charliesharding

Clicking to confirm made me laugh uncontrollably in a quiet office. It is indeed an article about caviar prices

The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths". I see signs in peoples yard saying that "in this house, we believe science is real". As someone who has studied biochemistry for years, this kind of reverence for science is truly troubling. The one thing you learn in high level science is that nobody really knows what they're talking about, paradigms shift, and further study is required. Blind devotion and rejection of different viewpoints is dangerous regardless of which cause is being dogmatically held.

This article is ironically akin to the 'The Preaching of St Paul', except that instead of burning Galileo's work, the author is trying to burn religious texts and dissenting viewpoints to their "settled science".

But he's not just nice.. He's pretty, played in a band, and is exceptionally good at hand waving. In debate he masterfully dodges substantive discussion in favor of vast, inclusive, amorphous nicety rhetoric.

Unfortunately however, he may be too white and male to appease his party's intersectional hierarchy.

I know! It's ridiculous. I can't believe people still don't understand how many people will die in agony in {{ world.timeleft }}. The only solution is to wave our arms harder and faster above our heads to try and start a conversation and get others to think about who we are as a people.

What do you think the breakdown of applicants by gender is for these roles? Are you suggesting that females should be forced into occupations they don't voluntarily choose? The countries that have the most egalitarian societies show difference in gender preference maximizing, not minimizing.

1 - Ok, so abolish the free market worldwide? Not sure what you're suggesting. Removing incentive structures and high taxation does cause the wealthy to leave. It's happening in the U.K. right now. Who does this hurt? Everyone but the rich. 2,3 - I think we agree here. Unfair loopholes should be closed as they are found on an individual case basis and I even think that Amazon should be broken up on anti-monopoly grounds. 4 - They didn't come by their wealth through forcibly taking it from poor people. The free market dictates voluntary exchange of goods and services. They are wealthy through a long series of voluntary transactions with the public.

Are you saying that the scientific method cannot be applied to economics? :O

While qualitative analysis can be considered empirical, it's not something often seen when money is concerned and the stakes are high. Most often you will see papers relying on qualitative methods in the "soft sciences" such as social science. Not to mention "verbal theorizing".. this is the kind of stuff that gets laughed out of real conversations.

1 - Yes, numbers are high but by your own source, you can see the rate has not been increasing since 1980. 2 - Hand waving about income inequality is fine, it's an issue.. but what do you think should be done about it? Tax the rich just enough so that they don't leave and take their wealth somewhere else? How do we find that threshold? 3 - Tax avoidance is a law issue, not an economics issue. If it's legal, businesses will do it. I saw the conference in Davos. It was just a guy saying "but what about tax avoidance?". This was not brave or insightful, it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity.

I agree but I understand where they were coming from. It's easy to point out flaws in any system and it's something I'm seeing more and more in politics and religion. People are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because it's easy to become blind to the benefits of the system you are raised within until the revolutionaries tip the scales and then the system resets through widespread suffering.

You're totally right, there are issues. However, I think the current system is better than the alternatives I've heard. I would never claim that it's perfect and I'm always open to slow, small tweaks over time.

The stakes are too high to drastically overhaul or throw out the same system that has resulted in our prosperity over the past 100 years.

Better not to have an economy than to have a flawed economy

Making a strawman by quoting directly from the article where the author was criticizing traditional economists for relying on quantitative analysis as prescribed by the scientific method?

"Yet too many economists believe their quantitative tools and theoretical lenses are the only ones that count as “scientific,” leading them to dismiss disciplines that rely more on qualitative analysis and verbal theorizing"

Sorry if I don't want to trust the fate of the nation's economy to someone's well intentioned verbal theorizing and 'qualitative' analysis. What could go wrong? (lol)

I thought HN liked and trusted the scientific process and quantitative research methods over verbal theorizing and hand waving.

This site made my morning. Wow such incredible technology! Machines are learning too much

I think the argument for belief in God from a scientific standpoint is very possible. Science is done because we don't fully understand the world. Therefore, scientists must be humble, and open to the idea that current science paradigms are subject to change and have been constantly shifting throughout time (flat earth, tectonics). Science is all about hypothesizing, gathering data, extrapolating trends, then drawing conclusions.

I believe that the moral system, close community, and redemptive nature of Christianity preach a way of life that leads to happiness and is consistent with so many themes in philosophy, psychology (like you mentioned) and classical literature. Ultimately you choose whether or not you want to believe in God, but it was these emergent themes that turned me into a church goer.

To claim that there is no God is a very bold, untestable claim. I think it is made because of the dire implications of being wrong (hell). The way that I interpret heaven and hell is basically the end result of working towards the best or worst versions of yourself. If you agree that you are constantly met with decisions to make and typically know which choice will be better for you (eating a pizza versus working out) - then you know the basic jist of avoiding "sin". If you constantly give into your hedonistic side, doing what is easy or feels good in the moment, you'll end up with a hefty amount of self loathing. Christianity is all about saying its ok to want those things, but try to resist and it will make you feel better. Admit when you're acting in that "sinful" manner and try to to better next time.

my two cents

edit: dang.. see axlprose for references - he did gud lol

I recently started going to church again and I've been enjoying it. While I still have issues with it (as do many who go), I think mainstream culture has thrown out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to religion as it does provide a good framework for finding meaning in your life.

I don't think I'm alone either - Jordan Peterson's rise to popularity is testament to people craving the kind of moral wisdom that is contained in the bible. I've also come to like the idea of original sin; we all make mistakes and as long as you recognize them as mistakes, you can still be a good person by trying to do right.

I know it was just posted but 0 reviews and it being able to "read and change all your data on websites you visit" is a bit much

Put the pitchforks away, folks. I know the "ackshually" impulse is strong, but how likely is it that the one sentence wikipedia summary is a full, accurate representation of the authors complete thoughts on each job type?

Interesting premise and, like most things in life, further investigation is required.

I'm glad people like you exist here on HN. I'm shocked that this kind of simple reasoning is somehow rejected by otherwise rational people these days..

> Who is suggesting that the solution is to restrict speech?

Look at the comments, you'll see that people are more than willing to take it upon themselves to ostracize independent thinkers and skeptics.

Look at the article and how it's been upvoted on HN because of the premise of how evil and ridiculous it is.

Better science? Better to whom? Better based off of what criteria? While I admire your bravery for supporting popular opinion, I think we could all benefit from being more open minded

If their assertions fall apart under scrutiny then that is a misplaced fear because nobody will take it seriously.

If not, and other researchers can back it up - then you don't have to be afraid of an existential threat! win-win

Being a scientist means you have to adopt a mentality of passive observation and openness to being wrong, otherwise you'll just fall into the trap of confirmation bias which necessarily results in bad science.

What is there to be afraid of? Put it out there so it is open to criticism. Why suppress it?

Think of it through the lens of emergence, or the shotgun effect.. The more competing, different theories that are out there, the more likely that we will get closer to the truth. This allows future researchers to draw from a larger pool of diverse thought.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

As someone who has studied science extensively (geology, geochemistry, microbiology) there is nothing wrong with this and I find it refreshing.

There is no such thing as "settled science" and whenever you see that phrase you should become immediately skeptical. It's a dangerous term that is an imminent threat to scientific progress. Think about all of the "settled science" that has been upended across human history.

> I find that games are incredibly easy nowadays, there is little "effort" to actually reward.

While I agree with the general comment, this part made me laugh a little. Games (and TV/movies) are designed to cheat your brains reward system and make you feel like you are achieving something. This is why they're fun to play/watch.

I would argue that it's more insidious to require more work out of the player because it's prolonging the inevitable realization that you're not actually accomplishing anything. Games that cut right to the chase and reward you from minor accomplishments allow you to get that quick rush you were looking for then get back to your life.

Think about people playing World of Warcraft (especially vanilla days), sinking untold days of play time into grinding out gear/rep/gold. What are they actually getting from this? Versus just about anything else they could be doing with that time? The easier games make it to be rewarded, the more honest they are as a game. You could argue that you want a game to feel like a job because you can't get that satisfying sense of hard work paying off in real life, but I seriously doubt anyone would be happier with a productive, rewarding game life than a productive, rewarding life-life.

Safety practices for people going into space? Honestly.. Pretty sure people going out of the atmosphere, inches away from an instant, unimaginable death are aware that it's not exactly safe. The company obviously has a huge vested interest in not having people die but it's kind of inevitable when you're in such a high stakes game. NASA has had plenty of deaths

It has nothing to do with borderline clickbait - I know people sure didn't click on this link for the faint hope of a fanciful world of hunched over creatures shuffling around doing Goblin things. So yeah, now that we know that definitely isn't the case, it should help to narrow it down