besides which of course, anybody can say "I"m a" anything.
        3y ago