Peter Thiel funds a science publication questioning evolution and climate change | Hacker News Reader

Peter Thiel funds a science publication questioning evolution and climate change

qz.com

34 pointsdankohn123 comments

Sure, lets question climate change. Until it is conclusively proven not a threat, assume the worst case predictions and act accordingly. Faced with an unknown threat, anything else would be irresponsible. Uncertainty and doubt cut both ways.

So according to your logic, AI should be heavily controlled and regulated, and possibly banned? The effect of AI on society is much less predictable than GW and has much higher ceiling for how bad the outcome may be.

Edit: my mistake. Human or near human AI. But there are strong arguments for lower forms of AI.

Unlike greenhouse gasses, it matters a lot what type of 'AI' you mean. But until we reshape society to be ready for it, yes, it would probably be a very good idea to forbid or heavily regulate/limit the use of human-level or above general AI.

Let it continue to 'cut both ways' - should we apply the logic of 'assume worst case predictions and act accordingly' to all that ails society?

The worst case predictions of muslim immigration into Europe are pretty bad, should the E.U seal the turkish border and Med ports with the gusto they hereunto reserved for greenhouse gas reductions?

Going to be pretty interesting if/when there's enough climate disruption to force those in the north to migrate southward. How would that fit into your 'logic'?

Castle Europe. Keep the enemies outside and put everything inside in bubble wrap.

There are no such predictions you can trust. This is an ultra right wing talking point and could not be further from the truth.

What’s really true is that the EU border is being expanded the minute I post this comment: The EU works with authoritarians and terrorists of all kinds to stop people from fleeing their war and poverty ridden countries. Look at every country in Northern Africa and the upcoming budget for the EU’s equivalent of ICE, Frontex.

Your racist talking point does not have merit to it and you should reconsider the way you consume news in general.

What is the issue with questioning these things? Isn't that how science works?

That's what I thought at first, but after reading the description of the publication in question, it isn't really a science publication. It's more of an op-ed specifically designed to promote things that are definitely not science in a manner that makes them look like they are.

> One article about a biomolecular research laboratory was written by a tennis instructor.

No, science is not about randomly questioning whatever. You need to bring evidence that is hopefully not only convincing but also reproducible and verifiable. Good science makes new predictions that could be tested to see if claims are correct or not. People who argue against evolution or climate change often talks from their behind without any new discovery, evidence, original research, testable predictions or new facts. They have no regards for any reproducibility or verifiability of their claims. That's when we call it politics, not science.

Freeman dyson, who is one of the smartest human beings ever to live, questions evolution and climate change. On climate change, I don’t think he opposes being proactive — he just disagrees about the completeness of the evidence. He also has an unconventional opinion about nuclear war: that it’s not a very big deal.

Sorry but you can't be one of the smartest human beings alive if you question settled science like evolution and climate change.

Being smart isn't just thinking of new stuff. It also includes understanding the world and it's proven qualities, properties and processes.

Intelligence is context specific. Find me a person who you think is intelligent, I can find a situation in which they will act like an idiot.

A great example would be Linus Pauling, who later on in his career became a proponent of mega-doses of vitamin C as a cure for all sorts of stuff, including cancer. He remained obsessed with the idea in the face of repeated studies that have shown it's no better than a placebo (in fact mega-dosing may even increase your risk of some cancers).

History is full of really smart people believing some pretty stupid things, especially in areas outside of their area of expertise. We have a very one-dimensional view of intelligence that assumes that because someone is smart (or even a genius) in one way, or knowledgeable about one area, that this must automatically apply to every facet of intelligence or knowledge.

Smart people are still people, with all the same biases, preconceptions, ego and other human frailties.

For some reason some physicists in particular seem very prone to underestimating the complexity of other branches of science, and over-estimating the applicability of their ways of working to them, especially the biological sciences which are full of complex systems that often turn out to react in unexpected ways.

So we are supposed to dismiss dysons conclusions because he’s a genius? That is the most astounding contortion of logic I have ever seen. If you disagree with him, then go find out the logic he uses to justify his conclusions and discuss that.

Absolutely not. In fact I think Dyson is definitely worth listening to. Obviously I didn't explain myself clearly enough.

The point of my comment was that just because someone is a genius, does not automatically make them right. The fact that Linua Pauling was very wrong about vitamin C mega-dosing doesn't stop him from being one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, and someone who was right about an awful lot of things.

While I am generally in favor of taking a very conservative approach to our impact on the ecosystems which we inhabit, you may want to reserve a little humility when saying things like:

> Sorry but you can't be one of the smartest human beings alive if you question settled science like evolution and climate change.

Climate change is not settled science. It's model building. It isn't really possible to set up experiments where you can control variables and test hypotheses (because there's only one Earth). In that respect, it shares more in common with economics than physics, chemistry, or biology. Everyone takes economists' projections with a grain of salt. Yet the complex inter-dependent ecologies that we call Earth are way more complex than the global economy. So maybe we should be a little more guarded in our statements about what we know about how climate works.

Just some food for thought.

Freeman Dyson doesn't doubt climate change in the idiotic "CO2 doesn't lead to warming" sense, he just disputes projections around the impacts that AGW will have on humans and on civilization which is a very different thing.

> who is one of the smartest human beings ever to live

Strange way of saying "who is neither a biologist or climate scientist".

> who is neither a biologist or climate scientist

And, of course, you can't _become_ a credentialed biologist or climate scientist unless you keep reciting the party line on global warming.

he likes to take a contrarian position for the fun of it & sometimes it leads to the truth - take with a pinch of salt

I wrote script that generates publications that cover "all sides" of every issue:

    setInterval(function() {
      document.write(randomLetters()+" ")
    }, 1000)

    function randomLetters() {
      var wordSize = Math.ceil(Math.random()*20)
      var letters = Math.random().toString(36).replace(/[^a-z]/g, "")
      return letters.slice(0, wordSize)
    }

Reply on news.ycombinator.com