It's your choice to use the same IP address.
It's your will.
For example if your partner has a chronic illness, you can never say you felt their pain, but you can say you know what it's like to live with it. You felt the impact of the illness on your shared life, and you shared the emotions it caused, which are lessons that no amount of reading, listening, or watching can instill in you.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's somewhere between being a first-hand and second-hand experience, because of the notion of a "shared life".
That seems wildly optimistic to me. Companies, especially pharma, will always find ways to 'make tons of money'. The second part of the sentence assumes a level of disclosure (from the companies) and rationality (on the part of average people), that I don't believe exists in the world. There are plenty of examples to back that up, especially people's willingness to believe self-serving 'facts'.
I’m sure there much more reading material out there than just the two Wikipedia pages you linked. Try the following for some more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Some history here https://books.google.com/books?id=Va-BAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=P...
But this form of the denial disinformation is pretty old and perhaps surprising it’s being discussed today.
Ed: but aha, it looks like the Christian Coalition site has been sowing CFC doubt much more recently: http://www.cc.org/blog/suspected_ozone_loss_may_never_have_i...
But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon if someone else disagrees with the establishment and if you even ask the same questions is automatically guilt by association.
Yes. Challenging accepted knowledge on HN is a quick way of getting downvoted to oblivion and, in some cases, shadowbanned. (I've seen a couple of examples of the latter.)
I did not consider the questions to be particularly ‘logical’ at all. Naive, perhaps, but not logical.
There’s presumably 30 years of knowledge you could look up to formulate better questions.
It feels like there's a conflation of science and science reporting in here somewhere. Most of the actual research output makes measured claims but the journalism around it ends up being sensationalised (yes, some researchers also participate in that but not as a rule).
This is something I hope to see gain traction with the new gust of open wind blowing through scientific reporting. Open results, accessible results, means more than just the accessibility of the PDF, if you ask me. Publicly funded research has a duty to be readable and understandable by the public, who paid for it.
Or, at the very least, not more opaque than strictly necessary.
Try reading Euclid's Elements. It was written before equations had been invented and is for the most part "plain language". However, it reads as vastly more obtuse than an equivalent modern formulation of the same facts with symbols and algebra.
The nice thing about mathematical notation is that a simple, one line equation can express relationships and detail that what would otherwise take a full paragraph to unpack. Personally, once I'm familiar with the symbols and underlying concepts, an equation is much easier to hold in my head than a long jumble of plain language explication.
I think most researchers aren't simply pomping up their paper with obtuse symbols. Mathematical notation is both compact as well as a common language, so why not use it? As a side benefit, we also get to lean on the vast background of mathematical research which offers potential precision that would otherwise be completely lost.
A well written paper takes a sympathetic view of the reader and helps guide them to understanding. This is not how academics are taught how to write. It's like a form of handed-down abuse.
Popular science writing is very important, but it’s just a small part of the practice. Doing more of it would mean less actual research unless funds and bodies are added for it. I'd like to think that as a community we servo around the sweet spot given the resources.
No, it is not. This is why I drew the distinction in the first place.
> Normal people can only understand what is reported.
Which backs up my point that sensationalised reporting is a problem. Peer-reviewed, scientific papers are written for other scientific researchers — that's as it should be.
If your sig other __from your pov__ constantly "deceives" you, what happens?
Science is oblivious to the __cumulative__ effect its process has on belief, trust, etc. The irony of this truth baffles me.
That sounds ludicrous to me. The entirely of the scientific method is about generating hypotheses, testing them out, finding out you're wrong, and then refining/rewriting those hypotheses and trying again, ad infinitum. Plenty of scientists have been 'wrong' for years.
I'd argue the problem you're trying to highlight isn't about 'Science' per se, but the fact that people/the masses/etc like to have just one immutable 'answer' for something. They find it difficult to cope when new results point to different answers. Is that really the fault of 'Science'?
The scientific method is such that Science is never wrong. It's god-esque.
There's no step in the process - a la 12 Step Process for example - that acknowledges past transgressions. It just hypes up the glory and ignores the mistakes.
That's. Not. Working.
That's. Not. Good. Enough.
That's. Bullshit.
This is wrong.
> There's no step in the process - a la 12 Step Process for example - that acknowledges past transgressions. It just hypes up the glory and ignores the mistakes.
This is also wrong.
Wrong as in factually incorrect.
You're seeing something in science that doesn't exist.
You've misunderstood my point. The scientific method is such that 'Science' is always wrong. It's a method to continually try to become less wrong about how the world works.
I don't even know what you're referring to when you capitalise 'science' the way you have been. It's not like there's a single entity called 'Science' that issues proclamations.
YouTube had the most positive rating!? I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. The experience of 14-24 year olds must be vastly different to the comments etc I've seen there.
Twitter is like taking YouTube comments and making them the content. Instagram/Snapchat is the same, except now the comments are pictures with a whole lot of body shaming thrown in.
Much of it, yes. But 1) tailor your Twitter stream to your (professional) interests, 2) ignore any trending news, 3) unfollow people who tweet random stuff or have too much Trump (or any current politics) in their mix and it will provide useful. I follow mostly computational neuroscience / machine learning scientists, and have heard much about recent research, summary articles or conferences first on Twitter. On an evening just two weeks ago I glanced at my list and saw a poster about one of the most intriguing research findings I've yet seen. Without Twitter I would have had to attend the conference or waited for the paper. Science Twitter is active and growing, and as scientists are busy people for many it has become a popular and low-effort announcement platform for new work (much better than university blogs or press releases and such).
I see much more toxicity glancing on any video's YouTube comments than on my Twitter stream.
Maybe Twitter should just let you filter posts based on content. (Maybe it's already possible, I'm not a big Twitter user.)
A future feature I would like to see in social networks is automatically generating tags for posts and letting people filter out the posts based on that.
With that, I can just choose an automatically generated US politics filter for example and not have to maintain a mute list.
This is by far the best, most succinct description of Twitter I've ever heard. Love it. Keeping this one and requoting it forever, thank you
Youtube also has a great utility factor, you can learn a lot from youtube.
Youtube has almost limitless niches of hours of content.
Now, with YouTube you could watch absolutely anything at all. Physics lectures, classical concerts, or just cute cats and JPop, whatever. I realize people like to most about "the youth of today," but for the right kind of kid, the world is their oyster. All of the encyclopedias and libraries are online, all of the education and entertainment is right there. It’s incredible. You can learn to cook everything from fried cheese to haute cuisine, learn to play an instrument or just watch a guy acapella with himself, and everything in between. Whatever you want to see is just a click or two away.
For example, I enjoy the videos of PeterDraws. Just now, I went to his channel and checked out one of his most recent videos. All of the comments are positive.
The comments are overwhelmingly positive. His videos are very popular, with quirky titles because of his limited english, no soundtracks, and daily kind gestures feeding starving cats. Just plain positive content.
Re: PeterDraws.. I don't think I've ever seen such a high "thumbs" up ratio with that many total votes.
One thing Youtube allows for, and I see it in both the video you linked as well as the cat video.. is ASMR-type content which serves as a strong antidote for the type of anxiety-inducing social media interactions we see with Instagram and others. I think it's because Youtube (and long form video in general) is a much more expansive medium. It allows for more focused, and slower, engagement vs rapid fire feed scrolling like twitter and insta.
Yes, absolutely. YouTube has it's own anxiety-inducing features, but you're right that this kind of content would never really truly succeed on Facebook or Instagram in the same way it has on YouTube. Peter's videos would probably have to be sped up and edited into something like the art equivalent of those Buzzfeed "Tasty" videos.
Thank you for sharing Robin's videos, I love this kind of content. It reminds me of another channel that I like, which is also very positive: please enjoy "James Blackwood - Raccoon Whisperer," a man from Nova Scotia who feeds Raccoons.