3 ms·

You really believe that the question of human fallibility is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

• mistermann 3y ago
  It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. Science practices a watered down version of epistemology (which is fine for the domain they are in as far as I'm concerned: speed matters, and errors can usually be corrected later), the dangerous part is that people think science is the gold standard of reasoning, truth discovery, etc. Just read the thread. And the fan base seems often unable to even wonder what is true, let alone discern it.
  • lisper 3y ago
    > It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that too.
    • mistermann 3y ago
      If you were able to wonder if it was true it would be advantageous.
      • lisper 3y ago
        Sorry. Life is short, and there are certain ideas that are simply not worthy of serious consideration, like whether the earth might be flat. All you have to do to see that you are wrong is to do a web search for "scientific inquiry into human fallibility". If you're not willing to put in even that minimal effort you are not worth engaging with.
        • mistermann 3y ago
          What is it that I am wrong about precisely?
          • lisper 3y ago
            https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40094986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40094986
            • mistermann 3y ago
              If you are so smart, why do you engage in evasive actions like this? I am calling you out, you fast talking egomaniac coward, bring that big brain out of hiding and show off its real power: state clearly and explicitly, precisely what is incorrect in that comment. And while you're at it: pay special attention to the final sentence in the comment you linked. Is it not rather perfect for the situation we are in? Oh I would love to get into the mind of one of you people, even for 5 minutes just to see what it is like...would it be something like psychedelics, or would it be even weirder? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%...
              • lisper 3y ago
                OK, I will lay this out for you. You wrote: > It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. the referent for which was: > You really believe that the question of human fallibility is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. So you claimed that science does not inquire into human fallibility. That is manifestly false, as a simple web search for "scientific inquiry into human fallibility" will reveal: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=scientific+inquiry+into+human+fallibility https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=scientific+inquiry+into+hum... Here is the first hit from that search when I do it: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459211045930 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459211045... It's a paper entitled "The Role of Human Fallibility in Psychological Research: A Survey of Mistakes in Data Management." That paper has 31 references. Oh, and one more thing before I go: > pay special attention to the final sentence in the comment you linked No, that's not the part that merits attention. This is: > people think science is the gold standard of reasoning, truth discovery, etc That's right, people do think that. You might want to give some thought as to why that is.