As a layperson who doesn't understand psychology but is interested in science and peace, I felt that Ferguson's article (this HN post) was much less directed at a person (as opposed to the person's work or theories put forward) and more professional, versus the linked blog post -- so I tend to believe the former.
Even a simple sentence like, "Ferguson did both of these things and his findings thus do not “undermine” our causal claims; he failed to accurately test our causal claims," comes across as scathing compared to the paper.
What they said on "If Books Could Kill" is an extremely thorough trouncing of Haidt's narrative and the methodologies of the researches he utilized in that book.
The summary is this:
The uptick is adequately explained by changes to mandatory reporting requirements for screening questions of mental health for teenagers from Obamacare and increased access to healthcare for those teenagers.
Refutes is a strong word. This is an ongoing debate and it’s not clear to me Haidt is on the right side of it. The Studies Show did a great episode on this, but unfortunately it’s paywalled. However, the show notes are public and link to the relevant back and forth if folks want to make up their own minds. https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/paid-only-episode-12-jon...
I'm not sure if anyone is ever going to "refute" much in this tussle
or that this can really be called a "debate", But there's an ugliness
to it and the casualty is science.
I'm not old enough to remember doctors appearing in TV adverts
claiming the health benefits of smoking. But I do remember those 1980s
green-washing campaigns from Shell and Esso (Exxon) showing animals
frolicking through the wonderful planet oil and gas were creating. I
also remember all the plastic recycling campaigns that turned out to
be rotten hoax.
Let's face it science gets used and tossed aside these days. Seeing
research papers that flat-out contradict each other every week is
tiring. All I want to say is that this utterly devalues science to see
such disingenuous conflict, and to know that at least one side is
making stuff up. It's going the same way as political debate and is an
embarrassment to everyone who participates and believes in science.
Obviously there is emotion on all sides. And there is surely a
humongous pot of money on one side. But I think where this is
heading... it's classic Sirkov style full-spectrum disinformation,
funding both sides and designed to undermine the very belief in
scientific research itself.
It benefits the anti-rationalists and nihilists who can say, "you know
what.. fuck science, I'm just going to assert what I like based on my
emotion alone!" That tends to favour the might-is-right crowd and the
shrill angry mob.
oneepic|1 year ago
Even a simple sentence like, "Ferguson did both of these things and his findings thus do not “undermine” our causal claims; he failed to accurately test our causal claims," comes across as scathing compared to the paper.
lamontcg|1 year ago
That's an extremely poor way to determine truth.
gotoeleven|1 year ago
This tendency of people nowadays to focus on tone and other irrelevant characteristics of an argument (as it is made) is dumb.
Amorymeltzer|1 year ago
eutropia|1 year ago
The summary is this:
The uptick is adequately explained by changes to mandatory reporting requirements for screening questions of mental health for teenagers from Obamacare and increased access to healthcare for those teenagers.
jjulius|1 year ago
beala|1 year ago
Edit: And here’s a link to their earlier free episode recorded before this new meta analysis: https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-25-is-it-the-pho...
Jimpulse|1 year ago
altruios|1 year ago
Maybe it also helps to immunize people to those same contagions as well: that seems less obvious that would happen, to me at least...
nonrandomstring|1 year ago
I'm not old enough to remember doctors appearing in TV adverts claiming the health benefits of smoking. But I do remember those 1980s green-washing campaigns from Shell and Esso (Exxon) showing animals frolicking through the wonderful planet oil and gas were creating. I also remember all the plastic recycling campaigns that turned out to be rotten hoax.
Let's face it science gets used and tossed aside these days. Seeing research papers that flat-out contradict each other every week is tiring. All I want to say is that this utterly devalues science to see such disingenuous conflict, and to know that at least one side is making stuff up. It's going the same way as political debate and is an embarrassment to everyone who participates and believes in science.
Obviously there is emotion on all sides. And there is surely a humongous pot of money on one side. But I think where this is heading... it's classic Sirkov style full-spectrum disinformation, funding both sides and designed to undermine the very belief in scientific research itself.
It benefits the anti-rationalists and nihilists who can say, "you know what.. fuck science, I'm just going to assert what I like based on my emotion alone!" That tends to favour the might-is-right crowd and the shrill angry mob.