6 ms·

> or new things hiding behind that n-th fractional digit Indeed, this is where we disagree: you think brain science is at the n-th fractional digit (for some d

> or new things hiding behind that n-th fractional digit Indeed, this is where we disagree: you think brain science is at the n-th fractional digit (for some decent value of n) and I see little evidence of this. > There is observable evidence that shifts probability towards some theories and away from the others. This relies on having good priors and is therefore at the subjective side of science. Perhaps I have a less optimistic view of science than you: as a quite fallible human activity, often deceived, lacking in humility, corrupted by money, and basically chasing after whatever is in fashion at the moment. All of this gets us back to the issues discussed in the original article.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Indeed, this is where we disagree: you think brain science is at the n-th fractional digit (for some decent value of n) and I see little evidence of this. I didn't mean that in a way physicists at the turn of XIX century meant, i.e. "we've discovered everything that is to be discovered, what remains is just refining results to more fractional digits". My point is that whether we stumble upon a new scientific revolution behind that nth digit or whether it hits us suddenly out of a blue, it all has to add to normality. The world didn't start to behave any different when we discovered quantum physics. > Perhaps I have a less optimistic view of science than you: as a quite fallible human activity, often deceived, lacking in humility, corrupted by money, and basically chasing after whatever is in fashion at the moment. Oh I have a pretty strong view of science, namely that 90% of "soft sciences" developed in the last few decades is utter crap, and so is most of the recent medicine. Physics has it little better, because things are easier to empirically verify; you can't bullshit your way through it so easily because someone will notice, at the latest when they try to build a device based on your research and realize electrons don't give a damn about p-values. I just think - and that again is my determination based on the things I've read and learned - that we have enough direct, physics-rooted evidence to prefer "brain computes everything" over "brain is just an antenna" as a theory. Probably not enough to reject the latter, but enough to prefer the former.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> Indeed, this is where we disagree: you think brain science is at the n-th fractional digit (for some decent value of n) and I see little evidence of this. I didn't mean that in a way physicists at the turn of XIX century meant, i.e. "we've discovered everything that is to be discovered, what remains is just refining results to more fractional digits". My point is that whether we stumble upon a new scientific revolution behind that nth digit or whether it hits us suddenly out of a blue, it all has to add to normality. The world didn't start to behave any different when we discovered quantum physics. > Perhaps I have a less optimistic view of science than you: as a quite fallible human activity, often deceived, lacking in humility, corrupted by money, and basically chasing after whatever is in fashion at the moment. Oh I have a pretty strong view of science, namely that 90% of "soft sciences" developed in the last few decades is utter crap, and so is most of the recent medicine. Physics has it little better, because things are easier to empirically verify; you can't bullshit your way through it so easily because someone will notice, at the latest when they try to build a device based on your research and realize electrons don't give a damn about p-values. I just think - and that again is my determination based on the things I've read and learned - that we have enough direct, physics-rooted evidence to prefer "brain computes everything" over "brain is just an antenna" as a theory. Probably not enough to reject the latter, but enough to prefer the former.