We're not saying that to people who have meaningful evidence. We're saying to to people fixated on irrelevant points raising scientifically absurd objections consistently and repeatedly. There isn't a scientific debate happening here. If we were, we wouldn't see so much "just asking questions" about things with well established answers.
These are people who are trying to assert "my ignorance is equal to your knowledge" out of an implied deference to fairness.
Wow, you even selected a fixed font to help you seem crazier. The way it invokes someone one a typewriter trying to convince their editorial board of a conspiracy is perfect. Nice satire. A+ work.
I knew that last sentence would invite contrariness over semantics. I shouldn't have included it. It adds nothing to my post, and is obviously an artifact of an addled mind.
That said, I can't say I disagree with the rest of your post. Pointing at people in the best position to understand something, and saying "look at how uniform that group is about saying you're wrong" is never going to convince anyone, but is still more-or-less valid.
Because discussion is essential to education, and we cannot possibly expect everyone to do all science on their own. The walls of pragmatism and human lifespans stand block the avenue.
And you have landed on an important problem in the scientific world. There's an understanding among academics that they need to make attempts at reproducing results. And for "big" things that make a splash, someone is usually going to step up to the plate.
But sometimes things take a while. Like just a month ago, someone just published an analysis undermining the, frequently believed, and popularly widespread, notion that women measurably like more masculine faces at the height of the fertility. That's been a (relatively) commonly believed assertion for years now. And they just got to retesting it and finding no statistical significance.
Okay, let's just take a second and review this idea.
What on earth makes you think non-preliminary studies in psychology/sociology study correlation? People in the field take those correlations you reference, and develop causative experiments all the time. Expose groups to two different stimuli, and measure the behavioral differences. Have you never even browsed the abstracts of a psychology journal?
I know it's popular among engineers to dismiss the soft sciences for, being, well soft. But the fact that they're not untangling the fundamental rules of the universe, doesn't mean there's not science going on here. I get it. Humans aren't like computers, and don't follow precise and predictable behaviors at all times.
But that same unpredictability problem doesn't keep us from nailing down quantum mechanical behavior.
True as that may be, people who are absolutely nuts tend to use the perpetual openness of science as an excuse to inject irrelevant, arbitrary insanity into discussions of fact. I'm not just referring to the (particularly common as Slashdot) climate change deniers who dismiss all sorts of careful analysis of data and theory for some unspecified null hypothesis "because we've been wrong before". But crazier people.
Conservapedia's owner cum dictator, Andy Schafly comes to mind as a frequent abuser. Who has made "be more open minded" arguments over things as scientifically established as relativity, which he asserts doesn't exist, or walking on water being scientifically possible.
And creationists do the same.
The point, of course is that while established science can always be wrong, arbitrarily embracing the opposite and asserting the evidentialist structure of the scientific method as a reason is crazy. The proof is in the pudding, if you will.
Right... let's take that a bit of a different direction, and instead of the US president, talk about, say, the minority whip and see how well your analogy holds up.
How about, fuck you, you could just look up LLVM anytime you wanted news about it. Why come to slashdot for that? See how stupid that "resources exist" argument is?
Decent journalism isn't hard, and I don't feel that basic fucking context is too much to ask of a summary.
Why would we, the general populace of readers, want a very short summary of what this OSS product does, when we can have unclear references to the changelog? Why would we want a link to the homepage with more information, when we can have 2 links that also are essentially changelogs, and one direct download?
If it's not the Linux Kernel, Firefox, or Chrome, please stop assuming everyone knows what it is.
(Also DDT is still in use for malaria control, not that we have that in the US where it's banned).
I have no delusions that I convinced you of anything. But it's nice to have someone to smack down for being a perfect example when they must have known I had this sort of evidence handy..
No, I'm afraid you'll see that they were. The creature the summary was talking about is a dinosaur of unconfirmed mass, which likely got a bigger than the new one.
The dreadnoughtus weighs in at 65 tons. The Argentinosaurus weighs in at somewhere in the range of 90-110.
No amount of successes of environmentalism will ever be accepted will ever be accepted by the sorts that think this next measure is clearly unnecessary. In fact, once it works, they'll go back to denying the rather important sciences of the previous ones, if DDT is anything to go by.
I don't know if it's possible to convince anti-environmental nutbars, but I have every reason to believe some douchebag will show up any second after this post to tell me how "silent spring was propoganda".
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, that doesn't make any sense.
We're not saying that to people who have meaningful evidence. We're saying to to people fixated on irrelevant points raising scientifically absurd objections consistently and repeatedly. There isn't a scientific debate happening here. If we were, we wouldn't see so much "just asking questions" about things with well established answers.
These are people who are trying to assert "my ignorance is equal to your knowledge" out of an implied deference to fairness.
Wow, you even selected a fixed font to help you seem crazier. The way it invokes someone one a typewriter trying to convince their editorial board of a conspiracy is perfect. Nice satire. A+ work.
No, the argument, is, of course, in those peoples papers, reviews, and data. But let's be honest, that's not what's being discussed by deniers.
They go "1998 was hot". And millions of other ways of restating that assertion to make it sound nicer.
They go "but what if [thing that has been taken into account by real scientists] is involved?"
There's nothing here but recurring wrongness of exactly the same sorts.
I'm sorry, I got my negatives in the wrong place. It does say exactly what you're objecting to, doesn't it?
Well... shoot. I'm not going to defend what I said that was incorrect. But the intent is defending the frequency of causative studies in psychology.
They do, actually. It has lead to some very amusing graphs.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I knew that last sentence would invite contrariness over semantics. I shouldn't have included it. It adds nothing to my post, and is obviously an artifact of an addled mind.
That said, I can't say I disagree with the rest of your post. Pointing at people in the best position to understand something, and saying "look at how uniform that group is about saying you're wrong" is never going to convince anyone, but is still more-or-less valid.
Which is, of course, silly.
Because discussion is essential to education, and we cannot possibly expect everyone to do all science on their own. The walls of pragmatism and human lifespans stand block the avenue.
And you have landed on an important problem in the scientific world. There's an understanding among academics that they need to make attempts at reproducing results. And for "big" things that make a splash, someone is usually going to step up to the plate.
But sometimes things take a while. Like just a month ago, someone just published an analysis undermining the, frequently believed, and popularly widespread, notion that women measurably like more masculine faces at the height of the fertility. That's been a (relatively) commonly believed assertion for years now. And they just got to retesting it and finding no statistical significance.
Okay, let's just take a second and review this idea.
What on earth makes you think non-preliminary studies in psychology/sociology study correlation? People in the field take those correlations you reference, and develop causative experiments all the time. Expose groups to two different stimuli, and measure the behavioral differences. Have you never even browsed the abstracts of a psychology journal?
I know it's popular among engineers to dismiss the soft sciences for, being, well soft. But the fact that they're not untangling the fundamental rules of the universe, doesn't mean there's not science going on here. I get it. Humans aren't like computers, and don't follow precise and predictable behaviors at all times.
But that same unpredictability problem doesn't keep us from nailing down quantum mechanical behavior.
True as that may be, people who are absolutely nuts tend to use the perpetual openness of science as an excuse to inject irrelevant, arbitrary insanity into discussions of fact. I'm not just referring to the (particularly common as Slashdot) climate change deniers who dismiss all sorts of careful analysis of data and theory for some unspecified null hypothesis "because we've been wrong before". But crazier people.
Conservapedia's owner cum dictator, Andy Schafly comes to mind as a frequent abuser. Who has made "be more open minded" arguments over things as scientifically established as relativity, which he asserts doesn't exist, or walking on water being scientifically possible.
And creationists do the same.
The point, of course is that while established science can always be wrong, arbitrarily embracing the opposite and asserting the evidentialist structure of the scientific method as a reason is crazy. The proof is in the pudding, if you will.
Sorry, but democratic-party-news-letter::slashdot isn't an analogy that holds up. More like WashingtonPost::slashdot.
(And democratic party newsletters would totally mention the name of the whip, you're totally crazy)
Right... let's take that a bit of a different direction, and instead of the US president, talk about, say, the minority whip and see how well your analogy holds up.
That's a lot of words to say "I haven't bothered to research this at all and I'm assuming it didn't work because that fits my worldview"
How about, fuck you, you could just look up LLVM anytime you wanted news about it. Why come to slashdot for that? See how stupid that "resources exist" argument is?
Decent journalism isn't hard, and I don't feel that basic fucking context is too much to ask of a summary.
"Hey check his post history"
--Someone too cowardly to have one.
It's one of those summaries.
You know "update on [OSS product]"
Why would we, the general populace of readers, want a very short summary of what this OSS product does, when we can have unclear references to the changelog?
Why would we want a link to the homepage with more information, when we can have 2 links that also are essentially changelogs, and one direct download?
If it's not the Linux Kernel, Firefox, or Chrome, please stop assuming everyone knows what it is.
Seems inefficient, but it's not really possible to reconstruct the exact behavior without more lines of code(i.e. less "cleverness")
Environmentalism is responsible for the international endangered species protections, which have been the foremost aspect of whale recovery.
But sure, keep whatever neoliberal fantasies you have. That's not my problem.
And here's Murphy's douchebag, right on schedule.
Science right in your face.
DDT bans did exactly what they said they would.
(Also DDT is still in use for malaria control, not that we have that in the US where it's banned).
I have no delusions that I convinced you of anything. But it's nice to have someone to smack down for being a perfect example when they must have known I had this sort of evidence handy..
No, I'm afraid you'll see that they were. The creature the summary was talking about is a dinosaur of unconfirmed mass, which likely got a bigger than the new one.
The dreadnoughtus weighs in at 65 tons.
The Argentinosaurus weighs in at somewhere in the range of 90-110.
So your correction doesn't work. Sorry.
No amount of successes of environmentalism will ever be accepted will ever be accepted by the sorts that think this next measure is clearly unnecessary. In fact, once it works, they'll go back to denying the rather important sciences of the previous ones, if DDT is anything to go by.
I don't know if it's possible to convince anti-environmental nutbars, but I have every reason to believe some douchebag will show up any second after this post to tell me how "silent spring was propoganda".
So... is this our first evidence of the space vampires that faked the moon landing?
A. Yes, thingies is a word.
B. Most "thingies" don't bear behavior with them. A series of 1's and 0's doesn't bear any sort of self interpretation.
No, an object has the rather important distinction of carrying behaviors along with it.
The DK1 was 1280x800, the DK2 is 1080p, and the consumer version is at least 1080p but they haven't said more.