Am I missing something? This is a link to an article where a bunch of scientists and public intellectuals answer the question, and it provides all kinds of cool content, such as "impedance matching", and the notion that natural selection implies that our DNA can tell us about the environments our genetic ancestors lived in.
Instead of reading, reacting, or engaging with any of those ideas, people are just directly responding to the headline as though this is an ask HN thread. I'm not sure that that's what was intended here?
I would love to hear people talk about this "genetic book of the dead" idea. For instance, the terrifying drowning reflex that people have, there must have been scenarios in our evolutionary past where that happened often enough that this mutation came in handy, which is haunting to think about. I would love for this thread to be a discussion of the ideas presented in the article.
I think there's a huge problem with attention span on the internet. Dopamine rush from new content is a thing and there is so much of it available that people can't help chase it all the time. This kind of engagement really degrades the quality of a community and I think we should do all we can to keep it at bay. Explicit, inoffensive, boring headlines can go a long way in weeding out people who are looking for their next rush. I don't know, maybe if this post was titled, "Scientists discuss what concepts ought to be widely known", it would lend itself less to clickbait?
Similar to other social news sites: a great many HN readers go straight to the comments to chime in.
Often the articles themselves aren’t even more than a few minutes reading and the comments have questions and ideas that were directly addressed by the piece.
There has been a long discussion about what to do about this problem (from slashdot to digg to reddit and so on) - however the idea of requiring commenters to jump through hoops or unpaid moderators to somehow keep the discussion factual seems more like a way to kill the site.
For your amusement: pay casual attention to the comment count on any HN post that contains “apple” or one of their better known trademarks. No one is reading anything - it’s just a gangbang.
As someone who learned about the electrical meaning of impedance matching in school, where impedance is a commonly discussed fundamental quantity in circuits (it’s the AC equivalent to resistance), I have always tried to avoid using the term outside of engineering circles to avoid confusing people.
This is the first I’ve ever heard someone deliberately apply it to a disparate array of phenomena but I have to say that, to me, the phrase makes sense in all those contexts and has a nice ring to it.
I've used it to discuss organisational dynamics. Most recently, for a small startup trying to establish a service agreement for a large enterprise customer, and the differences in values, expectations, processes etc that hampered the relationship, which we termed an "impedence mismatch" and all the engineers in the room at least nodded.
Labelling certain problems this way, dispassionately and without rancour, really took heat out of the discussion, which assisted in finding solutions. In such circumstances, differences are bridgeable with understanding, which inevitably provokes jokes about certain people being transformers, being tightly wound etc.
Complete tangent here but I've noticed a form of impedance matching when I talk to certain people. I think it's a combination of natural cadence and information density or something, but there are some folks that I can effortlessly talk to and others where we constantly struggle with stepping on top of each other and/or seek clarification. It's a pairwise thing without a common cause that I can see. For example, I can see the folks that I struggle to talk with speak effortlessly with others as well. It's really odd.
But anyway to drive the point home I started calling it an impedance mismatch which makes sense to some and not others. :)
he is talking about our DNA are evolution results of our ancients, and because they can estimate age and natural selection stress of genes, maybe it is possible to rebuild phenotype of ancient. For example, estimating egg size of octopus, web type of spiders... and so on.
Error bars to uncertainty of facts presented. Confidence.
Sometimes I think the bandwidth/delay product is insufficiently appreciated but I can't quite say why.
Db are widely misunderstood. And RMS. Without a reference, 2x bigger is meaningless. Likewise s/n ratio is misunderstood. Scale free can be OK, but usually not.
People need to know that cells don't have walls and are not bags of liquid. At the scale we're talking about lipid membranes, and van der waals forces inside a cell and the like are not well described by "wall" and "fluid"
What is wrong with the cell wall idea. Yes it is a lipid double layer, but it seems to separate the inside and outside quite well (you need all those channels to get stuff in)
As a complete layperson, I suspect osmosis may be a good counterexample. Channels react selectively to various compounds, but water can probably pass through the membrane more easily.
Wikipedia (heh) seems to support this idea, but my gosh is this all complex.
> Compared to ions, water molecules actually have a relatively large permeability through the bilayer, as evidenced by osmotic swelling. [...] Small uncharged apolar molecules diffuse through lipid bilayers many orders of magnitude faster than ions or water. This applies both to fats and organic solvents like chloroform and ether. Regardless of their polar character larger molecules diffuse more slowly across lipid bilayers than small molecules.
But then any model has its limitations, doesn't it. I think hydrogen can go through metal (and probably walls), so you could say walls are not a good model for walls.
Yea,those channels. They're complicated and x ray crystallography only broadly supports a thesis they are little holes. There's all kinds of weirdness going on, opening and closing by twisting under voltage and other stimuli. If you think it's a little pipe or even like a stomata (which is a macrocellular structure in plants which have cell walls in real sense) you've been led down the metaphor too far. Or, so I am told. I'm not a cell biologist.
Evolution should have been taught as applied statistics and stochastic effects. Using language of implied determinism by genes was a suicide move to the religious. It's applied probability folks, "more successful" is on average. Selection pressure is on average.
That almost every news headline or report involving a "large number" is misleading, and can be deconstructed starting with the question "Is that actually a big number?"
This is the purpose of BBC Radio's "More or Less", which can also be found as a podcast.
If you are driving 5 miles across town (dx), and you average 25 mph (v), it will take you roughly 5/25 hours, or 12 minutes (dt) to get there. By driving 50 miles per hour, you get there in 6 minutes. Is it worth the risk to yourself and others (bikers and pedestrians) to save 6 minutes?
If you are driving to work and it normally takes you 30 minutes to get there by going 60 mph (30 miles), then if you go 80 mph by frequently changing lanes and tailgating the guy in front of you you will save around 8 minutes getting to work.
dt = 30/60 = 30 min
dt = 30/80 = 22.5 min
Is it worth the risk to yourself and others to save 8 minutes?
Work 100km. Driving 80km/h with little lane switching is 75 min. Going 150km/h also with little lane switching is 40min. Is saving 35 minutes worth it: absolutely.
Going faster than 130 km/h (85 mph) is not worth it in most cars because you can't recover the extra time needed to refuel due to higher fuel consumption.
The gist: consider a yes/no test that has a small chance of being wrong (false positive and false negative). Examples: spam filter, virus filter, pregnancy test, testing for another illness, etc.
How well it performs in reality depends enormously on the real ratio of yes vs. no.
Example:
Spam filter is 99% correct, 1% false positive and equally 1% false negative. That sounds good! And it is - IF your spam vs ham rate is 50-50. If, however, 99% of mails are spam, and you use this filter on 10,000 mails, then:
- 9900 are spam; 100 ham
- 1% of ham = 1 mail ends up in spamfolder
- 1% of spam = 99 mails end up in inbox.
So your inbox now contains 99 ham mails and 99 spam - an unacceptable 50-50 ratio, even though your using a superduper spam filter.
Changing the base rate of spam affects the outcome drastically. Obviously, 99% ham and only 1% spam flips the numbers around: inbox is fine, but 50% of your spamfolder isn't spam. Also not really okay -- and that with exactly the same filter, just a different base rate.
TL;DR: actual effectiveness of tests which have false positives/negatives is heavily skewed by the frequency of occurrence of whatever you're testing for.
In more practical terms, yes you absolutely should trust scientists, and it's important to know the difference between an "appeal to authority fallacy" and "deferral to expertise".
Scientists are not in the business of making recommendations to lay people. There are other professions for that: doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, journalists etc. Scientists are mostly in the business of disproving the conjectures of other scientists.*
* actually grant-writing, but I’m not sure that counts either
Also, I’m pretty sure that the inclusion of “deferring to experts” in the accepted rules of formal logic would be a minority opinion among philosophy professors specializing in that area. “The fallacy guy” may not appreciate the irony there. It’s still a fallacy because it’s not logical in the strict sense of an argument (deduction from premise), regardless of whether it’s a good idea or not. It would only hold if the premise was that the “expert” source was an honest oracle, so without acceptance of that premise by both parties, the argument is erroneous.
I happen to be a biochemist, and I find your view of what a scientist does to be excessively narrow.
We're also not talking about formal logic (I clearly started my comment by saying "in more practical terms", did I not?), we're talking about a distinction between an appropriate and an inappropriate heuristic. I highly recommend you finish reading the article I posted.
I find it amazing that people can argue endlessly about conclusions or personal judgements, especially when morals are concerned, without any effort to discover the premise upon which the disagreement rests. I think people should learn about argumentation as a method to discover truth and agreement, rather than a competition.
I’m not highly knowledgeable in this domain, just a person that would like to have more productive and less emotional or moralistic conversations.
Most people aren't able to observe and willingly acknowledge their emotional response to a given issue, others don't think deeply enough to understand why disagreeing can sometimes lead to a clearer understanding of both their position and the world around them.
People parodying two completely different court cases against each-other and claiming some kind of "injustice" is a common example of this. It's charitable to even consider this kind of lowball mental gymnastics a middle-school level of argumentation.
Tbh, I think most people who haven't studied logic or understand why first principles are important just let the current tide of politics / emotion completely drive their perception.
The obvious counter argument to the genetic book of the dead would be that our genome, rather than being an append-only log of our evolution, is a snapshot of our current morphology that is constantly being overwritten.
There simply is no history because the overwrites delete what was there before. If we evolve wings then our arms=arms gene gets deleted and replaced with a arms=wings gene?
That is clearly not how Dawkins thinks of it but I wish he had explained why the genes-as-mutable-variables model is wrong.
Proportions in the solar system. Most people know that Moon:Sun diameters is 400, and so is distances to Moon and Sun from Earth. That's why it eclipses Sun so well. But hardly anyone knows that this kind of proportions are almost everywhere in the solar system.
Organic chemistry. Most of the stuff barely requires high school math to understand and is fundamental for health and nutrition are your responsibility to take care of, not your doctors'. As a corollary, macro nutrients.
How computer works from logic gates and up. (I think it was in the article under boolean logic) This one actually requires high school math to understand, but not that much. Knowledge is power and tech is everywhere in our life and society. Democracy as we know it can't continue to exist if the power is in the minds of a few technocrats.
Astrology is not a science, and while quantum entanglement is a fascinating and important concept, it's not clear what it has to do with "the unknown".
Astrology was a science long before the western Enlightenment, which is irrelevant to its unique contributions to human knowledge - as a language of archetypes.
The only thing scientific about astrology, even generously speaking in historical context, is the observations and measurements of what would now fall under astronomy.
Astrology in the context of personality traits or "archetypes", as you put it, has never been a science and has always been a pseudoscience.
Smarter minds than me understand the workings of quantum entanglement about as well as they understand the workings of gravity. There are plenty of things we don't know.
> So you relegate all study of personality traits (which are different than archetypes) to the pseudoscience bin?
That’s called “psychology”. The real science even has that nice little observation that which side of the school admission year you’re born on is basically the only thing about when you’re born that makes any significant difference.
Unless you are actually trying to build an apparatus to measure entanglement, and then you get a much better sense of appreciation for the nature of your belief in something that is nearly impossible to conclusively demonstrate above the noise floor, and feels a lot more like prestidigitation and luck than it should.
Instead of reading, reacting, or engaging with any of those ideas, people are just directly responding to the headline as though this is an ask HN thread. I'm not sure that that's what was intended here?
I would love to hear people talk about this "genetic book of the dead" idea. For instance, the terrifying drowning reflex that people have, there must have been scenarios in our evolutionary past where that happened often enough that this mutation came in handy, which is haunting to think about. I would love for this thread to be a discussion of the ideas presented in the article.