undefined | Better HN

0 pointscantankerous9y ago0 comments

This is a vacuous statement. Science is an inductive exercise and suffers from the problem of induction. It's difficult to make the case that real truth can come from it at all. In lieu of this, peer review is a very good heuristic for sifting out bunk science.

0 comments

lucajona9y ago

I don't think it's fair to call a correct statement vacuous. More nuanced than it appears, and easily misinterpreted maybe.

I think it's fair to point out that peer review doesn't determine scientific truth, because that would get the causal relation in reverse.

Consensus has little to do with objective truth, but it is a useful heuristic as you say.

marklgr9y ago

Yeah, let's put peer review into perspective. In a topic about Trump, censoring scientists. I can see the "give science back to the people" anti-intellectual slogans coming up.

lucajona9y ago

Those "anti-intellectual slogans" I think you mean can also be seen as arguments for a return to enlightenment values instead of an entrenched, elitist dogmatism.

Behind those slogans is the idea that intellectual life doesn't belong to a chosen few, but to everyone who's interested and willing to engage their capacity for independent thought and critical thinking, and those who are willing and eager to engage with other people with different opinions.

1 more reply

dnautics9y ago

It's not a useful heuristic any more. I'd say about 40% of the 'reputable' scientific literature in chemistry and biology is flawed to the point of uselessness.

pasquinelli9y ago

i think it's perfectly appropriate to call a true statement vacuous. for instance, a counterfactual conditional is always true; that fact makes the particular truth of a particular counterfactual conditional completely uninteresting, or vacuous. it's true, but in a hollow, empty, vacuous way. what use would there be calling a false statement vacuous?

lucajona9y ago

Okay sure, I made a bad generalisation. Some true statements can be uninteresting. The point I was trying to make was more that the parent commenter was making a true statement about epistemology that is relevant and useful to the discussion.

Maybe it could have been better elaborated, but I don't think it deserves being down-voted and replies of what seems like moral disgust.

gaze9y ago

"you're not wrong you're just an asshole"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lucajona9y ago

I don't think it's fair to call a correct statement vacuous. More nuanced than it appears, and easily misinterpreted maybe.

I think it's fair to point out that peer review doesn't determine scientific truth, because that would get the causal relation in reverse.

Consensus has little to do with objective truth, but it is a useful heuristic as you say.

marklgr9y ago

Yeah, let's put peer review into perspective. In a topic about Trump, censoring scientists. I can see the "give science back to the people" anti-intellectual slogans coming up.

lucajona9y ago

Those "anti-intellectual slogans" I think you mean can also be seen as arguments for a return to enlightenment values instead of an entrenched, elitist dogmatism.

1 more reply

dnautics9y ago

It's not a useful heuristic any more. I'd say about 40% of the 'reputable' scientific literature in chemistry and biology is flawed to the point of uselessness.

pasquinelli9y ago

lucajona9y ago

Maybe it could have been better elaborated, but I don't think it deserves being down-voted and replies of what seems like moral disgust.

gaze9y ago

"you're not wrong you're just an asshole"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse