Viral 'human bird wings' video fake, probably an ad, expert says(foxnews.com)
foxnews.com
Viral 'human bird wings' video fake, probably an ad, expert says
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/22/viral-human-bird-wings-video-fake-probably-ad-expert-says/
22 comments
The guy that did the video was just on Dutch TV. He said it is fake. He's a movie maker and this was a 8-month long experiment.
Do you have a link for this? I can't find it on Google.
http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/5133/Media-technologie/article/det...
Google Translate should do a decent job ;).
By the way, the real name of the guy is 'Floris Kaayk'.
Google Translate should do a decent job ;).
By the way, the real name of the guy is 'Floris Kaayk'.
Ah, a great shame. :(
Thank you!
grins I hope some of the more credulous commenters here on HN[1] like the taste of crow. Especially the ones that attacked other commenters as being closed-minded for pointing out obvious problems with the video.
[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3732385
[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3732385
Some further analysis, and a theory that it's a viral marketing campaign for Kid Icarus.
http://metabunk.org/threads/480-Debunked-Human-Birdwings
http://metabunk.org/threads/480-Debunked-Human-Birdwings
Human bird winds project Jarno Smeets on Dutch TV said it's fake.
Video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OESwdRb48jM
However the "expert" was an expert on ads not engineering. Which perhaps qualifies him to assess viral video but not physics.
I'm no "expert" but I concluded it was fake and probably a promotional stunt. Too many wrong signals and clues to be otherwise.
OH RLY? Does anyone really thought it was real? I bet $ 100 it's a viral for Red Bull :)
I reject anything from fox news. If any other news source says it I'd even read it. Sorry fox is dead to me.
That's brilliant, particularly given that this post wasn't even written by Fox: http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2260-human-bird-wings-vi...
What a close-minded person you are. This is essentially an ad-hominem attack, as HN loves to point out--because it comes from a certain source, you dismiss it immediately and attempt to discredit it.
Discounting based on a source repeatedly shown to be unreliable is not ad hominem; it is proper evidential weighting.
It would be bad reasoning to say "because [source] says [claim] and [source] is unreliable, [claim] is probably wrong." But it is correct reasoning to say "[source] says [claim], but [source] is unreliable, so my beliefs about [claim] are virtually unaffected."
Edit: of course, if you saw the original video, you should already believe it to be fake. An article from foxnews.com should not change that. And yes, I realize that this is only being reproduced by foxnews.com, and is not their original material. Still, "don't click [unreliable source].com links" is a worthwhile policy to have because the human mind is not very good at tracking sources.
It would be bad reasoning to say "because [source] says [claim] and [source] is unreliable, [claim] is probably wrong." But it is correct reasoning to say "[source] says [claim], but [source] is unreliable, so my beliefs about [claim] are virtually unaffected."
Edit: of course, if you saw the original video, you should already believe it to be fake. An article from foxnews.com should not change that. And yes, I realize that this is only being reproduced by foxnews.com, and is not their original material. Still, "don't click [unreliable source].com links" is a worthwhile policy to have because the human mind is not very good at tracking sources.
> "Discounting based on a source repeatedly shown to be unreliable is not ad hominem; it is proper evidential weighting."
Consider the related approach of giving someone who is a known expert in field X undue weight for their commentary in field Y. We recognize this as a mistake because one's ability in field X does not necessarily correlate with their ability in field Y.
In this case, you're suggesting we completely ignore the statement of a source which is known to be unreliable on a particular set of partisan topics, and known to be reliable on non-partisan topics (such as sports scores), when they are addressing a topic within the second category.
Proper evidential weighting takes into account not merely the "reliability" or "unreliability" of a source in a generic sense, but the specific details of that (un)reliability.
(The problem with the heavily-downvoted grandparent post is more than mere improper evidential weighting. The larger problem is that it's boring and off-topic. Here on Hacker News, we prefer comments that add value to the discussion.)
Consider the related approach of giving someone who is a known expert in field X undue weight for their commentary in field Y. We recognize this as a mistake because one's ability in field X does not necessarily correlate with their ability in field Y.
In this case, you're suggesting we completely ignore the statement of a source which is known to be unreliable on a particular set of partisan topics, and known to be reliable on non-partisan topics (such as sports scores), when they are addressing a topic within the second category.
Proper evidential weighting takes into account not merely the "reliability" or "unreliability" of a source in a generic sense, but the specific details of that (un)reliability.
(The problem with the heavily-downvoted grandparent post is more than mere improper evidential weighting. The larger problem is that it's boring and off-topic. Here on Hacker News, we prefer comments that add value to the discussion.)
>In this case, you're suggesting we completely ignore the statement of a source which is known to be unreliable on a particular set of partisan topics, and known to be reliable on non-partisan topics (such as sports scores), when they are addressing a topic within the second category.
Perhaps it is not quite right to say that ignoring it completely is "proper evidential weighting". What I mean is that it is a better heuristic than the ones your brain's native evidence-weighing routines will employ. And since it is impossible to completely override those instinctive heuristics, there is some level of credibility below which the best course of action is to simply disregard a source. The fact that we have limited investigative resources further raises that bar.
Otherwise, I would have to spend all of my time weighing odds and researching the plausibility of claims gleaned from Prison Planet, during which I could learn much more information about the world by focusing my attention elsewhere.
>(The problem with the heavily-downvoted grandparent post is more than mere improper evidential weighting. The larger problem is that it's boring and off-topic. Here on Hacker News, we prefer comments that add value to the discussion.)
Well yes, it just bothers me quite a lot when people act like ignoring disreputable sources is some kind of sin against rationality.
Perhaps it is not quite right to say that ignoring it completely is "proper evidential weighting". What I mean is that it is a better heuristic than the ones your brain's native evidence-weighing routines will employ. And since it is impossible to completely override those instinctive heuristics, there is some level of credibility below which the best course of action is to simply disregard a source. The fact that we have limited investigative resources further raises that bar.
Otherwise, I would have to spend all of my time weighing odds and researching the plausibility of claims gleaned from Prison Planet, during which I could learn much more information about the world by focusing my attention elsewhere.
>(The problem with the heavily-downvoted grandparent post is more than mere improper evidential weighting. The larger problem is that it's boring and off-topic. Here on Hacker News, we prefer comments that add value to the discussion.)
Well yes, it just bothers me quite a lot when people act like ignoring disreputable sources is some kind of sin against rationality.
If you're looking for heuristics for evidence-weighting, I submit "this story is getting significant votes on HN" should usually be enough to override the low-credibility-score based heuristic you might otherwise use.
Actually, it's an evidence-based attack.
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/21/fairleigh_dickinso...
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/21/fairleigh_dickinso...
This article isn't even remotely political. I wouldn't have posted it if the title was "Obama's bird wings are a hoax." :).