3 ms·

You have a lot of explaining to do to yourself. I would start with the question "What is the difference between evidence and conclusions?" Eventually you shoul

You have a lot of explaining to do to yourself. I would start with the question "What is the difference between evidence and conclusions?" Eventually you should move on to the Bayesian/Frequentist definition of Science, but I'd start with the problems with empiricism. Maybe go on to the problems with induction after that. Might want to ask yourself why so many of the most brilliant people in history believed wrong things.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
'Epistemology - we've heard of it.' Are you saying that science should never be used to guide policy, because scientific conclusions are always debatable? As it happens they are - for varying values of 'debatable.' When you get a reasonable level of informed consensus - preferably one that has a reasonable chance of being undistorted by commercial interests - the debatability stops being interesting or relevant. The problem isn't that conclusions aren't certain. The problem is that political decision makers believe their personal opinions about policy and outcomes are at least as valid as those of full-time PhD-qualified professional researchers. And voters believe them. Because rhetoric. You don't need to know who Thomas Bayes was to understand how this leads to policy disasters. You don't even need to believe that experts are always right. You just need to understand that they're more likely to be right than an amateur with a sharp suit, a financial sponsor, and a strong opinion.