3 ms·

The issue is that you can't prove a negative, not even the scientific method can achieve this. So you can prove harm, or benefits, but you can't prove an absenc

The issue is that you can't prove a negative, not even the scientific method can achieve this. So you can prove harm, or benefits, but you can't prove an absence of harm. So while the scientific method is fine, applying it without an abundance of caution commensurate to the potential negative impacts leads to poor outcomes in the long run.

zamadatix 6y ago
You can't truly "prove" harm or benefits either they just happen to be things you can very easily make the error bounds minuscule on. Likewise the problem with "absence of harm" is making the error bounds small is extremely slow and costly so we avoid it. The scientific method (or any method to this point) never ends up "proving" anything, you always have to set what error bounds are acceptable. Which leads to the real overall point I suppose - is there something better we could be using as "just never make anything new" isn't free of problems either so it's a question of "what's the best method" not "what method can guarantee something" (none so far can).