4 ms·
> How would you deny the SC status? Maybe we should adopt the stance that it’s not a SC by default and have the people asserting that it is prove that it’s a S
by worrycue 3y ago
> How would you deny the SC status?
Maybe we should adopt the stance that it’s not a SC by default and have the people asserting that it is prove that it’s a SC.
- colordrops 3y agoOr even better adopt no stance on truth value and rather adopt a stance on whether there is sufficient evidence to expend further effort. No need to guess at the truth. Just remain agnostic until you know the truth.
- jacquesm 3y agoExactly. That's the only reasonable stance. Everything else is just jumping to conclusions, positive or negative.
- worrycue 3y agoSometimes a decision has to be made though - e.g. is a particular person a murderer. In most countries, the burden of proof is on the accuser and the accused doesn’t need to proven his or her innocence and is treated as innocent until proven otherwise.
- jacquesm 3y agoSure, but science isn't a murder trial, it is entirely evidence based. Show the evidence, if there is none we'll move on and if there is you get a Nobel (in the case of superconductivity at room temperature and ambient pressure). We (the rest of the world) can't prove a negative, so it is up to the claimant to supply the proof. Given proof it will be believed, no proof then it's a no-op. With the murder trial you can assume a-priori that there is a murderer, the question then is 'who', not if a murder is possible or not. These are entirely different problems for a logic perspective.
- whimsicalism 3y agoI think this is functionally equivalent to the status quo?
- dcow 3y agoNot on HN where it’s definitely a SC we just need more time for the miracle to happen, failed replication attempts be damned.