Hacker News Reader

Comment by generalizations | Hacker News Reader

I found it more interesting that apparently it's possible to get paid by the hour to do research on subjects like this.

I found that interesting too. I liked her disclaimer at the lead-in: "The investigation stops when the client no longer wants to pay for more, not when I’ve achieved a particular level of certainty I’m satisfied with. Etc. In this particular case they were satisfied with the answer after only a few hours, and I did not pursue beyond that"

Reminds me of the "synthesists" from the sci-fi classic 'Stand on Zanzibar'.

Or at least: someone writing in Lesswrong, a not particularly reliable site (to put it mildly, but I don't want to get into an argument about it), claims this.

It was extensively cited, and written by a professional researcher using their real name who has no particular axe to grind - what more could you possibly ask for?

Maybe I’m just bad at their site but I can’t see any name other than Elizabeth, I can’t see their professional credentials nor does it seem likely that a couple of hours work looking into something that at best produces a tiny effect is sufficient to establish a good meta-review of the relevant literature. For example there’s no real attempt to gauge the quality of the papers cited. Reading the report makes me suspect the author is less than convinced.

From passing familiarity and a bit of a browse around LessWrong is a great place for pretentious airs, florid prose and lengthy posts but none of that makes things inherently more accurate. And for this kind of reporting accuracy of the result is pretty important.

a) there's a big prominent link at the top to the author's blog with her credentials

b) "The effect is small and I'm not convinced" is not a reason to doubt the conclusion, it is the conclusion

c) "I don't like the website that posted it" is a pretty lousy reason to dismiss something

> c) "I don't like the website that posted it"

It's not the only reason, but it is definitely one. It's part of a kind of "baloney detection kit", inspired by Carl Sagan; or something like the Crackpot Index. You should of course assess claims made by people in circles and websites frequented by cranks, but bear in mind mostly cranks post in those websites.

Likewise, if you read claims in websites where UFO conspiracy theories often post, you may find a nugget of truth, but it'd be healthy to keep a strong dose of skepticism. Reasonable people don't post in UFO conspiracy sites; likewise with LessWrong.

First of all, I know a lot of people disagree with lesswrong's consensus opinions on some contentious topics, but comparing it to a UFO site is a stretch. Second, when you dislike a website but see an essay hosted on it get highly upvoted, the skeptical thing to do is to update your opinion of the site, not maintain it despite new evidence to the contrary.

That is interesting. It sounds like this was just someone who was interested, but I can see it being useful having access to someone with research experience.

I really don't feel capable of reading academic papers, so for me this would be very useful.

it's very common for professors to do contract work (not for lesswrong though, lol)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com