7 ms·

I'm saying that we don't know and should withhold our belief one way or the other until there is sufficient evidence to help us tell the difference.

mistermann 3y ago
[flagged]
- stvltvs 3y ago
  Most people believe one way or the other. We don't however know what is true (meaning in this case having a reasonably justified belief based on looking at the evidence as a whole and weighing alternate explanations). The evidence doesn't rise to the level that anyone can reasonably claim to know one way or the other. People just feel like they know which isn't the same thing as knowing.
- dang 3y ago
  Would you please stop posting these cross-examination comments? You've been doing it endlessly, it seems, and perpetuating flamewars in the process. This is not what HN is for. I realize it's not your intent to troll, but that is the effect you've been having, and we have to moderate by effects, not intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Is HN for the spreading of untruths? Should the HN guidelines perhaps be modified to reflect that pursuit of truth has an undocumented upper bound that shall not be breached? That way it would be more transparent what HN is about, though it would give up the powerful flexibility and illusory nature of ambiguity. Tough call! I'm curious why you never (or rarely) seem to scold people for practicing soothsaying and other forms of pseudoscience under the guise of science & rationality. I'm also curious if you ever wonder what good the substantial cognitive power concentrated on HN could bring to the world if we were to play our cards mildly differently.
    - pvg 3y ago
      Tough call! It's not a tough call that you can't have a conversation about truth, pseudoscience or anything else in the form of a harangue and it's supposed to be a site for conversation.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        [flagged]
        pvg 3y ago
        It might be a subjective opinion but if enough people have the subjective opinion you are writing harangues (which, as you can read, is the case), you get the effect of harangue-writing whether you think you are or don't. So you have to stop the harangue-like writing in order to meaningfully participate. There are a bunch of guidelines and endless moderator commentary about that.
        mistermann 3y ago
        harangue. / (həˈræŋ) / verb. to address (a person or crowd) in an angry, vehement, or forcefully persuasive way. I don't see how this applies, especially since if anything it is other people who are engaged in persuasion, and experiencing anger or other negative emotions. I am sincere in that I believe that truth matters, and should at least be taken into consideration. Seriously, what is the big issue with disagreeing with the crowd, without applying speculative subjective framing to the situation?
        pvg 3y ago
        I don't see how this applies Yes, hence the feedback. it is other people You've been here plenty long to know it's not how HN works, everyone is responsible for their own commentary. I am sincere in that I believe that truth matters, and should at least be taken into consideration. I'm sure most people share that sincere belief, it's just that few enjoy, well, being harangued. Seriously, what is the big issue with disagreeing with the crowd, without applying speculative subjective framing to the situation? "I don't understand what I'm supposedly doing wrong" is conversation. The above is haranguey, especially since no one is asking you to eschew speculative or subjective framing.

mistermann 3y ago

[flagged]

stvltvs 3y ago
Most people believe one way or the other. We don't however know what is true (meaning in this case having a reasonably justified belief based on looking at the evidence as a whole and weighing alternate explanations). The evidence doesn't rise to the level that anyone can reasonably claim to know one way or the other. People just feel like they know which isn't the same thing as knowing.
dang 3y ago
Would you please stop posting these cross-examination comments? You've been doing it endlessly, it seems, and perpetuating flamewars in the process. This is not what HN is for. I realize it's not your intent to troll, but that is the effect you've been having, and we have to moderate by effects, not intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mistermann 3y ago
  Is HN for the spreading of untruths? Should the HN guidelines perhaps be modified to reflect that pursuit of truth has an undocumented upper bound that shall not be breached? That way it would be more transparent what HN is about, though it would give up the powerful flexibility and illusory nature of ambiguity. Tough call! I'm curious why you never (or rarely) seem to scold people for practicing soothsaying and other forms of pseudoscience under the guise of science & rationality. I'm also curious if you ever wonder what good the substantial cognitive power concentrated on HN could bring to the world if we were to play our cards mildly differently.
  - pvg 3y ago
    Tough call! It's not a tough call that you can't have a conversation about truth, pseudoscience or anything else in the form of a harangue and it's supposed to be a site for conversation.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - pvg 3y ago
        It might be a subjective opinion but if enough people have the subjective opinion you are writing harangues (which, as you can read, is the case), you get the effect of harangue-writing whether you think you are or don't. So you have to stop the harangue-like writing in order to meaningfully participate. There are a bunch of guidelines and endless moderator commentary about that.
        mistermann 3y ago
        harangue. / (həˈræŋ) / verb. to address (a person or crowd) in an angry, vehement, or forcefully persuasive way. I don't see how this applies, especially since if anything it is other people who are engaged in persuasion, and experiencing anger or other negative emotions. I am sincere in that I believe that truth matters, and should at least be taken into consideration. Seriously, what is the big issue with disagreeing with the crowd, without applying speculative subjective framing to the situation?
        pvg 3y ago
        I don't see how this applies Yes, hence the feedback. it is other people You've been here plenty long to know it's not how HN works, everyone is responsible for their own commentary. I am sincere in that I believe that truth matters, and should at least be taken into consideration. I'm sure most people share that sincere belief, it's just that few enjoy, well, being harangued. Seriously, what is the big issue with disagreeing with the crowd, without applying speculative subjective framing to the situation? "I don't understand what I'm supposedly doing wrong" is conversation. The above is haranguey, especially since no one is asking you to eschew speculative or subjective framing.