If you are criticizing Trump, did you have any credibility with that part of the public to begin with?
Not saying there aren't reasons to avoid name calling. But I feel like battle lines are fixed by now. I don't feel like "Good point" is a likely reaction to anything said by anyone.
The only poll that matters is the election. And despite some of his voters disapproving, there is very little chance of them voting for the opposite party.
When do we get to call Trump a dictator? When he ignores court rulings? When he floods the zone with illegal executive orders? Do we have to wait until he calls himself a Dictator and insists everyone else do the same?
I dunno. I can understand OP's point, but in an era where bullshit runs rampant at every level of society, it's hard for me to agree that "We need to hear these guys out" is either a priority or a generally good idea.
People are generally decent at knowing something exists, but generally poor at knowing what it is.
This is true for book reviews or UFOs/psychics/whatever. A reader can tell you the book wasn’t good and they’ll give a reason. Usually they’re right that it’s not good, and wrong about why.
The problem here is they’re right that it’s something (it’s not nothing), and probably wrong about the why. But most academic types won’t even acknowledge that it’s not nothing.
I could respect them if they said, “It’s not nothing, but right now the cost to inquire further into that topic is too high and not our area of focus”
I think the best approaches are either to ignore it (usually the best approach since their ability to spin bullshit will consume your whole life if you let it), or tackle it with a professional tone. Not to humor it, but to pick it apart logically while keeping a professional tone and abstaining from getting down into the mud with verbal insults.
Tackle it like Mick West. He's my model for skepticism done well.
Yeah, it's extremely hard to get to a serious scientific discussion when field of "ufology" is so filled with grifters.
The main problem I'd see with CSICOP isn't dismissing alien visitor out-of-hand but rather tarring ideas that are merely unusual with the brush of crankdom - for example, I think Martin Gardener was attacking Alfred Korzybsky long ago. I'm not a Korzybskyite but I think his ideas are in no way tied to any super-natural or extra-scientific assertions.
Right now we have grifters who have taken over the official channels. In the case of vaccines, they are deploying weaponized propaganda at scientists. Right now we need our skepticism, and we need to find a way to inoculate the public against these people who are 'asking questions' and making recommendations while citing fake studies. If anything, we very quickly need a resurgence of skepticism.
I would ask whether the recent era is marked by more “we need to hear these guys out” style skepticism or more “online atheist” style skepticism. From my perspective, the “online atheist” version seems to have been a much more common one. From the aforementioned “online atheists” to Neil “a new year is just the earth going around the sun and nothing to celebrate” DeGrasse Tyson, to “I fucking love science” facebook feeds that very quickly became political dunking fodder rather than a genuine love of scientific things. From my perspective the current era has been marked by a significant lack of willingness for most people to hear anyone they don’t already agree with out.
A different commenter said something to the effect that the skeptic is not obligated to ignore years of research and contrary evidence. And I agree that they are not obligated to do so. But one can approach that in two ways, one can simply dismiss new claims out of hand because they contradict everything “everyone knows” and have been hashed before. Or one can ask for the evidence and simply hold the claimants to the same standards any “real” science is supposed to be held to. Ask for the evidence, ask for the studies and hold them to the same rigor that their counter evidence was already held to. You might not be obligated to do these things, but doing things you’re not obligated to do is one of those things that makes society run smoother.
The goal of engaging then isn’t to convince the person with the claim, but rather to convince outside observers that the extraordinary claim was given a fair chance to be proven and was not, even with that fair chance. XKCDs “lucky 10,000” idea also applies to “scientific woo”. The “lucky 10,000” will need to be convinced all over again every time, and if they have on the one hand a side with rocky but surface level convincing evidence, and on the other side mere derision and out right dismissal without examining the claims, then it shouldn’t be surprising that more and more people find the bad evidence convincing and the skeptics unconvincing.
I agree that the balance here is not entirely clear. But I think it's important to not let our perceptions of that balance be influenced by our personal social circles. If you encounter a lot of "online atheist" skeptics in your life, then I think it's important to just note that like, statistically, you're in a bubble. This kind of intense scientific skepticism isn't very common in a world where all sorts of clearly scientifically illiterate ideas poll at very high numbers.
I think there's a third way between "hear them out" and "online atheist", and that's basically a kind and gentle dialogue questioning pseudoscientific ideas while still focusing on trying to make clear the cognitive errors they are likely making.
LLMs are actually pretty good at this [1], which is remarkable, because LLMs are pretty stupid, and rarely knowledgeable about the details or nuances of any particular debate, especially on niche scientific topics. Like Ken Ham would "win" a debate about creationism with chatGPT because he's familiar with all of the tricky creationist arguments about radioisotype dating that ChatGPT isn't. But if we look at why AI typically succeeds in debunking conspiracy theorists when "online atheists" fail, I think it is because AI has infinite patience and respect for the user, where-as any online human debater eventually loses their patience, whether with an individual or over time. Being able to share new information with people while also being patient and respectful is basically this secret but it's just incredibly difficult to a person to do it.
Figuring out how to teach a generation of skeptics that aren't burnt out, jaded, and angry, is probably the secret sauce here to fighting misinformation.
> If you encounter a lot of "online atheist" skeptics in your life, then I think it's important to just note that like, statistically, you're in a bubble. This kind of intense scientific skepticism isn't very common in a world where all sorts of clearly scientifically illiterate ideas poll at very high numbers.
My point (and I believe a large part of the author’s) is that “online atheist” style skepticism isn’t actually any sort of “intense scientific skepticism”. It’s largely schoolyard bullying that (in many cases) happens to be right, but isn’t right because they’re doing any actual scientific rigor, but because they happen to have aligned themselves with the “correct” side.
But that same self assured smugness, and absolute conviction in their side being correct and therefore having no need to consider alternative view points and at least examine the arguments and evidence is all around us. Trump style politics is this writ large, but modern day politics is awash in this sort of behavior. Any item that happens to get sucked into the culture war vortex becomes an instant “everyone knows $X and only an idiot would believe otherwise so the only appropriate response is mockery”. Are you a conservative? Mock the foolish girly-men and “fee-fees” havers for daring the question the obvious fact of men and women being different and immutable traits. Are you liberal? Mock the bigots and the TERFs for daring to question the obvious fact that gender is a complete social construct and distinguishing them has no value in modern society. Are you a dyed in the wool capitalist? Mock the socialists and the heavy handed regulators for ignoring the decades of evidence that communism and socialism destroyed societies and people. Are you a communist? Mock the free market worshiping fools who can’t see the obvious destruction capitalism is reigning down on their societies every day. Bumper sticker politics and “science” is to my mind the norm, not the exception. Between tweets, hashtags, news media soundbites and clickbait headlines who has time for nuanced or even minimally genuine consideration of alternative perspectives? It’s much more fun and easy to just fire off the latest hot take and get some internet updoots. And yes I recognize the irony in the width of the brush I’m painting with here, but my point is this isn’t just tiny bubbles of online spaces, this behavior is (in my opinion) everywhere and permeates the entire public discourse. In fact I would wager that one would be pretty hard pressed to pick any major media outlet that could be honestly accused of “too much hearing out of the other side” and certainly even harder pressed to find one that applies any sort of rigorous evaluation of the evidence.
> I think there's a third way between "hear them out" and "online atheist", and that's basically a kind and gentle dialogue questioning pseudoscientific ideas while still focusing on trying to make clear the cognitive errors they are likely making
Perhaps we are not meaning the same things with our words, because to me what you just described is exactly what I would describe as “hearing someone out”. Allowing them to say their piece and then applying the same fair and rigorous standards to all the evidence and arguments presented for all sides.
Ah - I see. I totally agree that tone and manner of rhetoric and speech should be drastically improved among most "online atheists".
I do distinguish between being nice and reasonably and truly "hearing someone out" though. To me, the difference is that when truly hearing someone out, you will be interrogating the exact data and logic behind the validity of their individual claims to their fullest extent. This is how I would respond to e.g., a scientific work that I view as potentially valid, serious, and important.
However, in some cases, I have found (and suspect in general) doing so can be counter-productive. Here is one example: a recent report made by climate change deniers using AI: https://xcancel.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1903468473579340261
Regardless of the motivations of the original authors, thousands of well-meaning people have now boosted or referenced this work as part of their rejection of climate change. But I don't think this work should be "heard out" in the sense that every single claim in it should be addressed by a skeptic of the work, the way one would approach a serious scientific work. This takes a ton of time and effort and is simply infeasible - and often draws one into an endless back and forth where individual points get lost. Rather, in this case I'd focus on describing the general epistemic errors being made, and heuristics that can be used to avoid these errors.
Another case I guess is the OP article. This article is apparently written by someone who is a believer in parapsychology! I believe there is little to be gained for me to spend time evaluating the claims of parapsychologists: in that sense, I am a "bad skeptic" according to the author. But it is really just not an appropriate use of my time. Rather, I would argue from a position of general skepticism and logical positivism and remind others that these are extraordinarily claims that if true, would imply so much of what we know about the world is wrong.
I hope my distinction here makes sense now. My reading of the OP is he isn't just saying "be nice", but "take us seriously". I think we've got to try our best to be nice. But to take something seriously is a much bigger ask, and one that is not necessarily always beneficial in every circumstance.
Sure, but TFA makes clear that any benefit to workers from tax-free tips is laughable compared to the numbers of times the restaurant lobby has fucked them over, by repeatedly killing attempts to keep wages low. It's not even throwing workers scraps, it's more like throwing them crumbs.
I scoured their website to look for any clues about how it might (allegedly) work and got a fat lot of nothing.
> Rest constantly monitors room air quality, using a proprietary algorithm to pinpoint any tobacco, marijuana, or nicotine presence.
So a smoke detector with an "algorithm" attached. Uh huh. How does that algorithm work?
> By analyzing various factors and patterns[...]
Some cutting edge shit here!
And as for accuracy, they don't even pretend to make promises about "99.99% success rates" or anything. This is the most detailed they get:
> Q: Is it accurate?
> A: Our sophisticated smoking detection algorithm has been tested for accuracy in real-world scenarios, backed by years of development, and tens of thousands of hours of rigorous testing and validation.
Given that this image: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/653a9fbd1075088b6c8f8bd3/... shows PM2.5 and CO2(ppm) it may imply they monitor particles and CO2 levels. My guess is it also monitors humidity, and temperature. Humidity helps distinguish smoke from water vapor (eg. steaming shower).
My guess is it's likely a sensor in a hotel room accumulates dust over time, leading to high PM2.5 measurements maybe when something (eg. suitcase) bumps against the case, shaking the accumulated dust and releasing it around the sensor.
Note that pm2.5 will also spike when you've used shampoo, perfume, deoderant, lotion, sunblock; if you use dryer sheets and you unpack your clothes, etc.
It's going to be similar bullshit to what Halo uses in the highschool vape sensors. A bunch of particulate sensors for like PM1, PM2.5, PM10, sniffing out VOCs, and then they consider any tripping of any of that to be a "smoke" sesh.
Edit: Oh. Rest is just NoiseAware. They're just reselling NoiseAware sensors which are just - yes - a bunch of particulate sensors hooked up to an ESP32 hooked to a web dashboard.
Yeah the anecdotal evidence leads you to this as well - the hair drier usage leading to triggering the sensor. My PM/VoC sensors in my bedroom spike when my wife dries her hair while my CO/CO2 sensors do not.
> A: Our sophisticated smoking detection algorithm has been tested for accuracy in real-world scenarios, backed by years of development, and tens of thousands of hours of rigorous testing and validation.
I would be willing to bet a good amount of money they have a huge pile of nothing on this
On the other comment they say they monitor PM2.5, CO2 and humidity. Congratulations, your hot water shower with hard water just triggered the sensor. $500 fee.
I am not shocked by this, as I have asked for writing a support case about AWS SCP and it wrote it in the style of the scp-wiki. I got a good chuckle out of it and wondered if it made sense to add it as a joke to my default prompt.
Wow, nailed it. I take it this is a collaborative fiction project? Not to worry, Gemini explained it to me:
> The core conceit is that you, the reader, have gained access to the internal database of a secret organization. The articles are presented in-universe as if they were written by anonymous researchers, agents, and AI constructs employed by the Foundation.
Yep. The focus on dramatic code names, "access levels", and "containment" is all very characteristic of SCP fictional content. (The use of Unicode characters like U+2588 FULL BLOCK to imitate "censored" text is popular in that community as well.)
There's a particular Instagram ad my wife always sees for a graphic tee with a design that we both love, but the vendor selling it is (according to Reddit reviews) garbage. The infuriating thing is that no one else seems to sell a shirt with that particular design!
Plus, 24/7 access isn't necessarily the best for patients. Crisis hotlines exist for good reason, but for most other issues it can become a crutch if patients are able to seek constant reassurance vs building skills of resiliency, learning to push through discomfort, etc. Ideally patients are "let loose" between sessions and return to the provider with updates on how they fared on their own.
> it really is only an option for the elite, which is fine if you're counselling people from similar backgrounds, but not when you're dealing with people from lower socioeconomic classes with experiences that weren't even on your radar
A bizarre qualm. Why would a therapist need to be from the same socioeconomic class as their client? They aren't giving clients life advice. They're giving clients specific services that that training prepared them to provide.
they don’t need to be from the same class, but without insurance traditional once a week therapy costs as much as rent, and society wide, insurance can’t actually reduce price
So they just follow instructions from a book? Why can’t an LLM do that? Advice is so situational that I just don’t really believe a therapist would ever understand most of their clients problems. If you’re having a hard time understanding my perspective, imagine a white American therapist giving an Indian American immigrant advice on how to deal with family issues. They will probably never deeply understand the situation.
I had the same thought about crypto/NFTs... Before AI exploded it seemed like that was the "big topic" on HN for a long time. But there may have been less Show HNs for crypto since it has fewer applications.
They do talk to conservatives a lot though. Many recent episodes interviewed Trump voters and sent reporters to Republican rallies to hear those "good points" from the source...
Yeah, I didn't say they never cover them. They do it -- to their credit -- and I'd even go so far as to say that they're one of the more balanced programs on public radio.
But they're still far from actually balanced. As a frequent listener, I'd characterize their overall coverage of conservatives as "a bemused, curious foreign tourist".
No, it means "balanced". You shouldn't hide the ugly parts, but you should report on the good arguments of the opposition -- as well as the ugly parts of your own team. Both the left and the right have good arguments and bad arguments, and if you don't believe that, you're misinformed.
Partisans would much rather that they only hear about the ugly parts of the opposition, and never hear about the ugly parts of their own tribe.
reply