Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t)

Re:Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t) by albertTJames on Sunday June 04, 2017 @08:52PM (#14484600)

How can this reach the first page of HN. This is not science, nor it is sound logic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t) by Mathnerd314 on Sunday June 04, 2017 @09:00PM (#14484629)

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link. If you think a comment is egregious, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (Not all users see flag links; there's a small karma threshold.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t) by zepto on Sunday June 04, 2017 @08:59PM (#14484626)

Then you should be trivially able to provide a simple explanation of why, or a reference to something that rebuts it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t) by sidlls on Sunday June 04, 2017 @09:10PM (#14484674)

Not necessarily. Some articles of this sort are so skew to reason that they defy refutation by virtue of how far out of bounds they are.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t) by Mathnerd314 on Sunday June 04, 2017 @09:12PM (#14484682)

They're "not even wrong" (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong), just a waste of time

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t) by zepto on Sunday June 04, 2017 @11:36PM (#14485110)

Can you say why this article is not even wrong?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t) by ue_ on Sunday June 04, 2017 @10:40PM (#14484961)

Then you should be able to say in what way the reason was skewed, or why it's invalid, even if it's out of bounds.

[ Parent | on HN ]