4 ms·
What do you mean when was it again? I don't understand your questions or how they relate to what I wrote.
by stinkbeetle 7mo ago
What do you mean when was it again? I don't understand your questions or how they relate to what I wrote.
- aloha2436 7mo agoThey are insinuating that the consensus you're talking about never existed as you have described it.
- stinkbeetle 7mo agoThat would be strange and misguided because I didn't talk about a consensus, I was talking about a mechanism for consensus. And consensus has existed many times on many issues now, and then.
- hunter-gatherer 7mo agoRight, the mechanism you mentioned, reason, never existed. That's how I read their comment anyways.
- stinkbeetle 7mo agoYes I have noticed people get extremely emotional and upset at the suggestion that not everything in society may be monotonically improving.
- jasonfarnon 7mo agoIf anything, I think the Internet has made it easier to expose bad science. People like Andrew Gellman and websites like pubpeer have had a huge impact on the practice of the social sciences (psychology especially) just using blogs. In the past he would have been ignored. Journals and authors do their best to ignore, dismiss, and discredit him now. Having a direct voice to the public is what saves him.
- esseph 7mo agoNobody is looking at that, they're watching TikTok and ReelShorts
- jasonfarnon 7mo agoSorry for being flippant. My analysis is that the mix of reason or emotions is unchanged over time. Take the case of this management science paper. What is irrational about defending a bad paper you wrote when it brings you all the accolades and benefits Andrew has described? The authors' personal goals aren't aligned with the public's goals of getting good science. That's not a failure of reason. Maybe it's selfish. That's different.
- stinkbeetle 7mo agoThat's great, I'd love to see this analysis of yours.