3 ms·
If you worked in academia, you know how the review process is happening. Even if you deal with exact science papers, most of them are misleading in some way (fo
by account73466 7y ago
If you worked in academia, you know how the review process is happening. Even if you deal with exact science papers, most of them are misleading in some way (fortunately, you can show it since it is exact science). History is full of politics and it is pretty costly to go against it. In practice, when you have a story accepted as fact, you job is to put a little peace to supplement it. If you deviate too far, you will be destroyed by the ones whose current job is also add a little peace. For instance, there is a huge political aspect to who did what first and where.
- krapp 7y agoThere's still a big difference between "politics sometimes affects academia" and "everything we know is a lie."
- account73466 7y agoObviously not everything but more than one would think is acceptable. Standing on the shoulders of giants sometimes has its cons.
- krapp 7y agoHow do you know, though? You seem to be using generalities to talk around specifics, what specifically are you referring to, and what evidence do you have?
- account73466 7y agoIf I would talk about specifics, you could supplement your sentence "what evidence do you have" with "regarding X" but since I don't talk about specifics, I don't need to.
- Retric 7y agoIf something is generally true then their must exist many specific cases of it being true. Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example. Because if they can’t that directly invalidates their argument.
- account73466 7y ago>> Because if they can’t that directly invalidates their argument. No, it does not since this is not how logic and science work. You just stay with a claim that is missing a support but it does not mean that the claim is false. >> Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example. Alright. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy and let me know what is the main thing you are uncomfortable with (if any). If there is a match, then I will provide another example.
- Retric 7y agoYou’re misinterpreting what I said. Invalidating an argument does not mean the conclusion is always false. Otherwise you could prove any theorem A by finding a single contradiction invalidating a poof of !A. PS: Sorry, I can’t help myself... 1 + 1 = 5 therefore P != NP. Wait 1 + 1 = 2 therefore P = NP. Sadly that’s not going to fly.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jakeogh 7y agoOP's comment about 'everything' is uselessly broad. Turns out, if you dont look... you wont know. So you reasonably asked where to look. Secrets, often as myths, are the rule, not the exception. I think of the difference in knowledge like any across variable, voltage for example. The larger the difference, the more leverage is available. There's a vid in my profile, one _could_ watch it.