5 ms·

I wouldn't call it denial of the results but rather skepticism of the process

by uvnq 3y ago

version_five 3y ago
But then you wouldn't be able to use the italicized word denial to show your disdain for a different viewpoint.
WesternWind 3y ago
If folks where actually skeptical of the paper, you would think they would provide some evidence to back up their thought process, based on experiences from academia, or a study of crowd movement in relation to race that shows contrary evidence to the paper itself, instead of saying they can imagine the possibility of bias. I mean I can picture an evil cabal of racists who purposefully show up in discussions like this to purposefully sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. Is that the level of HN discourse? The ability to imagine something isn't evidence of it's existence, nor is it healthy skepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
- version_five 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    The point of the parent's example was to criticize the picturing of random technically possible but bad things about people you disagree with. They are specifically saying that it would be silly to make the exact claim that you are accusing them of making.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  So essentially, his assertion that academia is systemically bias, can only be proven through: >Experience in academia >Papers, which you can only get money to work on full time through academia Seems convenient. Looking at the paper itself it found evidence of both a gender bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against men) and a racial bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against blacks). It notably, did not censor any facts about this gender bias, and instead published them in full. In the discussion however, it discussed these two facts with overwhelming bias, treating the observed racial bias with the utmost seriousness while not discussing the observed gender bias at all. I think there's grounds to be sceptical of anything academia says on politically charged topics.

I wouldn't call it denial of the results but rather skepticism of the process

by uvnq 3y ago

I wouldn't call it denial of the results but rather skepticism of the process

version_five 3y ago

But then you wouldn't be able to use the italicized word denial to show your disdain for a different viewpoint.

WesternWind 3y ago

If folks where actually skeptical of the paper, you would think they would provide some evidence to back up their thought process, based on experiences from academia, or a study of crowd movement in relation to race that shows contrary evidence to the paper itself, instead of saying they can imagine the possibility of bias. I mean I can picture an evil cabal of racists who purposefully show up in discussions like this to purposefully sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. Is that the level of HN discourse? The ability to imagine something isn't evidence of it's existence, nor is it healthy skepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

version_five 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  The point of the parent's example was to criticize the picturing of random technically possible but bad things about people you disagree with. They are specifically saying that it would be silly to make the exact claim that you are accusing them of making.
faeriechangling 3y ago
So essentially, his assertion that academia is systemically bias, can only be proven through: >Experience in academia >Papers, which you can only get money to work on full time through academia Seems convenient. Looking at the paper itself it found evidence of both a gender bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against men) and a racial bias (either ingroup/outgroup or against blacks). It notably, did not censor any facts about this gender bias, and instead published them in full. In the discussion however, it discussed these two facts with overwhelming bias, treating the observed racial bias with the utmost seriousness while not discussing the observed gender bias at all. I think there's grounds to be sceptical of anything academia says on politically charged topics.