[antidesitter]

> The model of human cognition I'm referring to is the hybrid connectionist-symbolic one that Marcus is well known for advocating

> I'm criticizing it for being more a theoretical model than one grounded in the physical realities of the brain, which of course no one really understands

You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you claim Marcus' model is "incorrect". On the other, you claim there's insufficient evidence either way. Which is it?

> are YOU strawmanning? lol

Do you know what the term "strawmanning" means? What could I possibly be strawmanning since I was asking for clarification?

> Proposing a research program on that basis requires a high burden of proof.

As opposed to...?

> Yes I am claiming that, if the benchmark for "interesting" is deep learning.

"Deep learning" isn't the correct benchmark since that's what Marcus is critiquing (to some extent) in the first place.

> I would argue that there is not even close to enough evidence that a hybrid approach has improved generalizable power.

Then you'd be wrong. Here's a good place to start your research:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1279

> Huh? I guess it's the term my mother would use.

Your mother taught you to describe scientific debate as "kvetching"? That's disappointing.

[dang]

Can you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style? You've been doing it a lot. We want thoughtful dicussion here, not gotcha vendettas here.

In particular, your comments have broken this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

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

[antidesitter]

> Can you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style? You've been doing it a lot.

Can you clarify? How have I "been doing it a lot"? And how was my comment "in the flamewar style"?

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

Which part of the GP's comment do you think I'm unfairly interpreting?

[dang]

Here are other recent cases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18503013, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18447094, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18378261. That is what we're asking you not to do.

HN threads are supposed to be thoughtful conversation—not cross examinations or verbal boxing matches, let alone setups to make other people look bad.

[antidesitter]

How would you rephrase those comments while retaining their content? Genuine question. Because sometimes I get the impression that simply stating facts is enough to induce knee-jerk flagging.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the second comment you linked to, in particular. What do you find objectionable about it?

I'm also still curious to know which part of the GP's comment you think I'm strawmanning.

[dang]

The problem with these questions is that the cost of answering them is an order of magnitude greater than that of posing them. That's what I mean about a boxing match: anyone who responds to the barrage will exhaust themselves, only to meet with twice as many questions. That is not how good-faith discussion works. You have to meet the other person halfway—and if you can't meet them halfway, why engage?

When I read your comments, they seem to carry a charge of aggression presenting itself as inquiry. In order to be in the spirit of this site, that quality needs to go. Here's an old pg quote that I love, which expresses the right spirit: Comments should be written in the spirit of colleagues cooperating in good faith to figure out the truth about something, not politicians trying to ridicule and misrepresent the other side.

Re facts: your comments are probably being flagged, first because they do a lot more than merely state facts (examples: "I encourage you to open your mind", "Can you not read?", "The only one being a jerk here is you"), and second because facts can also be weapons; it depends on how they're used.

Re the GP: taking someone to task for using the word 'kvetch' is cheap and has overtones. You can see that in the bewildered way the other user responded. Had you been following the site guidelines, you'd have dropped that bit. Please take the guidelines to heart, and you'll do much better here.

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

[antidesitter]

Thanks.

> The problem with all these questions is that the cost of answering them is an order of magnitude greater (more, actually) than the cost of posing them.

No, I don’t think so. Requesting clarification and/or evidence when someone makes a claim like that is not unreasonable. It’s

(1) ensuring everyone’s on the same page to avoid pointless misunderstandings, and

(2) upholding the burden of proof, i.e. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Genuine discussion would be impossible without these two things. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, they should have to spend time doing the necessary research and presenting it.

> I encourage you to open your mind.

I see nothing uncivil about this.

> Can you not read?

> The only one being a jerk here is you.

Neither of these appear in the comments you linked to.

> and second because facts can also be weapons; it depends on how they're used.

Who gets to decide whether “facts are used as weapons”, and what does that even mean? This is veering into dangerous territory and I’m surprised to hear you think this way.

> Re the GP: taking someone to task for using the word 'kvetch' is cheap and has overtones.

I did mean to take them to task for using the word “kvetching”. Because debate/critiquing/disagreement is not “kvetching”, and it’s absolutely unfair for people to characterize it as such. Debate is essential to science. There’s nothing “cheap” about that.