13 ms·

> if you can't make solid dependable predictions about it (whatever it is that you're trying to get people to believe.) If you're able to say, truthfully, "I c

> if you can't make solid dependable predictions about it (whatever it is that you're trying to get people to believe.) If you're able to say, truthfully, "I can make predictions that you can rely on..." This very much seems like you're confusing stochastic or systemic uncertainty in a domain (which might be the same thing, information-theoretically) with uncertainty due to the representations or models of a field. There's limits to the predictability of all phenomena. That doesn't mean there isn't some predictability, or that it's not worth achieving those limits.

carapace 5y ago
> This very much seems like you're confusing stochastic or systemic uncertainty in a domain (which might be the same thing, information-theoretically) with uncertainty due to the representations or models of a field. I don't fully understand that sentence, but you're speaking my language. > There's limits to the predictability of all phenomena. That doesn't mean there isn't some predictability, or that it's not worth achieving those limits. Oh absolutely! I'm not arguing against gaining knowledge. I'm saying that we should reserve the name "science" for when those limits are well-established, when the predictions can be used reliably. Really, it doesn't matter so much what you call it up until the point when you're trying to sway public opinion or policy. The political power of science flows from its power of prediction and the universality and impartiality of its knowledge.