4 ms·

Please do not leave comments like this without _some_ elaboration. Linking to a one hour long podcast is not sufficient, especially without so much as a timest

Please do not leave comments like this without _some_ elaboration. Linking to a one hour long podcast is not sufficient, especially without so much as a timestamp.

Frost1x 6y ago
Indeed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard I've been beginning to wonder for a few years now if there's a fatal flaw in the scientific method in that, at some point, giving proper validation to a piece of information or claimed knowledge becomes so resource intensive that it becomes cost prohibitive in time, energy, capital, etc. to validate or invalidate. In fact, I've been wondering if science itself can get to a point where the body of human knowledge becomes so large that even the typical process of conducting a literature review becomes so costly in some form, you're better off just to do the experiment, study, or whatever. There may be some benefit in this allowing independent consensus of knowledge but you ultimately need some sort if more refined knowledge management system. The society we live in of self-interest perpetuating disinformation and misinformation for personal interest sort of brings this issue on extreme. If you've ever seen absurd claims and wanted to earnestly validate or show how a claim is off, you've experienced this. You can not only make absurd claims now, you can often provide massive bodies of supposed evidence that are difficult if not impossible to tell what is accurate or inaccurate. It's not only enough to provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, you need to provide focused evidence or evidence that can be reasonably independently validated.
Pyramus 6y ago
Apologies, I elaborated further in another comment [1]. Here is a good overview in written form [1] but as long as you don't verify the credibility of the writer, it won't say much. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26065075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26065075 [2] https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/tsla.pdf https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/tsla.pdf
- sugarpile 6y ago
  Thank you!

Please do not leave comments like this without _some_ elaboration. Linking to a one hour long podcast is not sufficient, especially without so much as a timestamp.

Frost1x 6y ago

Indeed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard I've been beginning to wonder for a few years now if there's a fatal flaw in the scientific method in that, at some point, giving proper validation to a piece of information or claimed knowledge becomes so resource intensive that it becomes cost prohibitive in time, energy, capital, etc. to validate or invalidate. In fact, I've been wondering if science itself can get to a point where the body of human knowledge becomes so large that even the typical process of conducting a literature review becomes so costly in some form, you're better off just to do the experiment, study, or whatever. There may be some benefit in this allowing independent consensus of knowledge but you ultimately need some sort if more refined knowledge management system. The society we live in of self-interest perpetuating disinformation and misinformation for personal interest sort of brings this issue on extreme. If you've ever seen absurd claims and wanted to earnestly validate or show how a claim is off, you've experienced this. You can not only make absurd claims now, you can often provide massive bodies of supposed evidence that are difficult if not impossible to tell what is accurate or inaccurate. It's not only enough to provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, you need to provide focused evidence or evidence that can be reasonably independently validated.

Pyramus 6y ago

Apologies, I elaborated further in another comment [1]. Here is a good overview in written form [1] but as long as you don't verify the credibility of the writer, it won't say much. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26065075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26065075 [2] https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/tsla.pdf https://www.plainsite.org/realitycheck/tsla.pdf

sugarpile 6y ago
Thank you!