3 ms·

> Today I learned Hacker News is a great venue for spreading pseudo science and quackery. On non-programming topics that's always been the case. HN is full of

> Today I learned Hacker News is a great venue for spreading pseudo science and quackery. On non-programming topics that's always been the case. HN is full of programmers who are not knowledgeable in science, and tend to trust their personal political or cultural beliefs on other subjects where science might be applied. Today's frontpage is actually great because it contains an example of that with both political valences. There's a "left-ish" pseudoscientific story about toxins, and "right-ish" pseudoscientific story about evolutionary psychology. Amazing. We're only missing a thread on weightlifting or nutritional fads to complete the bingo card.

pedalpete 12y ago
I've often found quite the opposite. I've been amazed at how knowledgeable HNers are about random and obscure science and medicine.
- gus_massa 12y ago
  It's more complicated. For each obscure subject, there are one or two users that are experts or at least have enough knowledge. The problem is that there is a big amount of enthusiastic, that are exited about the new possible result and forget to see that it's almost sure a incorrect result. In some threads the enthusiastic user overhead the experts. A typical subject (without political interest) is faster than light travel. Or in other words: http://xkcd.com/955/ http://xkcd.com/955/
ZenoArrow 12y ago
Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and a soft science? I don't think you do. Hard sciences like physics and chemistry are able to describe processes in minute detail because the systems being studied are relatively simple. As you scale the systems up, the level of detail that science produces is diminished, because there's a higher level of uncontrolled variables. This is why people make the difference between hard science and soft science, you can still try to follow scientific principles without getting a high level of conclusivity. What soft sciences rely on is a body of observational evidence. Here's a classic example from the article... "For decades, chlorpyrifos, marketed by Dow Chemical beginning in 1965, was the most widely used insect killer in American homes. Then, in 1995, Dow was fined $732,000 by the EPA for concealing more than 200 reports of poisoning related to chlorpyrifos. It paid the fine and, in 2000, withdrew chlorpyrifos from household products. Today, chlorpyrifos is classified as “very highly toxic” to birds and freshwater fish, and “moderately toxic” to mammals, but it is still used widely in agriculture on food and non-food crops, in greenhouses and plant nurseries, on wood products and golf courses."
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago
  > Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and a soft science? I don't think you do. Science follows a well known process. There are no hard or soft sciences. There is one that follows evidence and another that's pseudo science bullshit. With great claims comes great evidence and your soft science example not only lacks proper, vetted scientific evidence but is actually complete bullshit that simply fits with your cultural belief.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    Oh dear. Let's start from the beginning, what is this well known process that science follows?
  - nisa 12y ago
    You won't make a lot of friends here with this kind of reasoning. Please refute the article in a way that is at least somewhat open to scrutiny from the wider audience. That should at least include concrete examples and preferably sourced rebuttal of said claims. Calling something "pseudo science bullshit" because of "science"... is a lot more similar to pseudoscience than having an actual sourced debate based on concrete examples.

pedalpete 12y ago

I've often found quite the opposite. I've been amazed at how knowledgeable HNers are about random and obscure science and medicine.

gus_massa 12y ago
It's more complicated. For each obscure subject, there are one or two users that are experts or at least have enough knowledge. The problem is that there is a big amount of enthusiastic, that are exited about the new possible result and forget to see that it's almost sure a incorrect result. In some threads the enthusiastic user overhead the experts. A typical subject (without political interest) is faster than light travel. Or in other words: http://xkcd.com/955/ http://xkcd.com/955/

ZenoArrow 12y ago

Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and a soft science? I don't think you do. Hard sciences like physics and chemistry are able to describe processes in minute detail because the systems being studied are relatively simple. As you scale the systems up, the level of detail that science produces is diminished, because there's a higher level of uncontrolled variables. This is why people make the difference between hard science and soft science, you can still try to follow scientific principles without getting a high level of conclusivity. What soft sciences rely on is a body of observational evidence. Here's a classic example from the article... "For decades, chlorpyrifos, marketed by Dow Chemical beginning in 1965, was the most widely used insect killer in American homes. Then, in 1995, Dow was fined $732,000 by the EPA for concealing more than 200 reports of poisoning related to chlorpyrifos. It paid the fine and, in 2000, withdrew chlorpyrifos from household products. Today, chlorpyrifos is classified as “very highly toxic” to birds and freshwater fish, and “moderately toxic” to mammals, but it is still used widely in agriculture on food and non-food crops, in greenhouses and plant nurseries, on wood products and golf courses."

BinaryIdiot 12y ago
> Do you know the difference between pseudoscience and a soft science? I don't think you do. Science follows a well known process. There are no hard or soft sciences. There is one that follows evidence and another that's pseudo science bullshit. With great claims comes great evidence and your soft science example not only lacks proper, vetted scientific evidence but is actually complete bullshit that simply fits with your cultural belief.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  Oh dear. Let's start from the beginning, what is this well known process that science follows?
- nisa 12y ago
  You won't make a lot of friends here with this kind of reasoning. Please refute the article in a way that is at least somewhat open to scrutiny from the wider audience. That should at least include concrete examples and preferably sourced rebuttal of said claims. Calling something "pseudo science bullshit" because of "science"... is a lot more similar to pseudoscience than having an actual sourced debate based on concrete examples.