3 ms·

Organization size has no bearing on veracity. Veracity is a function to closeness to truth, end of story. Besides, if organization size did have a epistemic pr

Organization size has no bearing on veracity. Veracity is a function to closeness to truth, end of story. Besides, if organization size did have a epistemic preference, then we run into obviously untrue and bizarre preferences. Maybe yours line up with these: Catholic Church (~1.3 billion baptized members) Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement (~97 million volunteers and members) Scouting Movement (~50+ million members worldwide) U.S. Department of Defense (~3 million, including active-duty, reserves, and civilians) People’s Liberation Army (China) (~2 million active personnel) Walmart (~2.1 million employees worldwide) Amazon (~1.5 million employees) Foxconn (~1 million employees) If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate?

simianwords 1y ago
LISEP's report is a _non peer-reviewed_ white paper whose credibility I can't ascertain. Can you tell me how I can verify its credibility? Do I have to verify the report myself? Have you verified their methodology? If the LISEP report had a mistake in it, how would you know about it? Did they have anyone from the outside review it? The size of an institution is important because it gives us a proxy for its credibility to an extent. Yes I do believe that Amazon, US Department of Defense etc are more trust worthy in general than a random institute with 10 employees. But in this case, I must admit I was wrong in using head count as a proxy because I realise smaller do institutions produce good white papers. But my main point is still valid: we are using a non peer reviewed methodology that has close to zero endorsements from anyone serious. We should stick to stats like ones from CBO/BLS which have more rigorous scientific standards. CBO's report is much more rigorous "CBO’s analytic reports are also reviewed by outside experts who specialize in the issue at hand, when that is practical. In some cases, those experts are members of CBO's Panel of Economic Advisers or Panel of Health Advisers. Although such experts provide considerable assistance, CBO is solely responsible for its work." >If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate? At a more personal level - please stop using cringe language. No one is going to be impressed with it. If you do want to convince someone and engage in conversation, speak their language. To your main point of "Veracity is a function to closeness to truth". Lets say hypothetically a redditor (since you have disdain for them apparently) comes up with a critique of this paper. Without doing your own analysis how do you verify whom to believe? You had already implicitly dismissed them - a dismissal which I think is fair, but why did you do it? Because it is just a random person somewhere with no credibility. Much in the same way LEPIS lies in the spectrum between credible and not so credible.

simianwords 1y ago

LISEP's report is a _non peer-reviewed_ white paper whose credibility I can't ascertain. Can you tell me how I can verify its credibility? Do I have to verify the report myself? Have you verified their methodology? If the LISEP report had a mistake in it, how would you know about it? Did they have anyone from the outside review it? The size of an institution is important because it gives us a proxy for its credibility to an extent. Yes I do believe that Amazon, US Department of Defense etc are more trust worthy in general than a random institute with 10 employees. But in this case, I must admit I was wrong in using head count as a proxy because I realise smaller do institutions produce good white papers. But my main point is still valid: we are using a non peer reviewed methodology that has close to zero endorsements from anyone serious. We should stick to stats like ones from CBO/BLS which have more rigorous scientific standards. CBO's report is much more rigorous "CBO’s analytic reports are also reviewed by outside experts who specialize in the issue at hand, when that is practical. In some cases, those experts are members of CBO's Panel of Economic Advisers or Panel of Health Advisers. Although such experts provide considerable assistance, CBO is solely responsible for its work." >If they don't, you're just adding epicycles to a very flawed way at arriving at truth. Do you see this as a stable epistemic methodology you'd stand by elsewhere, or is it a situational tactic for this debate? At a more personal level - please stop using cringe language. No one is going to be impressed with it. If you do want to convince someone and engage in conversation, speak their language. To your main point of "Veracity is a function to closeness to truth". Lets say hypothetically a redditor (since you have disdain for them apparently) comes up with a critique of this paper. Without doing your own analysis how do you verify whom to believe? You had already implicitly dismissed them - a dismissal which I think is fair, but why did you do it? Because it is just a random person somewhere with no credibility. Much in the same way LEPIS lies in the spectrum between credible and not so credible.