3 ms·

It's cool that you're really into being skeptical and evaluating evidence and stuff, but have you considered that you aren't putting enough thought into what "d

It's cool that you're really into being skeptical and evaluating evidence and stuff, but have you considered that you aren't putting enough thought into what "definitive proof" is? There's no a priori definition of definitive proof, only what satisfies the inquirer. Why aren't you skeptical of your standards when they fly in the face of consensus amongst thousands of professional scientists?

epicureanideal 11y ago
I personally tend to think the majority of scientists are probably right when they say global warming is happening. At the same time, I think changing our own standards of proof based on what sways "the majority of experts" is dangerous. There are lots of examples of "the majority of experts" being wrong. For some examples, see the roughly every 200 year cycle that repeats (my observation while reading the book) in The History of Mathematical Thought I-III by Kline.
- danharaj 11y ago
  Scientists perform peer review to make sure their standards are well calibrated. If you're not relying on scientists and their work, then where do your standards of proof come from? Somewhere unscientific.
  - epicureanideal 11y ago
    There are plenty of cases in biology recently where results published in respectable peer-reviewed journals have not held up. As I said, generally I believe the consensus opinion of the experts, but I also think it's occasionally reasonable not to do so automatically.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      I think this is the misunderstanding: I did not say to adopt the majority opinion. I said to consider the majority opinion being different as evidence that one's methodology needs to be reexamined. People who call themselves skeptics and disagree with mainstream scientific consensus hardly ever consider the issue. How are so many thousands of scientists so incompetent at evaluating their own data, but me, the armchair reviewer, knows what's up?
giggles_giggles 11y ago
edit: [nevermind, I know better than to post comments on HN]
- rybosome 11y ago
  This is a challenging viewpoint. It could theoretically be correct, but what if it wasn't? What if there truly is an imminent threat to the stability of our civilization, and we are still debating its existence when we should be acting? This is where examining the evidence and arguments is important. If this whole thing were a conspiracy propping up unnecessary research, then the arguments would be weak and the evidence would be inconclusive. Unfortunately for humanity, this is not the case.

epicureanideal 11y ago

I personally tend to think the majority of scientists are probably right when they say global warming is happening. At the same time, I think changing our own standards of proof based on what sways "the majority of experts" is dangerous. There are lots of examples of "the majority of experts" being wrong. For some examples, see the roughly every 200 year cycle that repeats (my observation while reading the book) in The History of Mathematical Thought I-III by Kline.

danharaj 11y ago
Scientists perform peer review to make sure their standards are well calibrated. If you're not relying on scientists and their work, then where do your standards of proof come from? Somewhere unscientific.
- epicureanideal 11y ago
  There are plenty of cases in biology recently where results published in respectable peer-reviewed journals have not held up. As I said, generally I believe the consensus opinion of the experts, but I also think it's occasionally reasonable not to do so automatically.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    I think this is the misunderstanding: I did not say to adopt the majority opinion. I said to consider the majority opinion being different as evidence that one's methodology needs to be reexamined. People who call themselves skeptics and disagree with mainstream scientific consensus hardly ever consider the issue. How are so many thousands of scientists so incompetent at evaluating their own data, but me, the armchair reviewer, knows what's up?

giggles_giggles 11y ago

edit: [nevermind, I know better than to post comments on HN]

rybosome 11y ago
This is a challenging viewpoint. It could theoretically be correct, but what if it wasn't? What if there truly is an imminent threat to the stability of our civilization, and we are still debating its existence when we should be acting? This is where examining the evidence and arguments is important. If this whole thing were a conspiracy propping up unnecessary research, then the arguments would be weak and the evidence would be inconclusive. Unfortunately for humanity, this is not the case.