3 ms·

Possibly you're using hyper-specific definitions of accuracy and correctness. How does the scientific process factor in, according to you?

wolverine876 3y ago
By accuracy, I mean the 3 Cs: Correctness, Completeness, Consistency. It's a good checklist for any purpose. > How does the scientific process factor in, according to you? Do you mean, how do I reconcile my idea with the scientific process, which is "a process ... that leads to eventual correctness" (if successful)? Scientists don't say, 'this theory is 100% accurate". They say: 'Here's my claim; others say differently about X, and I disagree because Y. ... And in conclusion, here's where we are: we know this, what we don't know that, we should next look here and also there.' Their work is process, not product; they say, 'this paper is one step in the process.' Wikipedia can't say those things; due to its process, it lacks an expert mind to look at itself (maybe an AI some day!). Wikipedia is a product (even if also a process); it says: 'This page is accurate', or at least 'you should use the information on this page as if it's accurate'. It doesn't know how accurate the page is, or how accurate different parts of the page are. You don't know either; any part could be nonsense, could be true, could be misleading; omissions could mislead badly. Information with unknown accuracy is useless. (Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38813185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38813185 ) Nobody seems to want to think about that. Talking about accuracy disturbs the head-in-the-sand safety people have found in the post-truth moment. Undermining Wikipedia does the same; they don't want to think about it. "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." I need to make it funny.

3 ms·

Possibly you're using hyper-specific definitions of accuracy and correctness. How does the scientific process factor in, according to you?

by Kim_Bruning 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago
By accuracy, I mean the 3 Cs: Correctness, Completeness, Consistency. It's a good checklist for any purpose. > How does the scientific process factor in, according to you? Do you mean, how do I reconcile my idea with the scientific process, which is "a process ... that leads to eventual correctness" (if successful)? Scientists don't say, 'this theory is 100% accurate". They say: 'Here's my claim; others say differently about X, and I disagree because Y. ... And in conclusion, here's where we are: we know this, what we don't know that, we should next look here and also there.' Their work is process, not product; they say, 'this paper is one step in the process.' Wikipedia can't say those things; due to its process, it lacks an expert mind to look at itself (maybe an AI some day!). Wikipedia is a product (even if also a process); it says: 'This page is accurate', or at least 'you should use the information on this page as if it's accurate'. It doesn't know how accurate the page is, or how accurate different parts of the page are. You don't know either; any part could be nonsense, could be true, could be misleading; omissions could mislead badly. Information with unknown accuracy is useless. (Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38813185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38813185 ) Nobody seems to want to think about that. Talking about accuracy disturbs the head-in-the-sand safety people have found in the post-truth moment. Undermining Wikipedia does the same; they don't want to think about it. "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." I need to make it funny.