There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org cover
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

UlrikeHahn

@[email protected]

Academic @Birkbeck, Univ. of London
Centre for Cognition, Computation, and Modelling

was just at Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study working on Digital Democracy with Davide Grossi and Michael Maes

currently here: Munich Centre for Mathematical Philosophy, LMU

back to London next year

works on #rationality #argumentation #testimony #SocialNetworks #misinformation #ComputationalSocialScience #DigitalDemocracy

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

UlrikeHahn , to philosophy
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

When scientists make erroneous pronouncements outside their area of expertise that's misinformation. When they make predictions that prove wrong that can be hugely consequential. How do we stop ourselves from doing this and how do we recognise epistemic trespass in others? What actually constitutes 'expertise', particularly in novel, interdisciplinary contexts ?

Join the scibeh.org 2024 online workshop to help us all work this out

https://www.scibeh.org/events/workshop2024/

@philosophy

UlrikeHahn OP ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@philosophy
The SciBeh2024 workshop will have great speakers who will approach the question both from the perspectives of their core research (e.g., Jamie C. Watson) and from concrete, practical contexts such as the pandemic (e.g., Christina Pagel @chrischirp), and they represent a range of views and perspectives.

But it's not just interesting talks, SciBeh workshops are interactive and designed to have concrete outcomes produced by participants, see the scibh.org webpage for examples

UlrikeHahn OP ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@paulralph @philosophy

that is exactly the question of the workshop! simply shouting "trespass" would miss the value that different disciplinary (and personal) perspectives can bring- so how can we try and understand the difference between contexts where it helps and where it is really inappropriate?
The intuition behind the workshop is that we can make progress with that question by thinking more deeply about the nature and different aspects of 'expertise'

UlrikeHahn OP ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@koen_hufkens @paulralph @philosophy not just scientific, but more generally, intellectual humility, is part of the discussion

18+ RossGayler , to cogsci
@RossGayler@aus.social avatar

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for journals to publish some research:

Subject: Artificial Intelligence (very broadly interpreted)

Acceptance criteria: Peer reviewed

Publication model: Diamond/Platinum open access - free to read and free to publish

Licensing: Something unrestrictive, like CC-BY and author retains all rights

@cogsci @academicchatter

18+ UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@RossGayler @cogsci @academicchatter

https://www.jair.org/index.php/jair

UlrikeHahn , to philosophy
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

“There is no such thing as a real picture.” Discuss.

@philosophy

https://www.techradar.com/phones/samsung-galaxy-phones/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-real-picture-samsung-defends-ai-photo-editing-on-galaxy-s24

UlrikeHahn OP ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@resipiscent @philosophy

I thought the claim was genuinely interesting because it conflates (I think?) properties of a) pictures as representations and pictures as b) a means of recording things...

If I think about painting your sky that day any painting might be taken to be as 'real' as any other (including an expressionist rendering the sky as green..), but as a recording of what a human observer actually experienced, one will be more accurate and hence 'real'

UlrikeHahn OP ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@resipiscent @philosophy

it felt like they were using an appeal to something like a) to sweep away a legitimate concern about function b)

tragiccommons , to random
@tragiccommons@infosec.exchange avatar

I've been reading a lot about the state of scientific publishing. Some people seem to think it's in trouble, but I see signs of health from the various innovations people are trying. Some interesting examples include the use of openreview.net to open up reviews and give credit to reviewers, and the decision by eLife to stop issuing rejections, but open up the process instead. There is an interesting critique of the eLife decision by @MarkHanson located here: https://mahansonresearch.weebly.com/blog/do-we-really-need-journals

It's a weird time for me to be working on a new journal publishing platform, but maybe it's the right time. I've always been bugged by the economics of journal publishing, and that's what got me started working on it. Maybe I should shift my focus to the social process of publishing. The death of hasn't helped, and I don't think LinkedIn and on the fediverse have filled the need yet.

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@SamCrawley @tragiccommons @academicchatter there is a new group to follow (and include) for posts on new paths, ideas, developments, and tools for science digital infrastructure: @open_science

UlrikeHahn , to cogsci
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

We have a new pape on polarisation with an of naïve Bayesian agents. It ends a decade of thinking about from a perspective, so I thought I’d summarise that decade in a thread.

The Issue: Much of what we believe to ‘know’ we know through the testimony of others. Intuitively, how much I adjust my beliefs in response to you saying “it is snowing” should depend on how reliable/accurate you are (ie the likelihoods associated with your report) 1/9

@cogsci
@philosophy

bwaber , to random
@bwaber@hci.social avatar

We had some crazy weather in Boston today (ominous pic of the crows is from last week), but at least I had some talks for my to keep me company while helping my neighbor clear a downed tree from their driveway! (1/9)

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@bwaber by far the most interesting/informative thing I saw with respect to all year is this talk by William Merrill which came from Ben Waber’s great regular digest of online talks - watch this, follow Ben…(money back guarantee)

(passing familiarity with the Chomsky hierarchy and complexity theory will help, but you only need to understand what kind of thing they are for the talk to be interesting)

@linguistics @cognition

ml , to academicchatter
@ml@ecoevo.social avatar

For the love of Mike, get past your ableism, academia!

You should already have done it for the sake of disabled academics, but climate emergency means it is utterly wasteful and foolhardy to keep holding in-person events that everyone has to pony up to travel to instead of academia investing in creative, accessible online events.

It also makes the event more accessible to those who cannot get visas, $ to travel, etc. @academicchatter

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@kraweel65 @ml @academicchatter given that humanity needs to drastically reduce carbon emissions, isn’t the question ‘is online as good as in person?’ the wrong question to ask? For any activity, we should be asking whether the CO2 footprint justifies that activity, and take things from there. How good online conferences are is just one part of that assessment, because it’s got to be an outcome for consideration that we no longer do conferences at all…no?

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@kraweel65 @ml @academicchatter I don’t think my own research has that level of priority tbh. Or at least it merits real consideration whether it does. I obviously can’t speak for yours.

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@kraweel65 @ml @academicchatter I fear we are (probably most of us, but certainly me) just at the beginning of trying to wrap our heads around how radically things are going to have to change…

tiago , (edited ) to academicchatter
@tiago@social.skewed.de avatar

It seems like Mastodon is losing its mindshare to among many academics.

I can't help but think this has to do with the self-imposed limitations of Mastodon — lack of quotes, ordered timeline, etc. Makes it less interesting to use, for no real advantage.

Sad, because the underlying decentralization is much more robust.

@academicchatter

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@tiago @academicchatter @elduvelle academics rushing to a proprietary, data grabbing, invite only platform doesn’t reflect well on academia.

it makes the idea of substantive academic/science reform feel rather hopeless, to be honest

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@tiago @boud @LukasBrausch @academicchatter that argument applies to both design choices (QT yes, QT no)……so doesnt go anywhere, really, no?

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@tiago @boud @LukasBrausch @academicchatter

interesting allocation of burden of proof….

I don’t really see a cogent reason for why the burden should be on those not wanting QT, particularly as they are actually the people who put in the effort and built the platform

( I don’t have any role in this, let alone a burden of proof…I’m not designing anything)

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@tiago @boud @LukasBrausch but they have justified them, over and over. You just don’t agree….

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@tiago @boud @LukasBrausch

A provides reason …

B thinks reason isn’t cogent

what now?

depends on whether there is a burden of proof carried by A….

what we are discussing is whether A should carry the burden of proof.

That must be determined on grounds other than considerations of the reasons they gave for the claim itself (which are relevant for whether the burden has been met, if in fact it exists, not whether it exists in the first place).

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@tiago @boud @LukasBrausch

I asked why the burden of proof should lie with those against QT

  • in response, you said developers should justify their choices, I replied they have, you replied that their justification is insufficient.
    Even if we were to hypothetical take that assessment as read, that doesn’t address the underlying (consequence governing) issue of ‘who holds the burden of proof’.
UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@tiago @boud @LukasBrausch

the issue isn’t some ill-defined epistemic burden of proof (ie what to believe in the absence of sufficient evidence)- for one, we can simply (plausibly) say “we don’t know whether QTs cause harm”, so I think it’s misguided to argue (as you seemingly want to) that in the absence of evidence we should BELIEVE QTs do no harm (which is what your BoP boils down to).

Rather the burden of proof is about what to do, given a state of knowledge 1/

UlrikeHahn ,
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org avatar

@tiago @boud @LukasBrausch 2/ and for that there are any number of grounds to argue that the burden of proof rests with those seeking change, for example…

maybe this clarifies things: https://write.as/ulrikehahn/scrutinising-popular-arguments-for-quote-tweets-on-mastodon-an-argumentation

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •