3 ms·
Even in the scientific community there are arguments about epistemology -- thus the occasional paradigm shift. Currently many scientific disciplines are overly
by xapata 10y ago
Even in the scientific community there are arguments about epistemology -- thus the occasional paradigm shift. Currently many scientific disciplines are overly reliant on Frequentist evidence, but many scientists only have a weak understanding of statistics, so we've ended up in a situation where most published studies in some fields are not reproducible. I expect the dominant episteme will shift within the next couple decades.
- WhitneyLand 10y agoThis is a totally unfair defense of science deniers. Science has flaws but, deniers have malice. No matter what mistakes science makes it has one fundamental virtue that politicians will never have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- jessaustin 10y agoParent wasn't defending "deniers", but rather pointing out a genuine problem with lots of current research. Purely observational studies like we see in health and environmental fields will never be falsifiable. That is, that one study really did find that these fifty people who drank tea really did live longer (on average) than those fifty other people who drank coffee. How would one falsify that? How about the meta-analysis based on this and twenty other studies? How about the meta-meta-analysis built on top of that?
- xapata 10y agoNo defense given. I'm just trying to explain why someone might choose to believe something non-scientific. Doing some descriptive science, if you will. Edit: I think I've discovered the irony of someone who decries science denial but downvotes my analysis rather than debating on its merits.