3 ms·

> I don't see how this could ever work, and non-scientists seem to often dramatically underestimate the amount of work it would be to replicate every published

> I don't see how this could ever work, and non-scientists seem to often dramatically underestimate the amount of work it would be to replicate every published paper. The alternative is a bunch of stuff being published which people belief as "science" that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, which undermines the reliability of science itself. The current approach simply gives people reason to be skeptical.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I'm not convinced this proposed alternative is better than the status quo. It's simply not feasible, no matter how many benefits one might imagine. the concern about skepticism is not irrelevant, but many of these skeptics also are skeptical of the earth being round, or older than a few thousand years, or not created by an omnipotent skylord, and I'm not sure it's actually a significant concern given the current number and expertise of those who are skeptical so, we can hear their arguments for their skepticism, but that doesn't mean the arguments are valid to warrant the skepticism exhibited. And in the end, that's what matters: skepticism warranted by valid arguments, not just any Cletus McCletus's skepticism of heliocentrism, as if his opinion is equal to that of an astrophysicist (it isn't). And you know what? It isn't necessary to convince a ditch digger that the earth goes around the sun, if they feel like arguing about it.
- brightball 3y ago
  > skeptical of the earth being round I’m skeptical that these people truly exist outside of the internet wanting it to be true.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > I’m skeptical that these people truly exist outside of the internet wanting it to be true I'm not, just like I'm not skeptical that climate change denialists truly exist outside of the internet there's simply no valid argument to warrant skepticism of either, given the ease of locating evidence that both do
    - brightball 3y ago
      Sure there is. Ease of proof. I can walk outside and prove gravity. I can find a million pictures of the earth taken from space, look at a globe and view trade routes that circumnavigate it. I can also look to the sky and see the sun and moon are clearly circular which makes a pretty good case for a pattern. Climate change or the age of the earth are based on a whole lot more interconnected bits of science that even if you studied your entire life you could not truly say that you understand. You’re putting your trust in layers of science that add up to a certain conclusion (which is good). When people are given good reasons to believe that science and peer reviews aren’t always legitimate it undermines that process of trust building on trust. Modern aviation is layer upon layer of science building on each other, but I can easily watch a plane takeoff to validate all of those processes. That’s it in a nutshell. If you can easily replicate it, it’s easy to trust. If you can’t, it’s not…especially when it’s used to drive politics.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        as far as I can tell, you weren't asked to prove either climate change or a round earth, or any concept at all recall the tangent we deflected to was the mere existence of round earth deniers, climate change deniers (read: people), both of which do, in fact, exist as real people in the real world, as can be easily confirmed by anyone researching the topic in good faith, like I said anyhow, back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you
        brightball 3y ago
        > there's simply no valid argument to warrant skepticism of either, given the ease of locating evidence that both do I wasn’t proving either, just validating skepticism
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        you weren't able to do so, since "X is ridiculous to deny" is orthogonal to "there exist people who deny X", and the latter is the tangent deflected to. Like I said, anyone actually spending ten seconds researching the topic in good faith would discover that both round-earth denialists and climate-change denialists exist in real life, no matter how ridiculous their beliefs anyhow, back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

I'm not convinced this proposed alternative is better than the status quo. It's simply not feasible, no matter how many benefits one might imagine. the concern about skepticism is not irrelevant, but many of these skeptics also are skeptical of the earth being round, or older than a few thousand years, or not created by an omnipotent skylord, and I'm not sure it's actually a significant concern given the current number and expertise of those who are skeptical so, we can hear their arguments for their skepticism, but that doesn't mean the arguments are valid to warrant the skepticism exhibited. And in the end, that's what matters: skepticism warranted by valid arguments, not just any Cletus McCletus's skepticism of heliocentrism, as if his opinion is equal to that of an astrophysicist (it isn't). And you know what? It isn't necessary to convince a ditch digger that the earth goes around the sun, if they feel like arguing about it.

brightball 3y ago
> skeptical of the earth being round I’m skeptical that these people truly exist outside of the internet wanting it to be true.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > I’m skeptical that these people truly exist outside of the internet wanting it to be true I'm not, just like I'm not skeptical that climate change denialists truly exist outside of the internet there's simply no valid argument to warrant skepticism of either, given the ease of locating evidence that both do
  - brightball 3y ago
    Sure there is. Ease of proof. I can walk outside and prove gravity. I can find a million pictures of the earth taken from space, look at a globe and view trade routes that circumnavigate it. I can also look to the sky and see the sun and moon are clearly circular which makes a pretty good case for a pattern. Climate change or the age of the earth are based on a whole lot more interconnected bits of science that even if you studied your entire life you could not truly say that you understand. You’re putting your trust in layers of science that add up to a certain conclusion (which is good). When people are given good reasons to believe that science and peer reviews aren’t always legitimate it undermines that process of trust building on trust. Modern aviation is layer upon layer of science building on each other, but I can easily watch a plane takeoff to validate all of those processes. That’s it in a nutshell. If you can easily replicate it, it’s easy to trust. If you can’t, it’s not…especially when it’s used to drive politics.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      as far as I can tell, you weren't asked to prove either climate change or a round earth, or any concept at all recall the tangent we deflected to was the mere existence of round earth deniers, climate change deniers (read: people), both of which do, in fact, exist as real people in the real world, as can be easily confirmed by anyone researching the topic in good faith, like I said anyhow, back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you
      - brightball 3y ago
        > there's simply no valid argument to warrant skepticism of either, given the ease of locating evidence that both do I wasn’t proving either, just validating skepticism
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        you weren't able to do so, since "X is ridiculous to deny" is orthogonal to "there exist people who deny X", and the latter is the tangent deflected to. Like I said, anyone actually spending ten seconds researching the topic in good faith would discover that both round-earth denialists and climate-change denialists exist in real life, no matter how ridiculous their beliefs anyhow, back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you