[jMyles]

Stories like this are the reason that I think that the following headline format is rightly banned from HN in the future:

"Scientists <verb>."

Nobody cares that "scientists" did something. We care about the science of what they did, sure. But this is a built-in appeal to authority that seems completely anti-hacker to me.

[bllguo]

The doomsday clock is somewhat silly, but I disagree in general. I think "appeal to authority" fallacy is misunderstood. How is it illogical to listen to qualified authorities? It only breaks when one uses authority in one field to claim credibility in something else.

[AnimalMuppet]

But that's exactly the situation here. The scientists' authority is not in fields related to international relations, or to arms control theory, or to game theory applied to military escalation.

[Turing_Machine]

What makes "scientists" somehow especially qualified to opine on military and national security matters?

For making the actual bombs, yes, you need scientists and engineers, but the use (or likelihood of use) of the bombs is not a scientific issue.

> It only breaks when one uses authority in one field to claim credibility in something else.

Which is exactly what they're doing.

[jMyles]

I didn't mean to suggest that it's illogical to listen to qualified authorities.

I don't think that qualified authorities need to be introduced with "scientists <verb>."

[tudorw]

surely 'failing to appeal to authority' would be anti-hacker, any elegantly hacked solution would appeal to authority while simultaneously undertaking pro-hacker activity in order to legitimise and make maximum impact with your actions, I would rather consider these scientists who have taken their time to bring something important to our attention as media hackers, and the fact we are discussing them tells me their fu is prime.