4 ms·

One of the good things that came out of this whole story: A very public demonstration, transported through mass and even social media channels, how empiricism a

One of the good things that came out of this whole story: A very public demonstration, transported through mass and even social media channels, how empiricism and the principle of falsification work, and why they are the only known reliable process for generating knowledge.

morelisp 3y ago
No, mass and social media stopped paying attention days ago because Trump or Hawai'i or whatever. In a few years some might have a flashback, Google "what happened stupor conduct", and after a few sentences conclude science isn't really worth paying attention to after all.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Stopping paying attention in the sense of "waiting for news" sense, sure.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  I would charitabily read the parent's comment as referring to the middle brow 'mass media' aimed at those moderately above average in terms of paying attention to these topics. It overlaps with a sizable majority of the HN readerbase. Not the mass media of grocery store checkout aisle magazines.
  - morelisp 3y ago
    We have wildly diverging views of the average HNer. I'm thinking the median is much closer to "Russian catgirl home-cook on X" than "studious reader of The Atlantic".
themagician 3y ago
The people who made millions off this saw something positive from it.
- arcticfox 3y ago
  who made millions off of this?
  - themagician 3y ago
    The people who bought tons of shares and options on AMSC on 7/18, just a four days before the original drop. Just look at the options chain and volume. It’s outrageous.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
goodbyesf 3y ago
> how empiricism and the principle of falsification work, and why they are the only known reliable process for generating knowledge. Only? Math, logic, arts, etc aren't knowledge? What this episode has shown is that people don't know what they are talking about. Especially the ones cheerleading on the science's side.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > Only? Math, logic Math and logic are as much subjected to falsification as physics or biology. Mathematicians write proofs, and their peers try to find flaws in them. > arts, etc aren't knowledge? I am obviously talking about scientific knowledge, and in that regard: No, they aren't. The study of art can be scientific, and is as subjected to empiricism and falsification as everything else. Art in itself however isn't. If humanity forgot all the works of Mozart and Schubert, it would be a very sad day, but society would still function. If humanity forgot how to make steel, or had to rediscover the fourier transformation, we would have a problem.
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
    > Math and logic are as much subjected to falsification as physics or biology. No they are not. > Mathematicians write proofs, and their peers try to find flaws in them. There is a difference between checking whether a proof has flaws and running experiment to falsify a theory. In other words, when a proof has no flaws ( aka has been proven ), it's proven forever. Once euclid proved that there are an infinite amount of prime numbers, that's it. Nobody tries to falsify his claim because it's already been proven. Also, mathematicians checking for flaws in proofs is not empiricism. Go learn what empiricism means first before making absurd assertions. Not only do you not know what science is, you don't even know what math is, you don't know what empiricism is. > I am obviously talking about scientific knowledge Then what's your nonsense about 'Math and logic are as much subjected to falsification as physics or biology.' Do you know what a syllogism is? How about modus ponens? Implication? > If humanity forgot all the works of Mozart and Schubert, it would be a very sad day, but society would still function. If humanity forgot how to make steel, or had to rediscover the fourier transformation, we would have a problem. If humanity forgot language, laws, government, etc, society would crumble as well. Or are you going to pretend that language, laws, government, history, etc are now part of science.
hcks 3y ago
> It’s a “Science enthusiast” only knows about Popper episode

morelisp 3y ago

No, mass and social media stopped paying attention days ago because Trump or Hawai'i or whatever. In a few years some might have a flashback, Google "what happened stupor conduct", and after a few sentences conclude science isn't really worth paying attention to after all.

Dylan16807 3y ago
Stopping paying attention in the sense of "waiting for news" sense, sure.
MichaelZuo 3y ago
I would charitabily read the parent's comment as referring to the middle brow 'mass media' aimed at those moderately above average in terms of paying attention to these topics. It overlaps with a sizable majority of the HN readerbase. Not the mass media of grocery store checkout aisle magazines.
- morelisp 3y ago
  We have wildly diverging views of the average HNer. I'm thinking the median is much closer to "Russian catgirl home-cook on X" than "studious reader of The Atlantic".

themagician 3y ago

The people who made millions off this saw something positive from it.

arcticfox 3y ago
who made millions off of this?
- themagician 3y ago
  The people who bought tons of shares and options on AMSC on 7/18, just a four days before the original drop. Just look at the options chain and volume. It’s outrageous.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

goodbyesf 3y ago

> how empiricism and the principle of falsification work, and why they are the only known reliable process for generating knowledge. Only? Math, logic, arts, etc aren't knowledge? What this episode has shown is that people don't know what they are talking about. Especially the ones cheerleading on the science's side.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> Only? Math, logic Math and logic are as much subjected to falsification as physics or biology. Mathematicians write proofs, and their peers try to find flaws in them. > arts, etc aren't knowledge? I am obviously talking about scientific knowledge, and in that regard: No, they aren't. The study of art can be scientific, and is as subjected to empiricism and falsification as everything else. Art in itself however isn't. If humanity forgot all the works of Mozart and Schubert, it would be a very sad day, but society would still function. If humanity forgot how to make steel, or had to rediscover the fourier transformation, we would have a problem.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > Math and logic are as much subjected to falsification as physics or biology. No they are not. > Mathematicians write proofs, and their peers try to find flaws in them. There is a difference between checking whether a proof has flaws and running experiment to falsify a theory. In other words, when a proof has no flaws ( aka has been proven ), it's proven forever. Once euclid proved that there are an infinite amount of prime numbers, that's it. Nobody tries to falsify his claim because it's already been proven. Also, mathematicians checking for flaws in proofs is not empiricism. Go learn what empiricism means first before making absurd assertions. Not only do you not know what science is, you don't even know what math is, you don't know what empiricism is. > I am obviously talking about scientific knowledge Then what's your nonsense about 'Math and logic are as much subjected to falsification as physics or biology.' Do you know what a syllogism is? How about modus ponens? Implication? > If humanity forgot all the works of Mozart and Schubert, it would be a very sad day, but society would still function. If humanity forgot how to make steel, or had to rediscover the fourier transformation, we would have a problem. If humanity forgot language, laws, government, etc, society would crumble as well. Or are you going to pretend that language, laws, government, history, etc are now part of science.

hcks 3y ago

> It’s a “Science enthusiast” only knows about Popper episode