6 ms·

Yeah. Yeah we are. How do you know? The "science of persuasion" sounds like something I will read about tomorrow in an article about problems with replicating

Yeah. Yeah we are. How do you know? The "science of persuasion" sounds like something I will read about tomorrow in an article about problems with replicating its results. Not to mention that not spending enough time on making a decision can be rational, as in rational ignorance.

tedks 12y ago
>How do you know? The "science of persuasion" sounds like something I will read about tomorrow in an article about problems with replicating its results. How can you know anything, spindritf? Indeed. Attaining any absolute proof is generally regarded as impossible in the philosophy of science due to the problem of induction. As such, science has shifted from logical positivism (requiring verification of ideas as truth) to falsificationism (judging ideas on the amount of evidence in favor of them up to the point at which they become falsified). Now, the mechanisms I mentioned have been replicated many times, by different researchers, and are mostly between 30-40 years old, but if the pop science press has entirely turned you off anything but LHC results because you pattern-match it to "something that might have problems replicating" you could also reassure yourself based on the massive, billions-a-year advertising industry that is largely based on a combination of artistic talent and these principles. If this doesn't convince you that these results are at the very least operationally useful instead of "true" in some Platonic sense, I don't know what could. Indeed, heuristics exist because they worked over the course of human evolution. But those heuristics might not be best now, nor are they unable to be manipulated by advertisement.
- spindritf 12y ago
  the mechanisms I mentioned have been replicated many times, by different researchers Could you offer some references?
  - tedks 12y ago
    No. I'm not going to hold your hand and feed you links. You'll go off and get another link and think that your link is as good as my links. I mentioned two books in my first comment. Read them. They summarize about a half century of research.
    - benihana 12y ago
      >No. I'm not going to hold your hand and feed you links. You'll go off and get another link and think that your link is as good as my links. k. Who are you, random pseudo-anonymous hacker news commenter? And why are your links superior? On the internet, anyone can claim that what they are saying is what is actually correct. And no matter how much they think what they are saying is actually correct, the burden of proof is on them, not the reader, to prove it.

tedks 12y ago

>How do you know? The "science of persuasion" sounds like something I will read about tomorrow in an article about problems with replicating its results. How can you know anything, spindritf? Indeed. Attaining any absolute proof is generally regarded as impossible in the philosophy of science due to the problem of induction. As such, science has shifted from logical positivism (requiring verification of ideas as truth) to falsificationism (judging ideas on the amount of evidence in favor of them up to the point at which they become falsified). Now, the mechanisms I mentioned have been replicated many times, by different researchers, and are mostly between 30-40 years old, but if the pop science press has entirely turned you off anything but LHC results because you pattern-match it to "something that might have problems replicating" you could also reassure yourself based on the massive, billions-a-year advertising industry that is largely based on a combination of artistic talent and these principles. If this doesn't convince you that these results are at the very least operationally useful instead of "true" in some Platonic sense, I don't know what could. Indeed, heuristics exist because they worked over the course of human evolution. But those heuristics might not be best now, nor are they unable to be manipulated by advertisement.

spindritf 12y ago
the mechanisms I mentioned have been replicated many times, by different researchers Could you offer some references?
- tedks 12y ago
  No. I'm not going to hold your hand and feed you links. You'll go off and get another link and think that your link is as good as my links. I mentioned two books in my first comment. Read them. They summarize about a half century of research.
  - benihana 12y ago
    >No. I'm not going to hold your hand and feed you links. You'll go off and get another link and think that your link is as good as my links. k. Who are you, random pseudo-anonymous hacker news commenter? And why are your links superior? On the internet, anyone can claim that what they are saying is what is actually correct. And no matter how much they think what they are saying is actually correct, the burden of proof is on them, not the reader, to prove it.