Hacker News Reader

Comment by MollyR | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's conservatism but skepticism.

However I could be wrong, I haven't been around on HN for long time.

Also I personally value skepticism, but I come from a semi scientific-engineering background.

It was pretty hammered hard into us lab techs, we need to be skeptical of our bioinformatics results, you never knew what hidden confounding factor could be affecting the experiment. We even tried to use markov models to help find hidden confounding variables.

Edit: On why skepticism is important, its because propaganda is everywhere https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760

View on HN

>Edit: On why skepticism is important, its because propaganda is everywhere https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760

There is here too. Not from The Atlantic but in the form of right wing ideological sock-puppets. If you are skeptical of this claim then read the article and its evidence and the comments and their lack of evidence and consider which is which.

Just because there are some smart people here doesn’t mean there aren't kooks.

On the issue of sock-puppets, it seems like you can have sock puppets for any issue.

After reading https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760, I suspect there are not only "right" or "left" wing sockpuppets but corporate pr puppets too. I suspect some sockpuppets could drive up controversy to increase ad revenue or product awareness(viral marketing?) as well.

disclaimer:I have no opinion on this Atlantic article nor am I familiar with site. I just didn't think the original criticism of "conservatism" on HN was accurate.

Also I don't think I understand why an article(I don't feel the Atlantic piece is propaganda) can't be propaganda, and the comments section can't be propaganda in another direction.

I'm still looking at evidence,but a big and bold claim should have some fairly bullet proof evidence. I'd also hold something like Crispr https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8171039 to the same standard.

Game changing gene therapy ? I would like some good fairly bullet proof evidence.

Otherwise I think its reasonable to fall to a skeptical position.

Of course one should hold all ones beliefs lightly.

But to dismiss quality evidence because of crackpot comments is irrational.

I know nothing about gene therapy. But if you find a venue where peer reviewed papers on global warming are greeted by a flood of comments who deny it yet don't explain why then saying they are equally valid or equally likely to be propaganda is not being rational, it is failing to see a dangerous anti scientific social movement.

>corporate pr puppets too

To whit, post an article about Facebook's appalling privacy policy and watch what happens.

I'm a big fan of skepticism, but blindly questioning anything you see without supporting your claims is just another form of superstition.

I'm not familiar with this term/phrase "blindly questioning". I've heard of "blindly without questioning" , which has negative connotations.

It seems like blindly questioning is far better than blindly without questioning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com