4 ms·

When was this golden age of western civilization again? like 10 years ago, are you suggesting we were in this golden age? I mean, the paper this link is discuss

When was this golden age of western civilization again? like 10 years ago, are you suggesting we were in this golden age? I mean, the paper this link is discussing is from 2014, so I guess it was more like 15 years ago that the golden age sunsetted?

stinkbeetle 7mo ago
What do you mean when was it again? I don't understand your questions or how they relate to what I wrote.
- aloha2436 7mo ago
  They are insinuating that the consensus you're talking about never existed as you have described it.
  - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
    That would be strange and misguided because I didn't talk about a consensus, I was talking about a mechanism for consensus. And consensus has existed many times on many issues now, and then.
    - hunter-gatherer 7mo ago
      Right, the mechanism you mentioned, reason, never existed. That's how I read their comment anyways.
      - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
        Yes I have noticed people get extremely emotional and upset at the suggestion that not everything in society may be monotonically improving.
  - jasonfarnon 7mo ago
    If anything, I think the Internet has made it easier to expose bad science. People like Andrew Gellman and websites like pubpeer have had a huge impact on the practice of the social sciences (psychology especially) just using blogs. In the past he would have been ignored. Journals and authors do their best to ignore, dismiss, and discredit him now. Having a direct voice to the public is what saves him.
    - esseph 7mo ago
      Nobody is looking at that, they're watching TikTok and ReelShorts
- jasonfarnon 7mo ago
  Sorry for being flippant. My analysis is that the mix of reason or emotions is unchanged over time. Take the case of this management science paper. What is irrational about defending a bad paper you wrote when it brings you all the accolades and benefits Andrew has described? The authors' personal goals aren't aligned with the public's goals of getting good science. That's not a failure of reason. Maybe it's selfish. That's different.
  - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
    That's great, I'd love to see this analysis of yours.
throwawaypath 7mo ago
[flagged]
Pay08 7mo ago
The golden age of western civilisation was n - 5 years ago, where n is the year the speaker got their first job.
- stinkbeetle 7mo ago
  The speaker, as in the person who started talking about golden ages? Well it surely if they think there was a golden age it couldn't be now, what with all the late stage capitalism and rising phobias and supremacies and people voting the incorrect people into office or countries out of unions.

stinkbeetle 7mo ago

What do you mean when was it again? I don't understand your questions or how they relate to what I wrote.

aloha2436 7mo ago
They are insinuating that the consensus you're talking about never existed as you have described it.
- stinkbeetle 7mo ago
  That would be strange and misguided because I didn't talk about a consensus, I was talking about a mechanism for consensus. And consensus has existed many times on many issues now, and then.
  - hunter-gatherer 7mo ago
    Right, the mechanism you mentioned, reason, never existed. That's how I read their comment anyways.
    - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
      Yes I have noticed people get extremely emotional and upset at the suggestion that not everything in society may be monotonically improving.
- jasonfarnon 7mo ago
  If anything, I think the Internet has made it easier to expose bad science. People like Andrew Gellman and websites like pubpeer have had a huge impact on the practice of the social sciences (psychology especially) just using blogs. In the past he would have been ignored. Journals and authors do their best to ignore, dismiss, and discredit him now. Having a direct voice to the public is what saves him.
  - esseph 7mo ago
    Nobody is looking at that, they're watching TikTok and ReelShorts
jasonfarnon 7mo ago
Sorry for being flippant. My analysis is that the mix of reason or emotions is unchanged over time. Take the case of this management science paper. What is irrational about defending a bad paper you wrote when it brings you all the accolades and benefits Andrew has described? The authors' personal goals aren't aligned with the public's goals of getting good science. That's not a failure of reason. Maybe it's selfish. That's different.
- stinkbeetle 7mo ago
  That's great, I'd love to see this analysis of yours.

throwawaypath 7mo ago

[flagged]

Pay08 7mo ago

The golden age of western civilisation was n - 5 years ago, where n is the year the speaker got their first job.

stinkbeetle 7mo ago
The speaker, as in the person who started talking about golden ages? Well it surely if they think there was a golden age it couldn't be now, what with all the late stage capitalism and rising phobias and supremacies and people voting the incorrect people into office or countries out of unions.