Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcantor | Hacker News Reader

I wish bloggers could have these kinds of debates without all of the butthurt jabs like "... which so-and-so clearly does not understand..." or "I'm surprised anyone actually pays attention to that kook."

If we are so very intelligent, then shouldn't we be smart enough to see that ad hominem attacks result in emotional responses overriding the rational desire to open our minds and learn, instead replacing those instincts with the knee-jerk defensive reaction of tightening our hold on our existing beliefs, right or wrong?

I understand that we're all passionately devoted to truth and understanding, and we take umbrage when we perceive that someone is damaging those virtues. But the kind of thinly-veiled high school drama aired in these two posts is what disappoints me more than anything.

View on HN

Kurzweil, I think, comes off better in that respect, using phrases like "some of my critics claim that I underestimate the complexity of the problem" which neatly remove the personal jabs while still responding directly to the argument. Myers's style is to get personal and it does occasionally get a bit tired, but usually he gets away with it because he's right. Probably they'd both get on a bit better if they actually met and had a reasonable discussion, rather than relying on reports of what the other said.

Myers can usually get away with it because he's right, but also because he's often arguing with nutjobs who nobody feels sympathy for. When he's telling off some guy who thinks Genesis 1 is scientifically useful, there's a sense that the other guy deserves to be taken down a few notches, and we're willing to tolerate his abrasive personality in the process.

He comes off a lot worse in this circumstance. Kurzweil may in fact be wrong, but not in a way that makes him deserve the Wrath of Myers. Myers' method of "getting personal" simply isn't appropriate in this case.

I don't think Myers is always right. Surely, it always seems that his assessments are correct, until you look at the right angle.

Not always, but usually. In part this is because he's usually writing about subjects (like evolution) that he knows a lot more about than his interlocutors (like creationists).

In this case, the situation is reversed: he's writing about subjects (artificial intelligence, information theory, and self-reproducing systems in general) that he knows very little about, and that Kurzweil knows a great deal about.

It's unfortunate that he didn't bother to find out what Kurzweil was actually claiming, instead relying on some dumb-ass "science journalist", before launching his little jeremiad. You'd think Myers, of all people, would know better than to trust science journalists.

I agree with you. I can only add that PZ Myers, unfortunately, for Science and scientific blogging has become a buffoon, and some of his posts are just as detrimental to the scientific community than most of his opposition.

It's not difficult to know more evolution than creationists, as most of evolutionary theory is just logic and facts, something lacking in most creationist reasoning.

This is not the first time that he uses his mob-leadership to attack someone, and it won't be the last. He is not a scientist anymore, he's just a blogger, that for better or worse has cult followers.

Human rationality and human intelligence does not alway meet each other. Human that are selected by evolution tend to use cognitive shortcuts as a matter of survival. It is not so useful for finding the truth, however.

So we're going to trip and make mistake. That's OK. As long as somebody point it out.

It's funny how much we demonize prejudice (racism) while simultaneously relying on it for survival (don't stick your hand in the fire). Whoever designed this whole "evolution" nonsense clearly wasn't thinking about social communication at the outset... ;-)

I am not sure you can classify "prejudice" as biologically useful in such a general sense as to include both racism and not sticking your hand in the fire

I disagree! Prejudice is simply, "Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative." If we are brought up by our parents to believe that Jewish people have horns, we are prejudiced. If we stick our hand in the fire, and thus form the "cognitive shortcut" (to use kiba's extremely apt term) that fire is not something to put our extremities close to, we are prejudiced.

I think I see what you are saying, and agree that it is necessary to draw distinctions between obviously biologically useful prejudices (fire hurts) and less obviously useful ones (purple people are stupid), but my point was that they are borne by the same mechanism of "educated" preconception.

I am not sure you used a full definition of prejudice there. For example wikipedia defines it as : A prejudice is a prejudgement: i.e. a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case and wordnet as _ preconception (a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation)*

How is your definition of "prejudice" different from something simpler like "knowledge"?

Racism (well, tribalism) was the ancient's way of remembering to keep safe from potentially violent rival bands.

> "... which so-and-so clearly does not understand..." or "I'm surprised anyone actually pays attention to that kook."

I beg to disagree.

Such verbal slinging IMO serves the important sociological purpose of publicly provoking the other person to react and calling everyone else's attention to the issue. I'd even venture to say that we're all basically watching the discussion primarily because of the jabs.

Insults would perhaps be unbecoming if this were a clinical and professional exchange in an academic journal. But when our opinions compete to survive in the wild, a little verbal spice helps.

Speaking for myself at least, the primary value of this exchange is entertainment. Any knowledge or insight is merely a bonus.

> I understand that we're all passionately devoted to truth and understanding

For most part, people are only passionately devoted to their ideas/ideals (which they perceive as truth often enough)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com