3 ms·

After all hard evidence dick stroking you cite pg?! He writes in exactly the same style as the Salon author! Empirical and statistical evidence is a delightful

by melaina 13y ago

After all hard evidence dick stroking you cite pg?! He writes in exactly the same style as the Salon author! Empirical and statistical evidence is a delightful way to make a point, but what you "hard discipline" fetishists don't realize is that there are non-empirical "goods" that run our lives. Narratives, thoughts, feelings, intuitions, broad non-empirical world views. There's a huge world of stuff out there to which statistics just don't apply, and they are all forms of knowledge. In the most basic way it's called rationalism, and it doesn't require any statistics or empirical evidence to make a point. In a more developed way it can be called post-modern knowledge concepts. Basically, people who constantly talk about being "hard" are just dry humping modernity, something that smart people over 100 years ago realized was a collection of myths. The hard sciences sit on a foundation of warm gooey mud.

bjterry 13y ago
I wasn't holding up Paul Graham's essays as a paragon of essay virtue, just as a readily available example that people in the community will be familiar with. The difference between Paul Graham writing from personal experience, and the Salon author writing down some personal experiences, is real. Conflating the two ignores the distinction between expertise and mere rhetoric. I never stated that there is some minimum level of evidential firmness below which evidence can't be considered, but I am absolutely establishing a continuum in which statistical evidence, properly interpreted, is higher than random collections of stories drawn from the author's life by convenience to prove his conclusion once the bottom line has already been decided. I'm not a "hard discipline fetishist" if such a thing even exists, but anything which defies empiricism almost by definition can't have any impact on the material world. There are many areas wherein I agree that statistics is not currently applicable, and I implicitly acknowledged them in my post, although perhaps without sufficient emphasis. As for postmodernism, ye shall know them by their fruits. The hard sciences have borne iPhones, cancer treatments, space flight, psychiatric treatment, and cetera.
- melaina 13y ago
  "but anything which defies empiricism almost by definition can't have any impact on the material world." Hah. Like religion? Like philosophy? The non-empirical world does and always has had a bigger impact on the material world than anything else. Science itself--the methodology as a concept--is a non-empirical metaphysics that draws conclusions about truth concepts. I think I only come to HN so I can feel smug when 20 year old millionaire entrepreneurs (this is my imagination talking) say dumb shit. Yes, the tech sector is destroying the world and making millions while I slog away in some underpaid ivory tower... but at least I know the first thing about science! (This is what I tell myself to avoid crying)
  - tptacek 13y ago
    But you are here, and not only that, but you're here writing and contributing, so the East German judges award you a low score for ironic detachment.
tptacek 13y ago
Over the long term, you're going to be happier here if you avoid terms like "dick stroking" and "dry humping". I don't agree with your comment but found it mostly coherent and helpful. But you sabotaged it in a failed attempt to make it sound lively that just made you sound shrill.

by melaina 13y ago

bjterry 13y ago

I wasn't holding up Paul Graham's essays as a paragon of essay virtue, just as a readily available example that people in the community will be familiar with. The difference between Paul Graham writing from personal experience, and the Salon author writing down some personal experiences, is real. Conflating the two ignores the distinction between expertise and mere rhetoric. I never stated that there is some minimum level of evidential firmness below which evidence can't be considered, but I am absolutely establishing a continuum in which statistical evidence, properly interpreted, is higher than random collections of stories drawn from the author's life by convenience to prove his conclusion once the bottom line has already been decided. I'm not a "hard discipline fetishist" if such a thing even exists, but anything which defies empiricism almost by definition can't have any impact on the material world. There are many areas wherein I agree that statistics is not currently applicable, and I implicitly acknowledged them in my post, although perhaps without sufficient emphasis. As for postmodernism, ye shall know them by their fruits. The hard sciences have borne iPhones, cancer treatments, space flight, psychiatric treatment, and cetera.

melaina 13y ago
"but anything which defies empiricism almost by definition can't have any impact on the material world." Hah. Like religion? Like philosophy? The non-empirical world does and always has had a bigger impact on the material world than anything else. Science itself--the methodology as a concept--is a non-empirical metaphysics that draws conclusions about truth concepts. I think I only come to HN so I can feel smug when 20 year old millionaire entrepreneurs (this is my imagination talking) say dumb shit. Yes, the tech sector is destroying the world and making millions while I slog away in some underpaid ivory tower... but at least I know the first thing about science! (This is what I tell myself to avoid crying)
- tptacek 13y ago
  But you are here, and not only that, but you're here writing and contributing, so the East German judges award you a low score for ironic detachment.

tptacek 13y ago

Over the long term, you're going to be happier here if you avoid terms like "dick stroking" and "dry humping". I don't agree with your comment but found it mostly coherent and helpful. But you sabotaged it in a failed attempt to make it sound lively that just made you sound shrill.