Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by MartinCron 5280 days ago
Good point, but that narrative feels a lot like a specific example of sloppy science and poor measurement.

I'm going to stand by the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, even if that may create a small bias toward conventional thinking.
1 comments
yummyfajitas 5280 days ago
What's an "extraordinary claim"? And also, why do claims that are "historically dubious" automatically fall into the category of "extraordinary"?

In Bayesian terms, it sounds like you are merely stating that you assign a very small prior to the "natural reasons" hypothesis. I.e., you are claiming that before looking at the evidence, you believe "natural reasons" has a 1 in 1 million (or some similarly large number) chance of being true. Is this correct?

link
roguecoder 5280 days ago
Because oppression hurts real people, with real consequences. Any argument that will be used to deny people equal rights and justify mistreatment of them requires extraordinary evidence, because otherwise we end up at eugenics.

These discussions aren't theoretical; to pretend they are is actively harmful.

link
yummyfajitas 5280 days ago
Your entire post is a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Further, it's not even a correct use of the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. If the natural causes hypothesis is true, it does not logically follow that anyone should be oppressed.

It does, however, logically follow from the "natural causes" hypothesis that you can't have both equal rights and equal proportions (i.e., either you discriminate against men, or you have fewer women).

link