
The Man Who Studies the Spread of Ignorance - bpolania
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance?ocid=fbfut&utm_content=buffered2c3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
dang
This is a dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554).

(Yes, we're working on a better dupe detector.)

~~~
EvanPlaice
Thank you for working on dupe detection.

Dupes of 'reaction' and/or controversial news posts have been pretty common
lately. Ex 'Dear GitHub' 'Dear Dear GitHub'.

One pattern I've noticed is there's almost always a comment with a link to the
previous post.

A shortcut solution could be to encourage users to use a common convention. Ex
'Dupe: [link-to-dupe]'. That way it would be especially easy to pattern match
and list dupes for moderation.

To prevent dupe creation to begin with might involve some creativity. Such as
checking the post link against existing links and notifying the user of an
existing post. Similar to what Stack Overflow's 'related posts' listing in the
question creation page.

~~~
dang
Follow-up posts like the example you mention aren't strictly dupes. Some of
them are good submissions in their own right, others (probably most) are a bit
lame.

A similar category that's a lot more problematic for HN is the spate of me-too
stories that inevitably pop up as every website in the business publishes its
copycat article about story Foo. Again, those aren't not strictly dupes, but
morally they are.

> A shortcut solution could be to encourage users to use a common convention

Too much like cat herding to succeed. But some kind of software support for
reporting dupes is on the agenda.

------
tokenadult
I confess I am ignorant about how this second submission of an article
recently discussed here[1] got through the duplicate submission filter. I do
enjoy the article, as it illustrates a point I have often observed as a
teacher: learners don't start out with blank slates in their minds, but often
have all kinds of preexisting misconceptions that have to be actively undone
in any educational process.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10856554)

~~~
bpolania
I found the reason, I found the article on LinkedIn, if you compare both links
you'll see that mine is different because linkedIn added some stuff at the end
of the url.

~~~
DrScump
Of course, but that doesn't make checking _before_ submitting difficult at
all: bottom search box, enter a relevant keyword (e.g. "ignorance"), then sort
by date. You'd see that it was posted twice before with the first getting 104
comments.

    
    
      linkedIn added some stuff at the end of the url
    

Yes, many sites (e.g. medium, signalvnoise) add phony fragment identifiers to
URLs now; I can't think of a reason to do so other than to _evade_ dupe
detection.

------
FreedomToCreate
I recently read a statistics books by Charles Wheelman in which he covers the
topic of using statistics to manipulate facts. I have always taken statistical
facts with a grain of salt, but when you understand the methods of
manipulation and then review papers debating climate change for example, its
mind blowing to see the manipulation of facts...by both sides of the argument.

~~~
peter_l_downs
Any pointers to good examples on both sides for the less knowledgeable (me)?
Something I assume is happening in any argument, but I'd love to see exactly
what you're talking about.

~~~
FreedomToCreate
Naked Statistics is the book I read a while back on the topic. There are two
particularly interesting chapters, one on Descriptive Description and one on
Statistical biases.

------
11thEarlOfMar
Here is one of my favorites: 'Microwave Ovens Cause Cancer':

[http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/why-you-
sh...](http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/why-you-should-never-
microwave-your-food/)

I mean, look at all the acronyms after this doctor's name. Clearly he is
expert. And his argument seems plausible to anyone who has not studied
physics.

Here's another one that is not quite as clear-cut: 'Anti-perspirants Cause
Cancer'.

[http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-
treatments/features/a...](http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-
treatments/features/antiperspirant-facts-safety?page=2)

""There is no convincing evidence that antiperspirant or deodorant use
increases cancer risk," Ted S. Gansler, MD, MBA, director of medical content
for the American Cancer Society"

Ah. Good. The American Cancer Society says anti-perspirants don't cause
cancer. To be safe, let's check one more...

"Because studies of antiperspirants and deodorants and breast cancer have
provided conflicting results, additional research is needed to investigate
this relationship and other factors that may be involved."

[http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/my...](http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/myths/antiperspirants-fact-sheet)

oh... but a US government site says it is unclear. Better dig a little more...

"Clinical studies ... provide supporting evidence for a role for locally
applied cosmetic chemicals in the development of breast cancer."

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045991](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045991)

Shit. The NIH says it does?

Better check Snopes before throwing away the Right Guard...

[http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp](http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp)

FALSE. 'Nuff said.

/s/

~~~
lern_too_spel
Your analysis of antiperspirants and cancer is completely wrong, and you've
likely fooled several people because you claim to have analyzed it correctly.
The fourth link isn't the NIH's official position — it's just a paper hosted
on an NIH paper-hosting service (PubMed). The Snopes link doesn't say that
antiperspirants don't cause cancer — it merely states that they aren't the
_leading_ cause of _breast_ cancer. The real takeaway is that the studies are
inconclusive and more research is needed before you can state that they are or
are not carcinogenic with any degree of confidence.

------
dexterdog
Trump is a very good example of his hypothesis on the Republican side but he
left an impression of bias by not balancing that with an example from the
other side of which there are also plenty.

~~~
skywhopper
I see Trump's rhetoric as so detached from reality, that I can't think of any
current, relevant people on "the other side" that would come close. Who do you
have in mind, exactly?

~~~
jeremyt
Seriously? You can't think of one person on the Democratic side who is
"suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or
unconstitutional"?

~~~
bendableFigure
Yeah, seriously. Please tell us all who you are conflating with the outright
stupidity, jingoism, and racism that is Trump.

~~~
jack9
Rightfully, Hillary and Sanders

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZFXkmofgI)

~~~
outlace
This is just manipulation of decent people. You can always get some percentage
of people to agree with something you've propositioned with a camera and mic
in their face and when they don't really understand what you mean (and then
edit out all the people that didn't). Basic psychology phenom.

Repealing the bill of rights is obviously not something Clinton or Sanders
have ever proposed and certainly have not been screaming it on national
television like Trump

This is absurdity of the tribe of Alex Jones

------
fiatmoney
I find it really ironic that he feels the need to make contentless jabs at
current political candidates in an effort to show how those candidates "spread
ignorance".

~~~
rybosome
Is your concern that there are an unnecessarily large number of references to
political candidates, or that there are references at all? While I am tired of
the constant jockeying for position and tribalism of politics, I also wonder
what would have been said of the most horrific leaders of the past during
their rise to power. Without totally diverting this discussion or fulfilling
Godwin's Law, there is a genuine fear among some US citizens that certain
candidates could be horrific in this manner.

~~~
lostlogin
As a someone outside the US, his policies would likely make more difference to
us than US citizens. And we don't get a vote.

------
magicmu
Interesting read, but not very much information underneath the fluff -- the
definition of "demagogue" combined with a cursory knowledge of common logical
fallacies covers pretty much everything here. It's also interesting that an
article like this is being published by an organization like the BBC; punditry
is (I think) one of the most common examples of the phenomenon of obfuscation
through constructed debate.

------
VLM
Looking at the dozens of "chewing gum for the mind" links surrounding the
story, before I even read the article I wonder:

1) Is it possible to have real content on a clickbait site? Is this story, any
story, worth an exception on the "no platform for clickbait" standard?

2) When did the BBC go full on tabloid clickbait? And on the tech side of
clickbait, Ghostery only blocked ten trackers, and of course I block flash.
BBC had (had!) an amazing reputation, but that was the BBC worldwide shortwave
service in 1975, etc, but this is an internet clickbait site in 2016... what
in the world happened?

