3 ms·

The definition of objective means it's untainted by interpretation. These facts are scientific: studied, documented and verified with proofs and experiments to

The definition of objective means it's untainted by interpretation. These facts are scientific: studied, documented and verified with proofs and experiments to a complete consensus on their acceptance as truth. Now people can still discuss and debate anything based on the facts as a narrative and reason for other topics and scenarios, but if you're debating the facts themselves then we're not going to get very far unless you bring evidence.

tptacek 7y ago
How do you know what is and isn't untainted by interpretation? Who adjudicates? Do you think the "avoid vaccines drink bleach" people don't believe what they're advocating for, or think the science isn't on their side? They absolutely have coherent (stupid, but coherent) arguments about why they're the ones advocating for something studied, documented, and verified. The point isn't that they're right; the point is that you can't simply declare one side of an argument "factual" and the other not and then walk away from it without acknowledging that some exogenous authority is what's allowing you to do that, and while we're probably all going to agree about the right authority for basic medicine, we're likely to disagree about the authorities on other issues.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Science (by study and consensus) is what adjudicates. It's not an individual. If you fail to understand or accept the science, then it's not an issue with the truth but with your personal understanding and beliefs. Coherence is not understanding. Not applying the scientific method and saying there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence does not override the scientific foundations. At that point then there's no discussion to start because you don't agree with others on the premise of reality based on common consensus. It's like trying to talk about math when you believe 2 + 2 = 5 instead. Now if you're talking about metaphysical "what is real" conversations then there are no facts or a "safe space" logical boundary to be worried about since you can say literally anything and it can, and must, be accepted for such a discussion to occur.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    What's "science"? Scientists disagree with each other all the time. Pick a controversial scientific issue; anthropogenic global climate change is a good example. Climate skeptics have no trouble coming up with scientific authorities to back their claims. Do we just take a poll and accept the results? That's probably what I'd do, but it's hardly satisfying as a way of determining what "objective truth" is. The problem isn't that it's invariably hard to come to reasonable conclusions. Obviously, I think vaccines are very good, and that climate change is real. The problem is that "science!" isn't a Konami Code that automatically wins arguments. The thread here is about TGD people. The comment to which I responded implied that there were "legitimate facts" that should end the dispute. I doubt that commenter's "legitimate facts" are coterminous with my own. Why should I accept them? That disparity doesn't make me right or wrong; rather, it just demonstrates what I keep saying, which is the "but facts" argument doesn't actually say anything or move the conversation forward.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      There is such a thing as consensus and mathematical proofs. The entire climate change debate is about the narrative of "why", not the science of "how". The change is real and happening, with the questions being: are humans having an effect and how much of an effect, with a follow up of *if we're having an effect then can we change it/reverse it". Science does move it forward because it's the foundation. The issue you're describing is someone not understanding science. Again this is like trying to use math when you don't understand it, or trying to talk if you don't understand the language. The basics must be agreed on for progress to be made. As for the rest of your comment, you're delving into the "question reality" philosophical aspect. And like I said, at that point, in regards to this HN thread, there is no need for a safe space because anything and everything is up for a debate.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that science is evolving and contentious and that as convenient as it is for people to declare victory and claim that science has settled and, in turn, settled the arguments they've found themselves in, science tends not to make any such claims. If you think that's not the case, and that, for instance, science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear, I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me.

tptacek 7y ago

How do you know what is and isn't untainted by interpretation? Who adjudicates? Do you think the "avoid vaccines drink bleach" people don't believe what they're advocating for, or think the science isn't on their side? They absolutely have coherent (stupid, but coherent) arguments about why they're the ones advocating for something studied, documented, and verified. The point isn't that they're right; the point is that you can't simply declare one side of an argument "factual" and the other not and then walk away from it without acknowledging that some exogenous authority is what's allowing you to do that, and while we're probably all going to agree about the right authority for basic medicine, we're likely to disagree about the authorities on other issues.

manigandham 7y ago
Science (by study and consensus) is what adjudicates. It's not an individual. If you fail to understand or accept the science, then it's not an issue with the truth but with your personal understanding and beliefs. Coherence is not understanding. Not applying the scientific method and saying there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence does not override the scientific foundations. At that point then there's no discussion to start because you don't agree with others on the premise of reality based on common consensus. It's like trying to talk about math when you believe 2 + 2 = 5 instead. Now if you're talking about metaphysical "what is real" conversations then there are no facts or a "safe space" logical boundary to be worried about since you can say literally anything and it can, and must, be accepted for such a discussion to occur.
- tptacek 7y ago
  What's "science"? Scientists disagree with each other all the time. Pick a controversial scientific issue; anthropogenic global climate change is a good example. Climate skeptics have no trouble coming up with scientific authorities to back their claims. Do we just take a poll and accept the results? That's probably what I'd do, but it's hardly satisfying as a way of determining what "objective truth" is. The problem isn't that it's invariably hard to come to reasonable conclusions. Obviously, I think vaccines are very good, and that climate change is real. The problem is that "science!" isn't a Konami Code that automatically wins arguments. The thread here is about TGD people. The comment to which I responded implied that there were "legitimate facts" that should end the dispute. I doubt that commenter's "legitimate facts" are coterminous with my own. Why should I accept them? That disparity doesn't make me right or wrong; rather, it just demonstrates what I keep saying, which is the "but facts" argument doesn't actually say anything or move the conversation forward.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    There is such a thing as consensus and mathematical proofs. The entire climate change debate is about the narrative of "why", not the science of "how". The change is real and happening, with the questions being: are humans having an effect and how much of an effect, with a follow up of *if we're having an effect then can we change it/reverse it". Science does move it forward because it's the foundation. The issue you're describing is someone not understanding science. Again this is like trying to use math when you don't understand it, or trying to talk if you don't understand the language. The basics must be agreed on for progress to be made. As for the rest of your comment, you're delving into the "question reality" philosophical aspect. And like I said, at that point, in regards to this HN thread, there is no need for a safe space because anything and everything is up for a debate.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that science is evolving and contentious and that as convenient as it is for people to declare victory and claim that science has settled and, in turn, settled the arguments they've found themselves in, science tends not to make any such claims. If you think that's not the case, and that, for instance, science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear, I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me.