= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wilka comments on Individual vs. Group Epistemic Rationality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (54)
This feels backwards to me, so I suspect I'm misunderstanding this point.
I'd say it's better to test homeopathy to see if it's true, and then try to work out why that's the case. There doesn't seem to be much point in spending time figuring out how something works unless you already believe it does work.
The question is not only does homeopathy work but do arguments A, B and C that conclude that *homeopathy doesn't work * work.
You could argue that every argument against homeopathy that differs from the argument that meta studies showed that it doesn't work is pointless. If you however read an average skeptic, skeptics often make idealist arguments based on whether something violates the physical laws as the skeptic understands the physical laws.
Do you argue that any argument that isn't based on whether a study fund that a process works is flawed?