3 ms·
> if you can falsify theories subject to the assumptions of the simulation, that’s still evidence. No, the falsification itself is not evidence; it's a falsifi
by pdonis 4y ago
> if you can falsify theories subject to the assumptions of the simulation, that’s still evidence.
No, the falsification itself is not evidence; it's a falsification. Evidence is what you compare the predictions of the simulation to, and then you call the theory falsified if the two don't match.
- kadonoishi 4y agoI spent some years doing computer simulations of cancer screening. The confusion between the output of the simulation, which is not evidence, and real evidence, led me into a nightmare of the Hall of Mirrors, where everything I attempted to learn about cancer screening turned out to be merely a reflection of my own assumptions. Everywhere I turned it was another funhouse mirror, where the computer warped my own ideas because the code I wrote was not a perfect flat reflection of what I meant, because my code introduced distortions, which took immense rigor to avoid. The confusion between real evidence, and the output of my computer simulation which was not evidence but I _confused_ it with evidence, led me down a dark path lost in a labyrinth of funhouse mirrors of my own construction. Listen to pdonis, people.