4 ms·
> It shouldn't matter why a scientific argument is made as long as opponents are free to counter it. Yeah, sure thing, if we all had unlimited time and brain p
by Luc 12y ago
> It shouldn't matter why a scientific argument is made as long as opponents are free to counter it.
Yeah, sure thing, if we all had unlimited time and brain power to devote to these things. But I can't weigh the issues myself on their scientific merit since I don't have the background (ignoring the fact I might easily fool myself too) and I'm too old to wait 50 years for everything to get sorted out.
So on the balance of things, the debate appears to be ongoing and reasonable people reasonably disagree, but I don't think I'm wrong saying that Taleb's 'contribution' to the 'scientific argument' is mainly heckling Dawkins.
- SiVal 12y agoWell, sure, then Dawkins can dispose of it by rebutting the math. If he can't, then this "heckling" is an actual scientific contribution.
- Luc 12y agoThat's so wrong I don't even know where to start. Which, I suppose, is how Dawkins feels about Taleb's 'scientific contribution'. Actual, real contributions can be made to arXiv, by anyone. Posting on Facebook that you checked the math and it's legit, though somewhat simplistic to your standards, is not a scientific contribution, it's NOISE.