3 ms·

> And those of us trying to make decisions in the real world must care how our decisions are likely to turn out. Yes -- unless you're a scientist. If you're a

by lutusp 13y ago

> And those of us trying to make decisions in the real world must care how our decisions are likely to turn out. Yes -- unless you're a scientist. If you're a scientist and you expect to make a contribution to the store of human knowledge, you cannot care one way or another how your experiments turn out, only that they're conducted with the maximum amount of dispassion and objectivity. > The hypothetical people you're criticizing - who read this article and go out to find a man - aren't trying to "do science", they're trying to successfully wager ... Yes, which is why we see so many articles like the one this thread discusses -- articles that cynically harvest human stupidity to some unworthy purpose.

dllthomas 13y ago
"Yes -- unless you're a scientist. If you're a scientist and you expect to make a contribution to the store of human knowledge, you cannot care one way or another how your experiments turn out, only that they're conducted with the maximum amount of dispassion and objectivity." That's a different thing. I wasn't offering to bet you that your hypothesis was correct, which would certainly be a problem; I was expecting you to use your understanding of the world - which should (I hope you agree) be informed by your science! - to make decisions in a non-scientific context. Scientists need to make decisions in the real world, too. '> The hypothetical people you're criticizing - who read this article and go out to find a man - aren't trying to "do science", they're trying to successfully wager ... ;Yes, which is why we see so many articles like the one this thread discusses -- articles that cynically harvest human stupidity to some unworthy purpose.' Trying to successfully wager, in a context where placing some bet is unavoidable (cost/benefit analysis under uncertainty), is not stupidity. So, I agree that "articles that cynically harvest human stupidity to some unworthy purpose" are depressingly common, I disagree that "people need to wager" is (or that they should instead somehow be doing science with their lives just to avoid shoddy journalism).

by lutusp 13y ago

dllthomas 13y ago

"Yes -- unless you're a scientist. If you're a scientist and you expect to make a contribution to the store of human knowledge, you cannot care one way or another how your experiments turn out, only that they're conducted with the maximum amount of dispassion and objectivity." That's a different thing. I wasn't offering to bet you that your hypothesis was correct, which would certainly be a problem; I was expecting you to use your understanding of the world - which should (I hope you agree) be informed by your science! - to make decisions in a non-scientific context. Scientists need to make decisions in the real world, too. '> The hypothetical people you're criticizing - who read this article and go out to find a man - aren't trying to "do science", they're trying to successfully wager ... ;Yes, which is why we see so many articles like the one this thread discusses -- articles that cynically harvest human stupidity to some unworthy purpose.' Trying to successfully wager, in a context where placing some bet is unavoidable (cost/benefit analysis under uncertainty), is not stupidity. So, I agree that "articles that cynically harvest human stupidity to some unworthy purpose" are depressingly common, I disagree that "people need to wager" is (or that they should instead somehow be doing science with their lives just to avoid shoddy journalism).