= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Get Curious - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (98)
It's a pseudoscience article from which they remove the clues by which one could recognize pseudoscience, that's what's bad.
Also, it should link to past quack treatments of 20th century. I'm going to try again adding those when I have time. It's way less cool and contrarian when you learn that it was popular nonsense when radiation was first discovered.
If you added those before and they were reverted, then you should be discussing it on Talk and going for consensus.
It's been ages ago (>5 years i think), i don't even quite remember how it all went.
What's irritating about wikipedia is that the rule against original research in the articles spills over and becomes attitude against any argumentation not based on appeal to authority. So you have the folks there, they are curious about this hormesis concept, maybe they are actually just curious, not some proponents / astroturf campaign. But they are not interested in trying to listen to any argument and think if it is correct or not themselves. I don't know, maybe it's an attempt to preserve own neutrality on issue. In any case it is incredibly irritating. It's half-curiosity.