Advertisement
by Dumb Ideologies » Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:58 am
by Heloin » Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:58 am
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Heloin wrote:A broken clock can be right sometimes. Still makes the clock broken as hell.
Based on what, though? "The scientists' methods are right because they're right"? Or is it another one of those "because they said so" sort of things?
In theory, science is about putting ideas to the test, no? Both "hmm, let's see, this new disease is supposedly emerging from wildlife trade according to the same country downplaying it; which is plausible for now because of how fucked up that country's wildlife trade is; while the WHO is also somewhat downplaying it; gee I wonder what else these situations could have in common" reasoning and the WHO's reasoning that failed this time and before this time were put to the test. Need I remind you which one came out on top?
by Ifreann » Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:59 am
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Omniabstracta wrote:Scientists may be prone to bias (in all manner of directions), but science itself is not some monolithic “thing” or “viewpoint,” it is already an inherently adversarial process. That’s like, the entire point of the scientific method and competition in publishing, to play ideas and people against each other and to encourage looking at what we think we know and seeing if it’s accurate. Scientific publishing already contains lots of incentive for “dissent,” to question past results and come out with more accurate, (and juicer), results over time.
The difference is that that adversarial process already occurs between people who are actually fucking qualified, not random people on the street who think they know better on a topic they don’t actually know anything about. Which is, you know, logical.
Suppose there were an issue that would be a threat to the careers of many if not most in a particular discipline of science if they were to be honest about it. Would that not outweigh competitive incentives? How, if at all, would we find out?
No walk of life should be held immune from outsiders' criticism.
by Omniabstracta » Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:01 am
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Omniabstracta wrote:Scientists may be prone to bias (in all manner of directions), but science itself is not some monolithic “thing” or “viewpoint,” it is already an inherently adversarial process. That’s like, the entire point of the scientific method and competition in publishing, to play ideas and people against each other and to encourage looking at what we think we know and seeing if it’s accurate. Scientific publishing already contains lots of incentive for “dissent,” to question past results and come out with more accurate, (and juicer), results over time.
The difference is that that adversarial process already occurs between people who are actually fucking qualified, not random people on the street who think they know better on a topic they don’t actually know anything about. Which is, you know, logical.
Suppose there were an issue that would be a threat to the careers of many if not most in a particular discipline of science if they were to be honest about it. Would that not outweigh competitive incentives? How, if at all, would we find out?
No walk of life should be held immune from outsiders' criticism.
by GuessTheAltAccount » Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:09 pm
Heloin wrote:GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Based on what, though? "The scientists' methods are right because they're right"? Or is it another one of those "because they said so" sort of things?
In theory, science is about putting ideas to the test, no? Both "hmm, let's see, this new disease is supposedly emerging from wildlife trade according to the same country downplaying it; which is plausible for now because of how fucked up that country's wildlife trade is; while the WHO is also somewhat downplaying it; gee I wonder what else these situations could have in common" reasoning and the WHO's reasoning that failed this time and before this time were put to the test. Need I remind you which one came out on top?
Well no. Every point you just made there is wrong. “Science” in the most nebulous discussion one could have is the study of world around us and in part discovering the truths to that world and reality. Putting ideas to the test is a component but that doesn’t actually mean what you think it means it seems. Asserting an idea as fact, with limited proof and evidence, is not only not putting an idea to the test it’s also a really bad idea and in fact is often very dangerous.
Claiming with no proof that what we now now as Covid-19 will cause a massive global pandemic in late 2019 is claiming a meteor will hit the earth every single day of your life. If you happen to be right then it’s purely an accident. The WHO was right with the information it had available and corrected findings when new information became available.
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bhang Bhang Duc, Big Eyed Animation, Durius, Inner Albania, Neu California, Shrillland, The Archregimancy, Tillania
Advertisement