craftsman

14 ms·

31.
by craftsman 3y ago
As I get older, I see this sentiment as very naive. The tacit assumption seems to be that every individual would review and approve every detail of every endeavor that they personally undertake. But that's just not how the world works.
32.
by craftsman 4y ago
> then you should have no opinion about the probability of it being true or not Rather, I said when we read papers we should realize that results are tentative. It's fine to have some personal assessment of the probability, but it&#
33.
by craftsman 4y ago
The alternative I've suggested is rather different than the suggested alternatives of accepting results or taking them for granted. In another comment I said: > I'd suggest reading every paper critically, realizing (as most peo
34.
by craftsman 4y ago
It's fine and quite legitimate to have a prior, as your example of a perpetual motion machine illustrates. Along with the prior it's also important to understand how typical cognitive biases can affect those priors. For example, y
35.
by craftsman 4y ago
> Finally, I know that "we found RNA building blocks and B3" on a meteorite is less likely that contamination, so the story seems fishy and premature. Since you rightly encourage everyone to question claims, I question this cla
36.
by craftsman 4y ago
As I said in another comment, you may be reading too much into the statement to the press as opposed to the actual paper. It's more likely that the author quoted as saying that something could be "ruled out" meant, more preci
37.
by craftsman 4y ago
As I said, > If your post was simply to say, "This paper could have flaws and its conclusions could be incorrect," then yes, almost all of us will agree with you. I'm not sure it's big news, however.
38.
by craftsman 4y ago
Disagree. It's trivial to question. It's non-trivial to do the work required to show evidence for or against some proposition. What is at "the root behind a lot of issues we've seen socially" is the easy path of que
39.
by craftsman 4y ago
> But merely been less confident (that they are) in their thoroughness and in their preclusion of contamination, is much easier to claim and be correct while doing so. But it's a trivial observation, and one that isn't actionab
40.
by craftsman 4y ago
I think you're reading too much into the phrase "can be ruled out." I suspect that the leader author was saying "Contamination is possible, but based on our procedures, test methods, etc, the overwhelmingly larger probab
41.
by craftsman 4y ago
If your post was simply to say, "This paper could have flaws and its conclusions could be incorrect," then yes, almost all of us will agree with you. I'm not sure it's big news, however. I would guess most of us understa
42.
by craftsman 4y ago
I think what the other poster is trying to say is something like the following: There was a team / teams who planned the mission, designed and built the spacecraft and its systems & instruments, designed and performed tests on the
43.
by craftsman 4y ago
(a) they wanted to shoot it down in a location in which it would be easily recoverable, and (b) they didn’t want to risk damaging persons or property.
44.
by craftsman 4y ago
Not in the long run. If CO2 levels are increasing and the energy balance into the Earth system is positive, then the basic physics that the original poster referred to will result in warming. The net energy increase of the system will resul
45.
by craftsman 4y ago
I understood their point to be that that based on our understanding of basic physics and chemistry, the energy balance is such that the Earth system is gaining energy, and that this will lead to increased temperatures among other things. Ce
46.
by craftsman 4y ago
You: "...Extreme left authoritarian political opinions, which is what Political Twitter was isolated to before elon" If true, then we would not find much, if anything, that was not "extreme left authoritarian political opinio
47.
by craftsman 4y ago
I infer then that you think the concept of a creator outside of our universe who caused it is a concept of no consequence. If so, then on that we agree.
48.
by craftsman 4y ago
The difference being what those beliefs are based upon . I'd recommend a read through Plato's Socratic dialog Theaetetus . Then think through whether the progression of sensation, true belief, and justified true belief does or d
49.
by craftsman 4y ago
With the difference being that the former do not self correct when it happens, while the latter ultimately do self correct.
50.
by craftsman 4y ago
And yet, this mythical common man--who you say has to just choose who to trust--will find that if he chooses to build civilization by trusting the imperfect holy men, it will pale in significance to the civilization built by other common me
51.
by craftsman 4y ago
The missing ingredient is that if the common men--who you think have no better option than to depend blindly on someone they choose to believe--build a civilization based exclusively on the meditations of these holy men who they have accept
52.
by craftsman 4y ago
Correct. And over time we--both as individuals and collectively as a civilization--gradually cull those things which seemed to work at one time but have become clear that they do not, and gradually adopt those things which seem to work bett
53.
by craftsman 4y ago
Yes, I have. The next step beyond thinking "Aha! Replication crisis!" is that the replication crisis is directing you towards its correction: the goal is replication, correct? And in many instances we fall short of that goal. The
54.
by craftsman 4y ago
The claims that they performed miracles and various testaments to their good character are hearsay, not evidence. If one man claims that god said to him “such and such”, he may think that god has spoken to him, but I’m not obliged to. All
55.
by craftsman 4y ago
You seem to be focused on the so-called common man and his inability to do anything more than just believe things. I think you do this common man an injustice. Let’s say this common man is religious (pick one) and is going about his day and
56.
by craftsman 4y ago
Except you can find another group of holy men who disagree with that group. And a third group that disagrees with those two groups. The number of groups ends up quite large, and nobody can quite seem to figure out a way to test whether one
57.
by craftsman 4y ago
The fact that things seem to work does not mean that they actually do work. We all are subject to cognitive biases which can trip us up. Most people aren’t very good at recognizing when that happens. That’s why these things survive so l
58.
by craftsman 4y ago
And no, that’s not moving goalposts.
59.
by craftsman 4y ago
Except when we test them, they don’t seem to work after all. Would you fly on an airplane engineered by someone trained in engineering, or a plane engineered by someone who relied only on inspiration from a deity? Would you go to the hospit
60.
by craftsman 4y ago
Ah, well in that case, the parent poster can just say that asking about the cause of the creator is a valid thing to talk about, because they mean a subtly different kind of ‘cause’ than the kind of cause you told them wasn’t valid to tal

More ›