Just a little bit ago, there was this submission on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560298 The article

Just a little bit ago, there was this submission on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560298 The article in question (quite short), has this passage, which reminded me of your comment here: >> Positivist dispositions can lead to the acceptance of claims because they have a scientific form, not because they are grounded in robust evidence and sound argument. > I think what they are saying is that empiricism is not robust. Yeah, sure, facts are great, and all. But it’s easy to cherry-pick facts and find whatever conclusion you want. I guess if you only follow the branches that you like, you can convince yourself that reality is whatever you want it to be. > I think that’s a fair point. In my opinion, the majority of non-fiction books are an exercise in finding some exciting-sounding thesis and then cobbling together random scraps of evidence to support it.