3 ms·
You will never “know” with certainty because of the limits of inductive reasoning to prove theories, but you _can_ choose demarcation methods that don’t rely on
by brutusborn 3y ago
You will never “know” with certainty because of the limits of inductive reasoning to prove theories, but you _can_ choose demarcation methods that don’t rely on a consensus.
The consensus might be correct more of the time, but that shouldn’t be a scientific reason to follow the consensus. You should follow the consensus because you have some empirical reason to agree with it and disagree with it if you have reason to believe a better theory.
The only person who needs to defer to an authority reflexively is someone who is completely ignorant of science. They don’t have the sophistication to judge, but thinking that this extends to sophisticated actors is an error. Consensus is for the ignorant.
- jltsiren 3y ago> The only person who needs to defer to an authority reflexively is someone who is completely ignorant of science. They don’t have the sophistication to judge, but thinking that this extends to sophisticated actors is an error. Consensus is for the ignorant. This is where we disagree. The ignorant believe in their ability to judge. The deeper your expertise gets, the narrower the scope where you trust your judgment becomes. Because you have seen so many ways things can go subtly wrong. And because you have already been confidently wrong so many times.
- brutusborn 3y agoI don’t understand how we disagree? The expert has more confidence in their field and thus can more safely reject the consensus than the ignorant.