Ideally you have a cache of extremely long messages where you selectively quote small sections of sources, out of context, that seemingly prove your point but on careful reads are unrelated or actually contradict.
But there's ten or fifteen "sources" and by the time you read through the post, all the articles posted, and form a coherent argument contradicting it, they've already posted a bunch of other places and/or the thread has moved on.
That's the ideal case where you're inclined to waste 20 minutes arguing agaisnt a comment on the internet and there isn't a mix of legitimate sources with total bull shit sources forcing you to do a secondary hop to prove a point agaisnt the fake source.
Of course, HN is also an invaluable resource when it comes to tech and sometimes other STEM subjects. It's just significantly less valuable for areas completely outside of it. I wouldn't trust HN as a neutral or critically thinking source for, say, the usefulness (or lack of usefulness) of gender studies.
That precise quote is from Pratchett but there are similar, earlier citations https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
You will find that the ability of the human mind to be critical, to refute with very salient arguments is suddenly acute when the mind doesn't wish it to be true, and this definitely also applies to H.N. comments.
That H.N. in this case is so accepting to this one side of the story suggests to me that this is the side it seems to want to be true, notwithstanding it might entirely be, or not be, true.
No one here is trying to argue that it happens all the time or more often than not, I'm wondering if that's what you think we're reading.
In this case, “misconduct happens” is not opposite to “it never happens” and I do not find the comments to echo the former sentiment as much as “Academia has become so ripe with either outright malice, or an inability to catch earnest mistakes, that virtually no research can be trusted.”
> No one here is trying to argue that it happens all the time or more often than not, I'm wondering if that's what you think we're reading.
No one is indeed arguing that, but what many, including me, are arguing is that nothing can really be trusted any more because it's a coinflip whether data is even reproducible.
My current view is that academic research should not be used as proof of anything and only as the starting point for your own research. And by your own research I mean your own actual tests. The papers can point you in the right direction but their findings should not be taken as fact.
This seems like a complete utter waste of time.
In real life most life impacting academic research is much more right than wrong. You are far better served assuming so. Unless you want to waste your time going back to basic science and rebuilding all the academic knowledge in most things you wish to do.
So it’s more like suppose you want to paint your house green, and you read that somebody says you can mix red and blue paint to make a really cool green paint. Instead of immediately going out and buying enough red and blue paint to cover your whole house, first buy a small amount of red and blue paint, mix them together, and see if you get that neat green paint.
It’s common sense, but the window dressings of academia can lead you to burn time and money on things that are totally silly because somebody important-sounding said they did it once.
Where people get burned is that there’s an enormous power imbalance—-junior scientists can end up stuck trying and failing to make green paint out of red and blue paint because nobody senior is going to take them seriously if they can’t make green paint. This presents a serious ethical challenge if making green paint is impossible.
It's fair to question things, especially if they don't make sense to you and even if acknowledged authorities are behind them. However, (1) something that you may question is not necessarily something I may question, and (2) questioning may be a waste of time.
If a paper that says mixing red and blue paint makes green paint has a thousand citations, perhaps you don't need to question it because others already have. If you can't reproduce it, the simplest thing to do is ask an expert who says it is possible to do it.
If making green paint is impossible I think that it will eventually self correct, or is simply inconsequential. In some instances it may take a while, but if the alternative is to reprove a result before using it — that seems like something only a fool would do or someone with infinite time.
I see this widely used by antivaxxers now.
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.”
It's the first time I've heard it, but it's a very appropriate observation in today's world where misinformation travels faster and wider than correct information. If you're just making stuff up, it's much faster than looking up sources.