3 ms·
The problem is it all comes down to authority in the end. There, I said it. But it does. In the end all evidence in the public sphere is second hand. If you
by lordnacho 5y ago
The problem is it all comes down to authority in the end.
There, I said it.
But it does.
In the end all evidence in the public sphere is second hand. If you don't already trust the scientists, there's an alternative universe of quacks who will give you what you're after.
- nitrogen 5y agoAnything independently reproducible doesn't come down to authority. Reproducibility is fundamental to science.
- lordnacho 5y agoAnd nobody can realistically reproduce anything outside their own little niche. "I injected the boys with fluid from cowpox victims, and they didn't get smallpox later." "I don't believe you" Turtles all the way down. At best we can say the quacks hold everyone else's evidence to a higher standard than their own.
- apetresc 5y agoHe's talking about "the public sphere." Among the general non-specialist public (probably 95%+ of the population), virtually nobody can even do things like prove the Pythagorean theorem. The idea that science is substantially different from religion for most people because they "could", in principle, reproduce the studies is laughable.