3 ms·
> if one were to assume that every single scientific discovery of the last 25 years was complete bullshit, they'd be right more often than they were wrong. Has
by yesenadam 5y ago
> if one were to assume that every single scientific discovery of the last 25 years was complete bullshit, they'd be right more often than they were wrong.
Has that maybe been true since the beginning of 'natural philosophy'? Perhaps things seem (much) worse now because we have survivorship bias, the same way classical music seems higher quality than pop, because the 90% crud[0] has been long forgotten.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
- donw 5y ago> Has that maybe been true since the beginning of 'natural philosophy'? Unlikely. In its infancy, science -- aka "Natural Philosophy" as it was called at the time -- had to establish its credibility. It did so by delivering results.
- chr1 5y agoAlchemy was part of natural philosophy as well though.
- robbintt 5y agoI think most of the science back then was really bad, we just don't talk about it, which is exactly the parent post's point.
- yesenadam 5y agoMaybe only one person in ten delivered results - then you'd have both results and 90% crud.
- amcoastal 5y agoAnd in the same way, a lot of science done and published in the last 25 years has shown real technological improvement in the world around us.
- bencollier49 5y agoIs that not mostly engineering? Refinement of existing hard science?