News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Facebook’s next project: American inequality. Parent comment

Re:Facebook’s next project: American inequality by gfodor on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @09:05AM (#16420344)
It's interesting how you list a bunch of hypotheses about the source of inequality, with no evidence, and yet also claim no data driven research is needed to validate them. Perhaps your comment needs citations and you should focus on why the existing evidence for your claims is so overwhelming that they are beyond being disproven by further understanding.

Edit: I should note that I think performing social science on Facebook data is creepy and weird and potentially unethical.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook’s next project: American inequality by o_____________o on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @11:48AM (#16421713)
All of these claims are well-trod and have mountains of evidence. It's not necessary to cite references every time you say something on the internet, and it's not a meaningful rebuttal to point out the lack thereof.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook’s next project: American inequality by gfodor on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @01:01PM (#16422354)
I was not asking him to justify the claims about inequality, but to justify the primary claim that no further investigation is needed. When responding to an article about using data to draw conclusions about inequality, and claiming no further research is needed, then obviously any constructive comment should explain why no further research is needed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook’s next project: American inequality by YCode on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @10:43AM (#16421147)
Precisely so.

The essence of the scientific method is taking what you think is true and proving it with a higher degree of accuracy.

This is why studies are repeated by other people, to see if the results match up.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook’s next project: American inequality by mistermann on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @11:27AM (#16421495)
I personally believe there is a lot more truth to this list than a "well researched" study backed by statistics that you can make say whatever you want (as an alert person may notice when reading the news).

I'd even go so far as arguing that in-depth studies with their typical bias (to use a nice term) is what has made so many young, highly educated "evidence based" thinkers genuinely believe straightforward & consistent-with-observable-reality explanations like this are literally incorrect.

[ Parent | on HN ]