6 ms·
The response to this is a great example of how far Hacker News has fallen. The readership here appears to be in a state of believing what The Rolling Stone say
by mbell 13y ago
The response to this is a great example of how far Hacker News has fallen. The readership here appears to be in a state of believing what The Rolling Stone says in place of actual scientific research.
If you want an example of how intellectual forums die, this thread is it.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoWhat scientific claims does the article make that you think we believe?
- DanBC 13y agoIt seems odd to criticise this article for not being intellectually rigorous enough, when there is so much dross posted every hour. The article gives plenty of caveats. Is there anything factually wrong in the article? Or is it that you disagree with his hypothesis? Or is it simply the lack of cites?
- gruseom 13y agoHN has always featured sciencey articles from the popular press (as well as complaints about the decline of HN, for that matter), so your claim is at first glance untrue. It does seem testable, though. Do you have any data to support it?
- arrrg 13y agoIt’s a magazine article about a science topic, a.k.a. the most normal thing in the world. Only in bizarro-HN-world would that even begin to raise any eyebrows. Yes, journalists are in fact allowed to write about science topics and there is nothing wrong with that in itself. No, not everything that’s written about science has to have been published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Good science journalism is awesome and there should be much more of it. It’s this honestly bizarre cynical and twisted worldview that’s wrong with HN, most certainly not that someone posted this article.
- mbell 13y agoI don't honestly know how I could disagree with you more. Your definition of a 'bizarre' world equates to my version of an ideal world. How dare people question media? How dare people think for themselves instead of accepting what media tells them? How dare they? You have vilified everything that goes wrong with a democratic society. Your mentality is the problem.
- arrrg 13y agoYou are completely free to question the media and think for yourself. The linked article provides more than enough information to actually get you started. No one ever claimed you have to accept what the article says.
- mikeash 13y agoBaseless complaints about the source does not qualify as "question media". Your comment is mindless contrarianism, not the intelligent skepticism you think it is. You're free to question media. Welcome, in fact. I would love nothing more. But you didn't do it, and to act as though you did when someone calls you out is dishonest.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- beedogs 13y agoYeah, that's great, but for fuck's sake, you don't "question media" by simply launching into an ad-hominem attack against the Rolling Stone. Stop trying to defend your little tantrum up above by having another little tantrum.
- enraged_camel 13y agoHis tantrum is so childish it is embarrassing. He responds to himself complaining about the response his whiny ad hominem comment received. The ironic icing on the cake is that he is complaining about how far HN has fallen!
- mikeash 13y agoA metric assload of popular articles without sources or citations make the front page every day. But the only one anyone complains about is one related to global warming. Because it's somehow worse? No. Because many people are incapable of examining that particular issue without emotion.
- ams6110 13y agoBecause many people are incapable of examining that particular issue without emotion I hope you mean that as directed to both sides of the argument, because it's certainly true.
- mikeash 13y agoCertainly, and they feed on each other in a crazy feedback cycle. However, that doesn't and shouldn't diminish the fact that the actual science solidly favors one side.
- jussij 13y ago> However, that doesn't and shouldn't diminish the fact that the actual science solidly favors one side. Despite the alarmist title, I found this a good video on the topic of climate change: "The Alarming Science Behind Climate Change's Increasingly Wild Weather" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-RDE7z2T0k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-RDE7z2T0k I'd recommend the second portion of the video, as it’s a good old fashion, boring, highly scientific and un-emotive description of one particular view of how higher arctic temperatures can affect the climate. I also found the second portion worked well as a tutorial on the basics of how the world’s climate actually works.
- mzr 13y agoI'll expect you to make the same comment on posts that claim to want to "change the world". This is an actual world changing event, not some marketing bullshit.
- drewblaisdell 13y ago> The readership here appears to be in a state of believing what The Rolling Stone says in place of actual scientific research. You're clearly concerned with citations, so I'll ask for one: where did anyone here say, even implicitly, that they valued a Rolling Stone article in place of actual scientific research?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jussij 13y ago> If you want an example of how intellectual forums die, this thread is it. Ok, let’s try to apply some intellectual thinking to the article. Firstly, The Rolling Stone is not a scientific journal, but rather a magazine catering to the general public. Secondly, I read the article, not as a scientific paper on climate change, but rather an article about a particular climate change scientist, Jason Box. The article presents Box's opinions on climate change and his latest prediction that black snow could have a big impact on the rate of ice melt. How is that any different, to say, an article asking Bjarne Stroustrup's his opinions of the C++11 standard? It's an opinion piece, from someone whose opinion should be worth reading, if only because they have expertise in that field.
- woah 13y agoWait... I thought this was a thread about a JS-intensive magazine site layout?
- snowwrestler 13y agoI agree with you that Rolling Stone is not a great forum for learning about scientific topics. But I disagree that it's proof of a new problem with HN. Climate change, like much cutting-edge scientific research, rarely gets informed or rational treatment on programmer forums. Just look back through the history of climate change articles on Slashdot, for instance. They are chock full of objections or concerns that would be answered with an hour or two on Wikipedia or the IPCC website. The reason is that programmers and engineers think that they think like scientists, when the reality is that most think exactly the opposite of scientists. Programmers and engineers seek to use knowledge to eliminate uncertainty; scientists seek uncertainty in the hope of discovering new knowledge.
- michaelwww 13y agoPeople like you complaining is a sign of health. When complaints of falling quality stop it's because the people who seek better quality have left.