undefined | Better HN

0 pointsingsoc795y ago0 comments

Yes, as it establishes the potential bias of the article author. If this article was written by typically a pro-nuclear author it would be much more noteworthy.

0 comments

pydry5y ago

That was the idea behind this nuclear industry PR piece from a few weeks ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26213984

Predictably, it didn't bring up the costs (though of course the first comment on HN did) but it tried to play the "environmentalist who has seen the light" angle pretty hard.

It's actually kind of weird how many articles like this do get submitted to hacker news. Link says "it's safe & making a comeback", comments say "it's just not economic and no" <- this has happened quite a few times.

lamontcg5y ago

It is possible to be both biased and correct.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_bias

treesprite825y ago

Noting an author's biases/motives, like agarttha did, is useful. It's not the same as asserting that a conclusion is logically false because of the biases of the person who argued it.

pydry5y ago

In this case I thought it was rather obvious what the author's bias was and he doesnt't try to hide it.

It might be useful if they tried to conceal it. E.g tried to present themselves as an objective researcher at a think tank that takes money from general dynamics/lockheed or a journalist who clearly hastily rewrote a press release.

mamon5y ago

Broken clock shows the right time twice a day. Biased people being correct is an exception, not the rule. We should be suspicious of people with know biases.

lamontcg5y ago

Well that's interesting in light of the obvious pro-nuclear bias of HN.

StavrosK5y ago

Is it bias when you have an opinion and share it? The article can contain some of the reasons he's anti-nuclear, instead of the other way around, where his bias causes him to write the article.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pydry5y ago

That was the idea behind this nuclear industry PR piece from a few weeks ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26213984

Predictably, it didn't bring up the costs (though of course the first comment on HN did) but it tried to play the "environmentalist who has seen the light" angle pretty hard.

lamontcg5y ago

It is possible to be both biased and correct.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_bias

treesprite825y ago

Noting an author's biases/motives, like agarttha did, is useful. It's not the same as asserting that a conclusion is logically false because of the biases of the person who argued it.

pydry5y ago

In this case I thought it was rather obvious what the author's bias was and he doesnt't try to hide it.

mamon5y ago

Broken clock shows the right time twice a day. Biased people being correct is an exception, not the rule. We should be suspicious of people with know biases.

lamontcg5y ago

Well that's interesting in light of the obvious pro-nuclear bias of HN.

StavrosK5y ago

Is it bias when you have an opinion and share it? The article can contain some of the reasons he's anti-nuclear, instead of the other way around, where his bias causes him to write the article.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse