5 ms·

The article doesn't fulfill the promise of the title. Not only does it not explain how to identify a scientific fact (who samples the 95% "consensus" and who de

The article doesn't fulfill the promise of the title. Not only does it not explain how to identify a scientific fact (who samples the 95% "consensus" and who decides what to ask, for example?), it doesn't even define the term, despite multiple uses. The reason is, of course, that there are no scientific facts. There are hypotheses, theories, and observations. There is a scientific method, which attempts to connect them together. This is a deeply unsettling perspective to a lot of people who demand something science can't deliver but which religion can, and I'd count the author among them. Whenever an author starts tooting about "scientific facts" I sense an agenda. And it's often followed by demands that I submit to it. Elsewhere, the author pitches the book like so: > My new book Identifying Future-Proof Science argues that we can confidently identify many scientific claims that are future-proof: they will last forever (so long as science continues). Examples include the evolution of human beings from fish, and the fact that the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy. ... https://petervickersphilosophy.com/publications/ https://petervickersphilosophy.com/publications/ The first claim is laughable. Without a path for abiogenesis (there is none yet), claims this specific about evolution are anything but "fact." And the tautology of classifying the Milky Way galaxy as a galaxy makes me wonder if the author has problems with basic logic.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
satisfice 4y ago
Seems to me we can identify a scientific fact: it's an empirical proposition for which we have sufficient scientific evidence. "Sufficient" is a community standard, and different communities may have different standards. That's not an ideal state of affairs, but it turns out to be a liveable one. This doesn't solve the problem of "future-proofing" or universalizing facts, because THAT is not a solvable problem. But it does solve the local problem of making a community decision about who deserves respect and what topics are worth debating.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > it's an empirical proposition for which we have sufficient scientific evidence. "Sufficient" is a community standard It doesn't have to be. We can use predictive power to judge how strong our evidence is.
  - satisfice 4y ago
    Make a specific proposal and I will show you how that is a community standard. The only reason I can't right now is because what you have suggested is not yet specific enough to be ANY kind of standard.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      My point is that what is required by an actual real world application is not up to the community. It's up to the universe. For example, if you want to judge the predictions of astronomers about close approaches of asteroids to Earth, the standard is not what the community thinks is ok, but whether their predictions are accurate enough to say for sure whether an asteroid will hit or miss. That standard is imposed by the universe, the laws of physics, and our desire to not get killed by an asteroid impact.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

satisfice 4y ago

Seems to me we can identify a scientific fact: it's an empirical proposition for which we have sufficient scientific evidence. "Sufficient" is a community standard, and different communities may have different standards. That's not an ideal state of affairs, but it turns out to be a liveable one. This doesn't solve the problem of "future-proofing" or universalizing facts, because THAT is not a solvable problem. But it does solve the local problem of making a community decision about who deserves respect and what topics are worth debating.

pdonis 4y ago
> it's an empirical proposition for which we have sufficient scientific evidence. "Sufficient" is a community standard It doesn't have to be. We can use predictive power to judge how strong our evidence is.
- satisfice 4y ago
  Make a specific proposal and I will show you how that is a community standard. The only reason I can't right now is because what you have suggested is not yet specific enough to be ANY kind of standard.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    My point is that what is required by an actual real world application is not up to the community. It's up to the universe. For example, if you want to judge the predictions of astronomers about close approaches of asteroids to Earth, the standard is not what the community thinks is ok, but whether their predictions are accurate enough to say for sure whether an asteroid will hit or miss. That standard is imposed by the universe, the laws of physics, and our desire to not get killed by an asteroid impact.