[version_five]

If people just wanted stats or references, there are other places for that. They (we) come to a forum to discuss stuff, so anecdotes have value. Plus in general they are easier and more entertaining to process.

I'll also point out that your question has an anecdote in it about a current front page post. This is not a bad thing, you use it to illustrate your point, same as happens in comments.

(And, your headline implies without any evidence that your anecdotes make HN readers "anti-science". This is not good)

[thelettere]

There are no studies on the empiricism of HN comments, in which case anecdotes and personal observations are all we have.

And I'm not making some obtuse argument, but a common sense one which is readily recognizable by anyone who frequents HN. Are you contesting it?

[DiggyJohnson]

You would need to see a study on the empiricism of HN comments before you cede that these discussions are valuable for the people to choose to engage in them? You’re holding discussion to the rigor of scientific publication. Have you completely squashed your internal agent of curiosity?

[thelettere]

My point was that we don't have to pretend that we're the first sentient beings to have a conversation on these issues, or ignore/dismiss that on many of them there has been progress made. That while there remain many fascinating open questions about them, the shape of others is relatively known.

There is a Sisyphean quality to the never-ending recurrent pop-up of conversations on topics like depression and loneliness. Every few months if not sooner another round of active conversations pops up with hardly any recognition that this has been discussed - here or elsewhere - before, or that it's been examined with greater rigor than personal experience can provide.

So no, I'm not saying that discussion should be held "to the rigor of scientific publication". I'm saying that a century or more of systemic investigation deserves some space - however small - in the conversation. Or better still should serve as the backdrop, so that what we're discussing isn't forever retreading to no avail the same often wrong-headed paths.

If on a post on nuclear energy someone brought up the idea of rubbing sticks together as a viable alternative national energy source he'd be downvoted and laughed out of the room.

But the equivalent - or worse (i.e. not just ludicrous but counter-factual) in conversations on topics having to do with human beings doesn't just get entertained but is often celebrated as the fount of wisdom.

And here's the thing: when we say someone is educated, what do we mean? In the fullest sense, what does it mean to be an educated person? It means to know something of human beings, which is ultimately the most consequential subject.

And so for the conversations on this most consequential subject to be such an un-self-aware dark ages shit-show in a group that largely holds up - at least in word - science and technology, progress and the future, learning and rationality is ludicrous. And that it continues forevermore still more so.

So I am pointing out what I would hope to be a sobering contradiction. And that if the group is so fascinated by these subjects - they seem at times to be the more active discussions on the site - maybe some of that energy could be used to actually learn something about the subject.

So that future discussions could - at least once in a while - touch on the wonders of nuclear energy instead of being forever damned to never-ending masturbatory chats about sticks.

[version_five]

FYI, your downstream comment is "dead", only people with showdead on can see it - I think this is because of the fourth last word you used. Don't ask me how I know, but variations of this word automatically kill posts

[thelettere]

Appreciate the FYI. Of course it's on the comment where I lay out my clearest argument - but so it goes.