I’m not referring to r/politics (or equivalents). Rather a group that identifies potential problems (i.e widespread obesity) ; why it may be happening (i.e too much sugar in food) ; and potential ways society can fix this problem?

  • green@feddit.nlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I am going to assume you are disgruntled, and answering in good faith.

    Perceived issues are the point. People do not necessarily have to comment on said issues if they are not affected or interested. This is not to say things cannot get off the rails, but this is what community culture and mods are for. Do not forget science only exists because practical people perceived issues.

    Picking a hypothesis is the point. People will be discussing why the problem is occurring. There ideally would be scientific evidence or real strong correlating factors on why a problem is occurring. It is the communities job to downvote abysmal hypothesis. I would like to point out this is exactly how academia of all types function.

    Once there is a hypothesis (or hypotheses) that people agree on (filtered by upvotes/downvotes) the community will discuss potential solutions to the problem.

    This type of community requires some maintenance to work, but that’s why I am asking if it exists.

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think it’s much more hyper focused communities here, health, mental health, etc. You can make a magazine for it.

      • green@feddit.nlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        A magazine is a really interesting concept, I will keep that in mind.

        The problem with hyper-focused communities is that they tend to not focus on the general problems people face. This is not to say that it isn’t important, but it is harder to “connect the dots” or “get the big picture”.

          • green@feddit.nlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            TIL, thanks for the heads up.

            I am still interested in the concept of cataloguing threads from really intelligent people - like Wikipedia for Lemmy. Have you ever seen an insanely helpful thread and been like “this needs to be archived”? I have at least a dozen times.

            • Maeve@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              You’re welcome, and yes I have. They reside as bookmarks because that’s the best I could do!

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      You missed the point. Here’s the same point without the sarcasm:

      You need to prove your hypothesis before finding a solution.

      Why?

      Let’s say my goal is to guide objects into a hole.

      I choose a red ball. I drop it into the system. It does not make it into the hole.

      I pick up an identical red ball and drop it into the system again. It also does not make it into the hole. We have an issue: objects are not making it into the hole.

      What hypotheses can we make?

      1. Red objects are not making it into the hole.

      2. Round objects are not making it into the hole.

      3. No objects are making it into the hole.

      The next step isn’t to pick one and fix the perceived issue. All of these hypotheses are supported by the evidence thus observed. If you spend time and effort building a red item detector that guides things onto the ramp but the issue isn’t that it’s red, you haven’t fixed the root cause. You need to find out if your hypothesis is right or wrong.

      Drop a red cube into the system. Drop a green ball into the system. Drop a bigger item into the system. Drop a smaller item into the system. Drop many different balls at the same time into the system.

      Improve your hypothesis. If red cube makes it into the system, hypotheses 1 and 3 are wrong… etc etc

      Correlation does not imply causation. Fix the cause not the symptom.

      • green@feddit.nlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        We actually agree here. I am not sure what to reply since there’s nothing to talk about. I will concede that my example wasn’t the best.

        As I said prior, people should come with a well thought out hypothesis - those that do not will be filtered by downvotes. And if anything, having so many different perspectives (because its the internet) would eliminate edge-case hypotheses.

        Obviously this is assuming everyone is acting in good faith (which is extremely unlikely) but, as I said prior, this is what mods are for.

        I’m on the 411 because I was curious if anyone figured this out and had a functioning community around it. I think Lemmy, and the internet as a whole, would really benefit from a community like this existing.