Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyberlab | Hacker News Reader

Worth a read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

    "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it"

View on HN

It should be noted the high refute energy isn’t due to the error or poor logic of the argument in place. It is due to the trust and faith placed in that argument no matter how faulty or flawed that argument may be to third parties.

It’s also why most people won’t bother to entertain the stupid unless convinced or positively influenced by it. For example many people find the flat earth argument clearly absurd, but they won’t challenge a flat earther on this even with simple obvious data points.

Precisely. Taking the flat earther example, if their able to miss so many obvious data points (some they can observe themselves with their own eyes!) then why would anything you say convince them? Someone who is capable of being talked out of believing bullshit is less likely to have falllen for it in the first place.

How many people could actually refute a flat earther? Or does the average person believe in a globular earth because “science” without detail or just because “everybody” knows it to be true?

At this point there are plenty of pictures of the earth, other celestial bodies, airplanes going round the earth and what not, so that anybody can see it and it doesn’t require any trigonometry or scientific knowledge. Of course one might not have personally flown around the earth or been part of an operation to take a picture from space, but the same can be said about anything. For instance how would you prove that your heart pumps blood? Have you seen it personally?

All you have to do is gain a few hundred feet of elevation on a hike and watch the horizon.

While anybody _can_ make such arguments, as you describe the evidence is abundant, do they in practice? The question I was poorly raising was: how many people can make a coherent argument making use of such evidence? I suspect many people have beliefs about the world not because they've reasoned it out, but because of the general cultural consensus. And thus if you critically questioned them they might struggle to come up up with the supporting evidence as you so easily did. What percent of populace is like that? Am I just be an elitist or is that a sizable cohort?

I've personally stood on the Michigan side of lake michigan and seen only the tops of the skyscrapers in Chicago while everything else was hidden behind the horizon. My dad showed me on a trip to Michigan when I was less than 10 and even then I understood the effect. You can even see it yourself on a clear day of you get a window seat on your next flight.

That's not even mentioning experiments you can do yourself right here on the surface measuring shadows to estimate the circumference.

Likewise, there are countless images of the Earth from space, and even the moon. Some outdoor will say they're all dates, but at that point if every single image of the Earth is faked, then how can you trust anything? That would require a conspiracy so vast that your own parents are probably in on it and you should trust no one.

I don’t know if this a serious comment or not but there have been photos of the earth from space available for decades. These photos show a globe, not a plane. Unless the flat earther can show a photo of a flat earth from space, they have been refuted.

I was being serious. But perhaps I wasn't being clear. I'm certain _I_ and probably most everyone on HN could refute a flat-earther (or at least present a coherent case that undoubtable would be ignored). The question I was raising was how many in the "general populace" could do the same.

I probably shouldn't be at this point, but I continue to be amazed by the inability of those I converse with (outside of folks in my tech-circle) to justify or explain basic mechanisms of how the universe functions - especially those that are usually taught at the secondary-school level.

I see! Thx for clarifying.

Can’t it be both? Surely it’s more difficult to navigate your way out of a convoluted, multi-layered false understanding than an erroneous belief about a simple fact?

The thing with flat-earthers, covid-doesnt-exist or stolen-vote believers or what not is that they often have a collection of refutations ready for their opponents. And in my experience this often cause the opponents to exit the discussion because they now are one argument late and it becomes even harder to bring anything to the table and the effect is amplified with each refutation. The worst is when they use their list of examples, people cancelled, doctors that believe covid is a lie or whatever premade list they have. My take now is to not fight windmills, they will believe something even crazier soon enough and even forget about that one or just tame it enough to say "i'm not convinced but it is what it is"...

I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'

— James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson

As an aside, Boswell also noted that James Grainger removed the line “Come muse, let us sing if rats” in his poem The Sugar Cane because he discovered that when he uttered these words his audience dissolved into laughter.

Maybe an internet led edit of Ratatouille can add it to the beginning of the movie.

As in 'let's spread a rumour that he shagged a pig! But who will believe this nonsense? It doesn't matter,but it will fun to see how they'll refute it!'.

Badly, it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate

That's a relatively recent incarnation of a much older story. As I recall in one of Hunter S Thompson's books he accuses LBJ (or possibly Nixon, it's a long time since I read it) of spreading rumors one of his political enemies fucked pigs. Whichever dead president it was was quoted as saying, "I know it's not true, I just want to make th son of a bitch deny it".

What's interesting with this approach that it doesn't even take that much effort once the seed of doubt is planted. I remember back in the day,I was attending this party and after having a few beers,I started looking for some entertainment. My eyes stumbled upon a CD case 'Eros Ramazzotti'. I exclaimed, and told to one of the the friends who was standing close enough that it's a cheap knock-off. 'How would you know', he asks? Well, for starters, the name is written incorrectly. It's correct, I'm a fan of his music and have multiple CDs, it's definitely like this. Nope it's not, it's 'Razamotti'. He gets puzzled.. then a few others join, including the owner of the place. Fast forward 10 min or so and I've already convinced some of them. Others start 'remembering' and even supporting my claim. Eventually I tell everyone I'm just winding them up,but people were very surprised how quickly they started to doubt their knowledge.

Yes, it is like cleaning an oil spill.

It’s a natural extension of entropy only being created, and never destroyed.

Sometimes when reading comments below articles (about vaccination for instance) I wonder if it would be more effective to stoop down to the anti-vaxxers level instead of trying to refute their claims. Just pump out loads of exaggerated pro-vaxx stuff.

That's clever but there is one reason I think this would not work. Most pro-vaxx don't (and don't want to) spend their entire days thinking about why they are pro-vaxx. Being anti-vaxxer is a lifestyle.

Sadly, antivaxxers already believe that scientific findings are "exaggerated pro-vaxx stuff".

Which is exactly why this would probably work. It's all bullshit on both sides (in their view), so it might as well be balanced bullshit. Right now, the bullshit evidence points to potential for horrific outcomes, not worth it!

I think a similar dynamic is behind Trump's rise to power. First you confuse the people, them you can tell them what to think.

Every anti-vaxxer I came across had a history involving their kids reaction to vaccines. You may call them bullshitters all you want, but they are incredibly more motivated than you given above mentioned history.

Every one of them had a history of their kids having an adverse reaction to vaccines, you mean? That's quite a different circle than I've swam in. The anti-vaxxers I've known all adopt their beliefs based on some quasi-religious, libertarian, self-sufficiency ideology and indeed have withheld vaccines from their children.

Whenever I argued with them they would invariably claim to be familiar with hundred of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the dangers. When pressed on the issue, one of them finally did dig up this trove of papers for me. Because I'm an idiot, I actually did carefully review and refute them, so I can say from personal experience that the "orders of magnitude" adage is pretty true. Of course, after admitting that maybe these papers weren't the best materials to prove his point, he decided to pivot to another website that would surely contain all the "proof" I need. There is no arguing. They have a heap of bullshit and don't intend to make their beliefs based on critical analysis.

If you're curious about how I wasted several evenings reading anti-vax papers you can read my analysis here [1]. It's almost invariably about a disproven link between thimerosal and autism spectrum disorder or random non-scientists hucksters trying to sell crystal healing powers or some horse shit.

[1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19IFB_2dzq6Gb5z6igjsIEFMh...

I did not say everyone of them, I said everyone that I personally came across. I do not swim in antivaxxers. Are we testing our bs powers?

When I said "every one of _them_" I was referring to every one of them that you have met. Not implying that you meant all of them in existence. I'm surprised by your experience, because growing up in an Evangelical community in the south anti-vaxxers were a dime a dozen, but I've never met anyone whose children were harmed by vaccines.

Possible a timing/age issue. When I first encountered the antivaxers, it was in the late 90s with parents of children on the autistic spectrum grasping at whatever cause they could. Now it is pretty much just the kind of people that are attracted to ideas like climate skepticism or crystal healing. And they all have a bogeyman like evil corporations or the government.

That is exactly it.

Oh interesting. I don’t know many religious people. I grew up in the USSR.

Much of the former USSR is the domain of superstitious and religious. Antivaxx is also mainstream there.

Maybe, but back then we never even thought about it. Some shots we have taken actually leave scars.

eloisius, I applaud you for your efforts. You certainly appear to have done it sincerely. ( I had a cursory glance at the doc you put)

But there is a fundamental problem, you are looking at numbers gleaned from 'studies' and IMHO mostly they revel nothing unless the study was done carefully, intelligently and with integrity. All these traits are missing at large in the scientific community. A broken clock is correct twice a day. Also factor in politics, something which I did not early on, most of us with a technical bent of mind are naively un-aware of this.

Regarding autism + vaccines, I never looked into it. But I have looked at (and mostly listened to people who I think are credible have dug up numbers from the CDC website) and my conclusion is that for most part they are generally useless, perhaps 1 or 2 vaccines out of the 30 or so are truly effective. There are also instances of clear harm where populations what were vaccinated fell ill and the ones that we not vaccinated did not fall ill. Finally anecdotally, the people who most certainly get the flu are the ones that were vaccinated. Ofcourse people will dismiss that by saying anecdotes are not data.

Where ever a vaccine did appear to have succeeded, there were other factors in play. A clear case of (well-intentioned) people who drink their own kool-aid believe that their efforts are paid off.

I reread what you posted a couple of times, and I still have no idea what your point is. Vaccines are or are not harmful? If they are harmful, would you assert any specific claims and provide evidence please?

Well, the burden is proof is on the vaccine to show that is near completely safe and that it is clearly providing a benefit, isn't it? ( not the other way round where the burden of proof is put on someone to prove that it not harmful).

The point that I'm trying to make is this - to the extent I have looked I see no clear benefit, and in some cases there appears to be a clear harm. So why bother taking it?

>Vaccines are or are not harmful?

My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful. These are ball park figures based on fair amount of reading/listening, I could be wrong. But it begs the question, why should it be so hard to see clear benefits? One has only so much time to investigate these things, I did it years back and have moved on. My default today is to mistrust anything that medicine has to offer. ( it used to be the other way round)

Also don't forget to look at the drugs Thalidomide and Vioxx - should give you a glimpse of the how murky the industry is. These are IMO not isolated incidents. That should at least tip you off in the right direction.

Last, but not the least - if a vaccine has clear benefits ( based on broader set of parameters that I would consider) , I would take it, who in their right mind does not want to protect their health?

" to the extent I have looked I see no clear benefit"

The elimination/near elmination of polio? rubella? measles? Soon COVID? Etc..

" the burden is proof is on the vaccine to show that is near completely safe"

They do.

"My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful ... I could be wrong."

Yes, completely wrong.

"don't forget to look at the drugs Thalidomide ..."

There are thousands upon thousands of drugs. Some are going to fail, many will be misrepresented. Like everything in life. It doesn't mean they don't work.

"My default today is to mistrust anything that medicine has to offer."

This is irrationally conspiratorial, indicative of a broader problem.

"who in their right mind does not want to protect their health?"

The above statements are not so 'right of mind' unfortunately.

There are no Lizard People trying to control us, and most of the people in non-political power are doing their jobs reasonably on some level. There are some systematic failures (i.e. Walmart over-subscribing oxycontin) but most of us are not surprised when that happens.

Approved vaccines are overwhelmingly more effective than they are detrimental, i.e. the 'balance of outcomes' is monumentally positive.

>The elimination/near elimination of polio? rubella? measles? Soon COVID? Etc..

All of them have alternative explanations not found in mainstream media. ( and no I won't put forth the material for you. You will have to look for it)

>>"My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful ... I could be wrong."

>Yes, completely wrong.

So I presume you looked/read at many of these vaccines closely, way beyond what is found is mainstream media?

>most of the people in non-political power are doing their jobs reasonably on some level.

This is where I have changed my mind over the years. People may be sincere but not competent.

Out of curiosity, do you believe in anything publicly considered a "conspiracy theory"? (For example, "9/11 was an inside job", "Holocaust wasn't real/deaths were unintentional due to disease", "Sandy Hook shooting wasn't real", " COVID-19 isn't real/isn't nearly as dangerous as reported", "US politicians rape and murder children in Satanic rituals".)

meowface, most things that you mentioned above cannot be personally verified ( except for the holocaust and COVID 19), so 'believe' is a strong word. It's simple - I don't trust the media or gov anymore. It's difficult to segregate fact from fiction.

With certain aspects of medicine/health it is relatively easy to verify, if one listens to the renegade doctors, experiment with diets. ( the US dietary guideline pyramid - can actually be inverted, I'm not kidding)

There is a larger point I'm trying to make: it's easy to believe the media, no work is needed, but to investigate take time/effort/perseverance which I have done to the best possible extent.

At the risk of taking this thread further off-topic from OP, I just want to point out that in the two posts you've made here, you've provided a timely example of exactly what I described: you made vague references to 'credible' sources without citing them, included some authoritative-sounding numbers, but have yet to make a single claim that could be either proven or refuted. You try to make it sound like you're just a skeptical rationalist. Although, I am sure when you are amongst more suggestible people you speak with even greater authority and make stronger claims about the dangers of vaccines. That is to say, pure bullshit!

I don't normally do this, but based on keywords you've inexplicably crammed into your HN profile and a cursory reading of your own websites and posts that you've linked to from there, you fit the bill exactly. Paranoiac, self-congratulatory screeds about the deluded masses that you've somehow managed to emerge from as some kind of enlightened individualist. Seriously, consider how much effort you are exerting to construct this elaborate justification for your conditions. You would be much better off if you just focused on improving your station in life without positioning yourself as John Galt amongst a world gone astray.

Thank you for your psychoanalysis of me. Just what I was looking for.

What is the libertarian argument against vaccination?

That you should not be legally required to vaccinate. I suspect this to be a smokescreen for the usual nonsense but, apropos of OP, they may believe it's their real reason.

I imagine that in order to be an anti-vaxxer and not crumble under the crushing weight of cognitive dissonance one would have to believe that claims about the benefits of vaccines already are loads of exaggerated pro-vaxx stuff that has been pumped out by (Big Pharma|The Government|Russians|Illuminati|Lizard People|Whatever other crazy thing).

Exactly. This makes fake news, propaganda etc a denial of service attack enabled by freedom of speech. The freedom comes at a cost.

This is one of the most scary insinuations I've read in a while.

Careful, friend. This road does not lead where you think it leads...

Not entirely sure what you mean. Just in case you think so, I am not arguing for curbs on free speech. Its just another unhappy fact of life that freedom of speech by its very nature opens itself up to DDOS. The protectors of free speech have a much harder task on their hands than those who want to exploit it.

Pointing out that freedom comes at a cost doesn't necessarily mean they want freedom to be reduced. The principle is that the benefits almost always outweigh the costs.

I would not say that it's freedom of speech that makes it a DoS attack possibility. We've had freedom of speech for a while without having disinformation going rampant, because the distribution costs of bullshit were still about as large as those of valid facts, so even if creating the bullshit was cheaper than creating a rebuttal based on facts, the total cost of creation plus distribution was roughly equal.

It's the modern (social) media environment and its inherent ways of allocating attention that creates the extreme asymmetry in distribution costs, where it's now cheaper than ever to distribute attention-grabbing bullshit, but still pretty expensive to distribute comparatively-boring facts.

> We've had freedom of speech for a while without having disinformation going rampant

I'm confident that if you look at archived US publications going back to before the revolution you'll find rampant "misinformation" the whole time.

I'm confident that speculation—no matter how well-intentioned—is a form of misinformation.

In case it wasn't clear that wasn't the rhetorical "you" as in "one," but rather a suggestion that parent personally ought to spend some time learning about 17th, 18th, and 19th century publications by actually reading them and seeing how fast and loose they played with the truth to achieve desired political and economic goals.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Then your employer sees the shitshow, fears the resonance and things become more intimate than just cancelling the show. Saying “oh, it’s only true between you and the govt” effectively revokes the claimed right in a society. As a result, only those can speak freely who agree with a vocal majoriry. But that just seems like an obvious default, not a progressive achievement. Or is that wrong?

It seems that people mistakenly cry 'censorship!' when most of the time cancel culture is really plain moderation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderation

> most of the time cancel culture is really plain moderation

Most moderation ends with people losing their jobs? Really?

That would make vigilante justice, lynch mobs, all the way up to genocide examples of extreme "moderation". How do you differentiate moderation that kills someone from moderation that silences someone, kicks them out of their community, and costs them their jobs? They differ only in degree.

It's pretty easy actually, noone gets murdered or maimed.

A free society necessarily must permit some degree of what could be considered vigilantism - even if the vigilantism is intended to restrict someone or something else's freedom in some way. I'd call this the "meta-paradox of tolerance".

The difference in degree you mention is the boundary between legally (and sometimes morally) acceptable and unacceptable forms of vigilantism.

What kind of social engineering did this guy do to get a wikipedia page and a whole "law" after his name so people can quote it forever.

We've had proverbs for millennia about this. But no, let's use a silly Italian name to make it sound academic or something.

No social engineering was needed I suppose. This image: https://truth-sandwich.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ziobra... done the rounds on social media for a while and someone mustered up the courage to create a Wikipedia article about it. It's basically an Internet meme, not really a law. I use the image sometimes in heated debates where two people throw peer reviewed academic 'links' at each other for hours to prove their point(s).

You’ll need to spend order of magnitude more energy refuting this page to make a difference here I’m afraid

Please share a few of those proverbs, possibly some with nice anglo-saxon words in them, least we get overwhelmed by too much latinate pomposity

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/bullshit

My favorite:

> “Apparently people don't like the truth, but I do like it; I like it because it upsets a lot of people. If you show them enough times that their arguments are bullshit, then maybe just once, one of them will say, 'Oh! Wait a minute - I was wrong.' I live for that happening. Rare, I assure you” ― Lemmy Kilmister

EDIT: /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com