2 ms·

Except, you can't deny personal experience. The onus on science is to explain experience, not the other way round. If you have an observer giving a truthful ac

by rusk 8y ago

Except, you can't deny personal experience. The onus on science is to explain experience, not the other way round. If you have an observer giving a truthful account that conflicts with an established fact then surely something must account for that discrepancy. See for instance radio-waves vs Kirchoffs law. It's not that Kirchoff was wrong, it's just that he didn't account for frequency as a variable, which was solved by Maxwell. Now, that's for established facts. If you're talking about commercially adulterated science then you have an even higher burden to bear.

emodendroket 8y ago
Of course you can, or I'd have to accept all sorts of wild claims about alien abductions and near-death experiences. Even discounting such extreme examples, personal experience, as presented by anecdote, is colored by the person's perceptions and beliefs, both before and after the experience they relate.
- rusk 8y ago
  ah you're just being facaetious now. We are discussing a very specific phenomenon where prevalent observer experience can't just be chalked down to fantasy.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    People rejected the germ theory of disease because, among other reasons, they didn't feel it was in accord with their personal experience. Personal experience is the root of baseless superstition. Tell me what's wrong with these different examples, which fit the new criteria you've added.
    - rusk 8y ago
      We're discussing the experience of educated, and critical truthful observers, vs sensationalistic scientism and you throw up alien abductions, life-after-death experience and something about germ theory. I don't know which people you're talking about but it's been known for time immemorial among many cultures that cleanliness is a good way to avoid disease. You are cherry-picking narratives to suite your rhetoric. We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked. Just because "some guy wrote it", doesn't make it so.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        > We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked. I don't disagree. But I don't think personal anecdote is a sufficient answer. You could criticize the quality of the research (in more specific terms than "pop-sci") or present contradictory evidence and I'd have no problem with it. Simply attacking a guy in a casual discussion that is not particularly rigorous for posting a citation you deem insufficiently rigorous without further explanation I do not think is fair.
        rusk 8y ago
        Huh? Initially, I merely proposed that in the modern world we need to be more rigorous in our evaluation of scientific propositions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18083635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18083635 That's where you joined in.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        I had wrongly attributed the DanBC comment to you. Sorry.

by rusk 8y ago

emodendroket 8y ago

Of course you can, or I'd have to accept all sorts of wild claims about alien abductions and near-death experiences. Even discounting such extreme examples, personal experience, as presented by anecdote, is colored by the person's perceptions and beliefs, both before and after the experience they relate.

rusk 8y ago
ah you're just being facaetious now. We are discussing a very specific phenomenon where prevalent observer experience can't just be chalked down to fantasy.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  People rejected the germ theory of disease because, among other reasons, they didn't feel it was in accord with their personal experience. Personal experience is the root of baseless superstition. Tell me what's wrong with these different examples, which fit the new criteria you've added.
  - rusk 8y ago
    We're discussing the experience of educated, and critical truthful observers, vs sensationalistic scientism and you throw up alien abductions, life-after-death experience and something about germ theory. I don't know which people you're talking about but it's been known for time immemorial among many cultures that cleanliness is a good way to avoid disease. You are cherry-picking narratives to suite your rhetoric. We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked. Just because "some guy wrote it", doesn't make it so.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      > We need to be beyond a level of discourse where "because science" or "a study said" is considered a fait acompli. Science often contradicts herself and studies are often debunked. I don't disagree. But I don't think personal anecdote is a sufficient answer. You could criticize the quality of the research (in more specific terms than "pop-sci") or present contradictory evidence and I'd have no problem with it. Simply attacking a guy in a casual discussion that is not particularly rigorous for posting a citation you deem insufficiently rigorous without further explanation I do not think is fair.
      - rusk 8y ago
        Huh? Initially, I merely proposed that in the modern world we need to be more rigorous in our evaluation of scientific propositions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18083635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18083635 That's where you joined in.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        I had wrongly attributed the DanBC comment to you. Sorry.