Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular) has always been a threat to authorities.

Yeeeesss but, and it's a huge but, auto-didacticism in particular has huge risks. Misapprehension of core knowledge self acquired is remarkably hard to shift. Hence, huge numbers of ant vaxx, anti agw and like movements with self sustaining belief about science data and it's interpretation.

Monkton is a prime example. Tries to claim authority vested in his own interpretation of the science inputs.

I guess I'm agreeing.

View on HN

> Yeeeesss but, and it's a huge but, auto-didacticism in particular has huge risks. Misapprehension of core knowledge self acquired is remarkably hard to shift. Hence, huge numbers of ant vaxx, anti agw and like movements with self sustaining belief about science data and it's interpretation.

Are you sure the huge risks are attributable to auto-didacticism itself and not to the decreased cost of nation-state influencers to stir the pot in any or all of those categories of bunk?

I certainly wouldn't call a lot of the anti-vaxxers I've met autodidacts.

I wonder if you're lumping auto-didacts with zealous subscribers. The auto-didacts (I think, no citation) tend as a group to be voracious life-long learners seeking unfiltered reality with diversity and discipline. Many have made -substantial- contributions in -most- fields.

As opposed to those who seize on one subject and are open to any 'evidence' that 'supports' it. Say, Bigfoot.

What is "anti agw"?

I assume it's intended to be "anti-global warming."

Apparently it stands for "anthropogenic global warming."

Never mind the documented cases of data fraud, it's because "auto-didactic."

Autodidact contrarians on this subject seem intensely vexed by data fraud.

If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? This "fraud" of which you speak appears to be a non-issue amongst scientists.

>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no?

That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when in line with an alleged agenda, something that should be vexing? You don't think it's possible that the same shunning that occurs in non academic settings towards deniers might occur in the sciences? In which case perhaps scientists aren't willing to risk careers and funding to go against the grain, if they are even concious of any bias. I imagine most young people are entering into this field now treating agw as confirmed fact.

And if you combine that with the all of the ways in which the scientific institution is currently broken (p value abuse/misuse, publish or perish, reproducibility crisis), it's very possible for an artificial, or massaged, narrative to come to dominate discourse even if it isn't quite true...

I was being somewhat facetious. There does not appear to have been data fraud. OP was referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email...

The only people I've seen who are worried about it are either propagandists or autodidacts.

Not using the term propagandiat loosely. Referring to people at industry funded think tanks. But others who thrive on being "contrarian" and self educated always seem to reference this "fraud" even though there seems to be nothing to it.

Added some quotes to my original post to clarify.

>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no?

Yes, and they have. But you ignore them and slander them and then say "see, nobody has found any holes!".

You've been getting involved in a lot of flamewars on HN. That's not what this site is for. If you keep doing it, we're going to have to ban you again, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended, we'd appreciate it. The intention is intellectual curiosity, not ideological battle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com