5 ms·

Strong reactions like yours to what should be a very mild and uncontroversal statement that you evidently don’t even disagree with are exactly why these things

by nilkn 2y ago

Strong reactions like yours to what should be a very mild and uncontroversal statement that you evidently don’t even disagree with are exactly why these things are increasingly viewed by many as having elements of dogma. What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.

bumby 2y ago
What makes you think I have a strong reaction? >What I wrote needed to be said There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement. >The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.
- nilkn 2y ago
  > I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing. As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it. > There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.
  - bumby 2y ago
    If internet points are how you’re measuring the validity of a point, there’s all kinds of things going wrong. Again, people pushing back doesn’t mean you’re fostering fruitful debate anymore than flat-earthers are generating debate “with complex views.”
    - nilkn 2y ago
      You are the one who brought up reception here, not me. I merely responded. So if you don’t like it, don’t choose it yourself first. All that happened is you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself, but you miscalculated and are now claiming the metric was never even valid.
      - bumby 2y ago
        >you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself Please point to where I first used forum upvotes as a useful metric.
        nilkn 2y ago
        You used reception here to argue against me, going so far as to claim that people are “protecting HN” from my comment. Given that, I pointed out another form of measuring said reception. Suddenly, you were up in arms about using reception and continue to protest it.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
nobody9999 2y ago
>What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. The point of science isn't to punk the researchers. So no, what you wrote didn't need to be said. As I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, our models are wrong. We know they are wrong. What they are is less wrong than previous models. That doesn't make them "right" or "dogma." Rather it makes them the model that currently provides the best explanation for observed reality. That neither requires or suggests that research/investigation into modifications of our current models and/or into completely different models is unseemly or inappropriate. What I (and presumably others, as they've expressed similar thoughts) require, if you want me to accept modified/brand new theories/models is, at a minimum, a logic-based argument as to why a modified/new model describes the universe more completely/accurately than current models. Assuming you can convince me that it's plausible, the next step is to present observational data that supports your logically argued hypothesis -- and that such data is described by your model/theory more completely/accurately than other models. I.e., that your theory/model is less wrong than our extant models which are also wrong, but less wrong than previous models/theories. And if you can't present such data (e.g., with M-Theory[0]), then it's not science, it's just math, philosophy and/or metaphysics. That's not to say math/philosophy/metaphysics aren't useful. They absolutely are. However, without data (or the means to collect such data), it's impossible to falsify[1] such hypotheses and, as such, aren't science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
botro 2y ago
>The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. This is a great heuristic to practice often. I just told my wife she looks fat in her new dress, and the degree of her provocation proves the value of my statement.
- nilkn 2y ago
  I’d expect a bit more nuance on Hacker News. What I wrote is not provocative by being offensive or hurtful to anyone. It’s provocative by introducing an idea that intelligent, educated people cannot come to a consensus on in a purely intellectual way.
  - botro 2y ago
    That's fair. I'm trying to point out that the degree to which your statements illicit an emotional response from someone, by any means, has no bearing on the validity of that statement.
    - nilkn 2y ago
      And I acknowledged that by providing additional clarification.
  - bumby 2y ago
    What you’re missing is there is not a debate about your point. The debate is about whether it adds anything to the discussion. Saying “the sky is up” and having people respond by telling you that is a trivial point shouldn’t be conflated with fostering a meaningful dialog.
    - nilkn 2y ago
      And yet you yourself have been passionately engaged at length in the very debate you say doesn’t exist. The evidence abounds here from your own comments that it is not purely about the triviality of my comment. In fact, your first objection was about whether you thought I owed you additional data before I’m allowed to make the statement that I made. Moreover, there are plenty of other comments engaging in discussion and debate that clearly go beyond a mere discussion of triviality but rather actually engage with the concept.

by nilkn 2y ago

bumby 2y ago

What makes you think I have a strong reaction? >What I wrote needed to be said There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement. >The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.

nilkn 2y ago
> I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing. As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it. > There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.
- bumby 2y ago
  If internet points are how you’re measuring the validity of a point, there’s all kinds of things going wrong. Again, people pushing back doesn’t mean you’re fostering fruitful debate anymore than flat-earthers are generating debate “with complex views.”
  - nilkn 2y ago
    You are the one who brought up reception here, not me. I merely responded. So if you don’t like it, don’t choose it yourself first. All that happened is you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself, but you miscalculated and are now claiming the metric was never even valid.
    - bumby 2y ago
      >you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself Please point to where I first used forum upvotes as a useful metric.
      - nilkn 2y ago
        You used reception here to argue against me, going so far as to claim that people are “protecting HN” from my comment. Given that, I pointed out another form of measuring said reception. Suddenly, you were up in arms about using reception and continue to protest it.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

nobody9999 2y ago

>What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. The point of science isn't to punk the researchers. So no, what you wrote didn't need to be said. As I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, our models are wrong. We know they are wrong. What they are is less wrong than previous models. That doesn't make them "right" or "dogma." Rather it makes them the model that currently provides the best explanation for observed reality. That neither requires or suggests that research/investigation into modifications of our current models and/or into completely different models is unseemly or inappropriate. What I (and presumably others, as they've expressed similar thoughts) require, if you want me to accept modified/brand new theories/models is, at a minimum, a logic-based argument as to why a modified/new model describes the universe more completely/accurately than current models. Assuming you can convince me that it's plausible, the next step is to present observational data that supports your logically argued hypothesis -- and that such data is described by your model/theory more completely/accurately than other models. I.e., that your theory/model is less wrong than our extant models which are also wrong, but less wrong than previous models/theories. And if you can't present such data (e.g., with M-Theory[0]), then it's not science, it's just math, philosophy and/or metaphysics. That's not to say math/philosophy/metaphysics aren't useful. They absolutely are. However, without data (or the means to collect such data), it's impossible to falsify[1] such hypotheses and, as such, aren't science. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

botro 2y ago

>The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. This is a great heuristic to practice often. I just told my wife she looks fat in her new dress, and the degree of her provocation proves the value of my statement.

nilkn 2y ago
I’d expect a bit more nuance on Hacker News. What I wrote is not provocative by being offensive or hurtful to anyone. It’s provocative by introducing an idea that intelligent, educated people cannot come to a consensus on in a purely intellectual way.
- botro 2y ago
  That's fair. I'm trying to point out that the degree to which your statements illicit an emotional response from someone, by any means, has no bearing on the validity of that statement.
  - nilkn 2y ago
    And I acknowledged that by providing additional clarification.
- bumby 2y ago
  What you’re missing is there is not a debate about your point. The debate is about whether it adds anything to the discussion. Saying “the sky is up” and having people respond by telling you that is a trivial point shouldn’t be conflated with fostering a meaningful dialog.
  - nilkn 2y ago
    And yet you yourself have been passionately engaged at length in the very debate you say doesn’t exist. The evidence abounds here from your own comments that it is not purely about the triviality of my comment. In fact, your first objection was about whether you thought I owed you additional data before I’m allowed to make the statement that I made. Moreover, there are plenty of other comments engaging in discussion and debate that clearly go beyond a mere discussion of triviality but rather actually engage with the concept.