4 ms·

A theory can be verified by a mass of facts, but it becomes a proven theory, not a fact. This is a ridiculously bad description of how science and fallibility

• webnrrd2k 19y ago
  Well, yes, theories are never proven true in any ultimate sense. But it explains how people work rather well. If a theory works time and again to explain something then, eventually, it's considered proven. For example, Newtonian physics/gravity isn't strictly correct true, but it still useful. It works to explain things well enough that it's pretty much the only model 99% of the world will ever need, and, in that sense, it's considered true.
  • curi 19y ago
    The distinction between "theories" which aren't proven true, and facts which are, is false. Nothing is proven true in an ultimate, certain sense. That isn't important. But not because if something seems to work a bunch of times (how many?) then it's true. That isn't a way forward. The way forward is to focus on what the best available explanation is, and to improve it through criticism.
    • curi 19y ago
      So the pattern over many threads is: 1) article says something dumb 2) i say so briefly. i can't very well always explain in detail when no one has even expressed interest 3) someone espouses some dumb and imprecise theory in reply, that vaguely sounds right 4) i point out a reason it's wrong (in this case, there was the "how many?" question which is a full refutation) and then 5: the first comment is downmodded for lack of detail and the further detail is too nested, and too technical/precise/doesn't have the "sounds nice" feel to it. and still i keep it brief because the person didn't show interest in learning. for another example of the kind of followup i mean, something like "arguments from the authority of experience are invalid" or "correlation is not causation". these get downmodded. presumably b/c they are unhelpful or everyone knows them. except, they are true, and people violate them all the time. anyway, does anyone know the solution?
      • rms 19y ago
        There is no solution. In the long run, this will discourage you from posting.
        • curi 19y ago
          In the short run, too :) Do you know anywhere better to post? (I have some places, but not enough.) Edit: I do think there are (multiple) solutions. One involves using rhetorical devices so the other person looks bad. But I don't like to do that. You can also use humor or sarcasm to get more people to agree with you. But that kind of agreement is different than understanding. You can also get some sort of authority (PhD and published books, say) and then people are more inclined to ask about what you know instead of being extremely confident they know best. But that's a lot of trouble just to impress silly people. And I could go on with other imperfect solutions. But anyway, I am optimistic that there is a good solution to be found.
          • rms 19y ago
            If I say something short meant to be funny and I get immediately downmodded, I usually delete the post, rather than sit around and wait for it to get downmodded more. In my case, anyways, the secret to karma is volume. If you keep posting a lot, you get upmodded more than downmodded. I know nowhere better to post. Maybe www.well.com?
            • curi 19y ago
              I don't want karma, I want to persuade people of good ideas. I only care about downmods in that they give information about how people are reacting, and I need positive reactions to persuade people. I learn more about how people act if I don't delete my posts. For example, I can see that they are happy to mass downmod without ever giving a good reason. Now I have lots of evidence :) I think they somehow feel that because the site allows downmods, and makes my post turn grey in response, that somehow makes their take more legitimate. It reminds me of how people feel bad if you say they are dumb (or whatever else), and expect you to do the same if they say you are dumb. The issue foremost in their minds is not whether good reasons were given, but something else, I think about legitimacy. Statements not put down are legit in that sense. Which is why when people insult you, "you have not given evidence for your claim" is no good in terms of persuading a group (this seems to acknowledge the issue is up for debate -- ie, grant it legitimacy), and a counter-insult works well (which evens the score). Will try well.com