The Man Who Studies the Spread of Ignorance

Thank you for working on dupe detection.

Dupes of 'reaction' and/or controversial news posts have been pretty common lately. Ex 'Dear GitHub' 'Dear Dear GitHub'.

One pattern I've noticed is there's almost always a comment with a link to the previous post.

A shortcut solution could be to encourage users to use a common convention. Ex 'Dupe: [link-to-dupe]'. That way it would be especially easy to pattern match and list dupes for moderation.

To prevent dupe creation to begin with might involve some creativity. Such as checking the post link against existing links and notifying the user of an existing post. Similar to what Stack Overflow's 'related posts' listing in the question creation page.

I found the reason, I found the article on LinkedIn, if you compare both links you'll see that mine is different because linkedIn added some stuff at the end of the url.

Any pointers to good examples on both sides for the less knowledgeable (me)? Something I assume is happening in any argument, but I'd love to see exactly what you're talking about.

That's why we go by consensus. Of course any one paper could be BS, but if 98% of scientists agree on something, then I feel fairly confident in that consensus.

Your analysis of antiperspirants and cancer is completely wrong, and you've likely fooled several people because you claim to have analyzed it correctly. The fourth link isn't the NIH's official position — it's just a paper hosted on an NIH paper-hosting service (PubMed). The Snopes link doesn't say that antiperspirants don't cause cancer — it merely states that they aren't the leading cause of breast cancer. The real takeaway is that the studies are inconclusive and more research is needed before you can state that they are or are not carcinogenic with any degree of confidence.

The first article is gold.

"Microwaving cooks the food at very high temperatures"

lol...

I see Trump's rhetoric as so detached from reality, that I can't think of any current, relevant people on "the other side" that would come close. Who do you have in mind, exactly?

The "truth lies in the middle" theory of American political analysis/reporting is perhaps the most dangerous idea in that field. I'd say, in fact, the truth rarely lies between the two big parties. Often it's outside them entirely, or way out on the fringe of one of them. Sometimes one side's perspective really is correct and the other is wrong. Sometimes either side's solution to a problem would likely be fine, though they conflict and a balance between them would not work. Sometimes one side has a mountain of evidence behind them and the other has a tiny amount of evidence, some anecdotes, and alternative plans based mostly on speculation (cough the healthcare debate).

For any of the above, trying to "balance" reporting leads one farther from the truth, not closer. It's not even the case that they must both be right or wrong equally in aggregate.

Similarly, just because there are prominent, awful people getting a lot of press and support on one side doesn't mean that each of them must have mirror images on the other.

Failing to manufacture false balance isn't evidence of bias.

There are "plenty"?

Then name some.

Methinks this endless whining about "bias" when people rightly call out a certain endlessly ignorant political party for that ignorance is the last refuge of people who really have no cogent arguments in them.

Yet conversely, your point is an example of the very 'balance routine' mentioned in the article.

Let's say that Trump is an egregiously bad candidate. (Please note I'm trying to make a logical point, not give informed comment on US politics). Offering up the worst candidate from the other side as an equivalent might well appear to reduce bias, and yet be wrong in an objective sense.

Not that I'm trying to claim there's much objectivity to be found in party politics, but it seems reasonable to treat egregious-badness that way. Also, I have no doubt one could delve back through the years to find truly woefully dreadful Democratic presidential hopefuls, but since hopefully they are history's also-rans it's starting to ask a lot of knowledge from the audience. Just as with the debate of whether it's a good idea to fill one's lungs with toxic smoke, balance doesn't always help.

Is your concern that there are an unnecessarily large number of references to political candidates, or that there are references at all? While I am tired of the constant jockeying for position and tribalism of politics, I also wonder what would have been said of the most horrific leaders of the past during their rise to power. Without totally diverting this discussion or fulfilling Godwin's Law, there is a genuine fear among some US citizens that certain candidates could be horrific in this manner.

It read like a very politically driven article to me too.