4 ms·
> Loeb is right about one thing: the notion of "extraordinary evidence" is very destructive. Evidence is evidence. I agree with pretty much everything you're s
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
> Loeb is right about one thing: the notion of "extraordinary evidence" is very destructive. Evidence is evidence.
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying except this. Though I still do agree with this a bit. It seems like a shorthand for "be bayesian" that's unfortunately taken too far too frequently. But if I have a strong prior one way or another, I will need stronger evidence to turn me around.
+1 on your main point though. Why can't more people be more comfortable in a state of uncertainty ;_;
- ncmncm 6y agoFew things in science are more subjective than the relative importance of a piece of evidence. It is not at all unusual for a key measurement to be wrong, but also not unusual to trust the wrong one.
- userulluipeste 6y agoThere are things (think of Higgs boson type) that lie on the limit of observability/detection, for which there isn't any guarantee that there will ever be means strong enough to qualify for the same level of rigorous study as most of the scientists are comfortable with. The easiest thing to do is to draw a line and to dismiss everything that goes beyond it. The smarter thing to do (in my view) is to recognize the decrease of control and accuracy in our means and classify the fields of study accordingly, then both asking and granting different levels of trust to what is being studied.