It seems like the person is fighting the good fight, maybe, but who is Dynomight?
These random bloggers/influencers speaking from self-proclaimed high ground is in large part how we got in this mess. There are a gazillion people out there who know how to say the right things, to get the right minds, the click the right "follow" buttons, none of which has any bearing on truth, honesty, or accuracy.
>These random bloggers/influencers speaking from self-proclaimed high ground is in large part how we got in this mess. There are a gazillion people out there who know how to say the right things, to get the right minds, the click the right "follow" buttons, none of which has any bearing on truth, honesty, or accuracy.
Did you get to the end? He addresses that.
>I’ll just be honest. I think this view is completely indefensible. I feel embarrassed when I see people promoting it. You’re sure? How? I don’t see any way to get to this conclusion other than heavily filtering the evidence—ignoring the flaws in everything that supports a predetermined view while scrambling to find flaws in everything that contradicts it.
>Again, I’m sure you can send me long lists of random citations. (You don’t need to send them; it’s OK; I’ve seen them already.) But for anything that’s been studied in detail, there’s always lots of evidence to support any semi-plausible view. Do you have any idea how much evidence people can produce for UFOs or chronic Lyme or colloidal silver?
The author makes no effort anywhere on the site to give themselves any credibility. They don't even give their name or occupation. A google search lends no more real information either.
From my POV it might as well be a youtube comment that is 8 pages long.
> Why would I spend my time reading a random blog?
Because other HackerNews readers have determined that it's interesting.
Ideally, you should let the quality of the writing be more important to you than who wrote it. However, I've read enough previous blog posts from there that I recognise the "dynomight" name as being worth a click and a read.
> I don’t see any way to get to this conclusion other than heavily filtering the evidence—ignoring the flaws in everything that supports a predetermined view while scrambling to find flaws in everything that contradicts it.
Is that not what he's doing when he dismisses the evidence that contradicts his view?
The article is fairly good. He specifically addresses research that doesn't support the conclusion. He’s not exactly a random blogger, this person is known for the quality of their research. At least in my circles…
These random bloggers/influencers speaking from self-proclaimed high ground is in large part how we got in this mess. There are a gazillion people out there who know how to say the right things, to get the right minds, the click the right "follow" buttons, none of which has any bearing on truth, honesty, or accuracy.