4 ms·

hypothesize all you want, imagine the causes all you like, I don't care, but don't say you know, when you don't, that's all. if you don't know, and you're talk

hypothesize all you want, imagine the causes all you like, I don't care, but don't say you know, when you don't, that's all. if you don't know, and you're talking to a layman audience, don't say you know. don't pretend you know, don't even present guesses, even when they are framed as guesses, because people will hear you saying you know. "we think [educated guess] but we don't know" is the only acceptable phrasing, to me. Remember this: science can never tell you when your hypothesis is correct. science can only ever tell you when your hypothesis is wrong. I think the entire world has forgotten this. Richard Feynman explains it very well in this lecture, particularly in the bit starting at 20:04. https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html

kerkeslager 4y ago
> if you don't know, and you're talking to a layman audience, don't say you know. don't pretend you know, don't even present guesses, even when they are framed as guesses, because people will hear you saying you know. > "we think [educated guess] but we don't know" is the only acceptable phrasing, to me. I understand that it's irresponsible to communicate a greater degree of confidence than is supported by the evidence, but I'm saying that it can also be irresponsible to communicate a lesser degree of confidence than is supported by the evidence. Consider, for example, the statement "vaccines don't cause autism". There is absolutely no evidence that vaccines cause autism (and if you want to argue that, go elsewhere--I'm not going to argue with assholes). Saying "we think vaccines don't cause autism, but we don't know" is irresponsible, because you have people saying, "Vaccines cause autism! I'm 100% sure!" A layman audience, hearing both people, hears that one isn't sure, and the other one is absolutely sure, and so they believe the absolutely sure one. The result is unvaccinated kids, the revitalization of nearly-extinct diseases, and widespread human death and suffering. Pedantically using words that, by their dictionary definition, mean a certain thing, doesn't result in quality communication. If you say words that pedantically mean the truth, but fail to produce the true belief in the minds of your audience, you've failed to communicate. That's not entirely your fault--some of the responsibility for communication rests on the listener--but if you can improve your chances of communicating the truth by speaking with confidence that is supported by the evidence, it is your right and perhaps even obligation to do so. > Remember this: science can never tell you when your hypothesis is correct. science can only ever tell you when your hypothesis is wrong. This is trivially wrong: Let's say your hypothesis is "vaccines cause autism". According to what you just said, we can't prove that hypothesis correct, we can only prove it wrong. So let's say we've proven wrong the hypothesis, "vaccines cause autism". Now consider the hypothesis "vaccines don't cause autism". Haven't you just proven that hypothesis correct? > I think the entire world has forgotten this. Don't you mean "I think the entire world has forgotten this, but I don't know"? /s Cut the melodrama. You're not so special that you have some unique or even rare knowledge that everyone else has forgotten. Lots of people know a hell of a lot more about science than either you or I do. The Feynman video you linked doesn't load the video for me.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  well Feynman said the same thing I did. I quoted a single sentence in that lecture. to elaborate on that point a tiny bit more: science cannot prove itself correct; science can only ever prove itself incorrect, because if your theory is incorrect, future experiments will eventually reveal that. if your theory is correct, you won't ever be proven correct, you will simply never be proven wrong. this isn't about language and who is sure and who is not, this is about lying. it's true that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. it's also true that scientists have looked and looked and looked for that link, and found nothing at all. with current technology and understanding, there is no link, and no one can prove a link between the two. no one can prove that link exists; not even those who are absolutely sure it exists. see? no lies, no hyperbole, no guesswork, and the facts are clearly communicated.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  Here is the same video on youtube, in much worse quality. maybe this will work. I've linked to the correct timestamp, but if that doesn't work, seek to about 19:50 and listen for ~60 seconds: https://youtu.be/phfaDMEMFaU?t=1189 https://youtu.be/phfaDMEMFaU?t=1189

kerkeslager 4y ago

> if you don't know, and you're talking to a layman audience, don't say you know. don't pretend you know, don't even present guesses, even when they are framed as guesses, because people will hear you saying you know. > "we think [educated guess] but we don't know" is the only acceptable phrasing, to me. I understand that it's irresponsible to communicate a greater degree of confidence than is supported by the evidence, but I'm saying that it can also be irresponsible to communicate a lesser degree of confidence than is supported by the evidence. Consider, for example, the statement "vaccines don't cause autism". There is absolutely no evidence that vaccines cause autism (and if you want to argue that, go elsewhere--I'm not going to argue with assholes). Saying "we think vaccines don't cause autism, but we don't know" is irresponsible, because you have people saying, "Vaccines cause autism! I'm 100% sure!" A layman audience, hearing both people, hears that one isn't sure, and the other one is absolutely sure, and so they believe the absolutely sure one. The result is unvaccinated kids, the revitalization of nearly-extinct diseases, and widespread human death and suffering. Pedantically using words that, by their dictionary definition, mean a certain thing, doesn't result in quality communication. If you say words that pedantically mean the truth, but fail to produce the true belief in the minds of your audience, you've failed to communicate. That's not entirely your fault--some of the responsibility for communication rests on the listener--but if you can improve your chances of communicating the truth by speaking with confidence that is supported by the evidence, it is your right and perhaps even obligation to do so. > Remember this: science can never tell you when your hypothesis is correct. science can only ever tell you when your hypothesis is wrong. This is trivially wrong: Let's say your hypothesis is "vaccines cause autism". According to what you just said, we can't prove that hypothesis correct, we can only prove it wrong. So let's say we've proven wrong the hypothesis, "vaccines cause autism". Now consider the hypothesis "vaccines don't cause autism". Haven't you just proven that hypothesis correct? > I think the entire world has forgotten this. Don't you mean "I think the entire world has forgotten this, but I don't know"? /s Cut the melodrama. You're not so special that you have some unique or even rare knowledge that everyone else has forgotten. Lots of people know a hell of a lot more about science than either you or I do. The Feynman video you linked doesn't load the video for me.

naikrovek 4y ago
well Feynman said the same thing I did. I quoted a single sentence in that lecture. to elaborate on that point a tiny bit more: science cannot prove itself correct; science can only ever prove itself incorrect, because if your theory is incorrect, future experiments will eventually reveal that. if your theory is correct, you won't ever be proven correct, you will simply never be proven wrong. this isn't about language and who is sure and who is not, this is about lying. it's true that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. it's also true that scientists have looked and looked and looked for that link, and found nothing at all. with current technology and understanding, there is no link, and no one can prove a link between the two. no one can prove that link exists; not even those who are absolutely sure it exists. see? no lies, no hyperbole, no guesswork, and the facts are clearly communicated.
naikrovek 4y ago
Here is the same video on youtube, in much worse quality. maybe this will work. I've linked to the correct timestamp, but if that doesn't work, seek to about 19:50 and listen for ~60 seconds: https://youtu.be/phfaDMEMFaU?t=1189 https://youtu.be/phfaDMEMFaU?t=1189