zlacker

>>lordna+(OP)
I guess it is a perfect opportunity to thank dang and sctb for their unobtrusive and friendly moderation efforts.

The article itself was a bit disappointing because it focused on political issues. In my opinion the strength of HN in this regard is that it is both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right", as evidenced by the fact that a comment on a controversial topic can easily float near zero points while raking in both upvotes and downvotes. And even those who refer to it as "the orange site" still come back and comment. In other words, HN may be an echo chamber but it is a pretty big one with a lot of voices in it.

>>dunkel+xc
> both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right"

I definitely want to give credit to dang and sctb for making it that way. It could have gone differently. In particular, the no-politics argument is basically a fancy way of saying "nothing that challenges the status quo please". [1] I really appreciate them trying to keep the forum in a state where these discussion can at least happen. I would have left long ago if flagging had continued to be used to kill topics.

[1] See, e.g., Prof Ichikawa on how skepticism gets misused to defend the status quo: https://twitter.com/jichikawa/status/1134323822096658433

>>wpietr+v31
This user seems to be conflating skepticism with denialism. These two groups would take completely different positions on the issues listed (eg. climate change).

>>Square+x81
When you say "this user" you're talking about Dr Ichikawa, the professor of philosophy? Who specializes in the very topic you're attempting to correct them on? I can't tell if you're serious or if this is just some sort of Poe's Law attempt to satirize the behavior he's pointing out.

>>wpietr+hE1
The skeptical movement subscribes to critical thinking, empiricism, and applying the scientific model to find answers. To say that skeptics don't believe in climate change is very untrue.

This is contrasted to denialism which denies claims out of hand. This is not based on scientific data, but gut feeling or motivated reasoning.

Dr. Ichikawa is thus describing denialism in his tweets.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

edit: Here is an article on the distinction from one of the strongest figures in the skeptical movement, Steven Novella. It even focuses on the topic of climate change.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/skeptic-vs-den...

>>Square+zL1
You seem to be confusing the skeptical movement, which is indeed a specific group of people, with skepticism, which exists before and outside of that movement.

>>wpietr+c32
Perhaps the meaning has changed, but at the very least that is how the word is used today. As an example /r/skeptic is a large community of people that self-identify as skeptics.

>>Square+I52
Your arrogance continues to astound me. The guy is an actual professor of philsophy talking about his specialty. The word has been used for hundreds of years. Yes, it has a particular meaning in its community. Reddit is not the whole of the world.

>>wpietr+gb3
You know what. I can accept that there's a separate meaning in philosophy that this professor uses it in that context. Words often have unique meanings in specific fields.

However the colloquial, general meaning is still that of scientific skepticism. That's what comes up when you search skepticism on Wikipedia, reddit, or various definitions. That's also what is reasonably being referred to in a Hacker News post; a community that often subscribes to the same values expressed in skepticism.

Unless you know this professor and can put his words in their appropriate context, then the whole thing reads as decrying an entire movement of scientifically-minded people.