RobinZ comments on What is bunk? - Less Wrong

20 [deleted] 08 May 2010 06:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (101)

Comments (101)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DuncanS 09 May 2010 12:25:45AM 16 points [-]

For me the primary evidence of a bunk claim is when the claimant fails to reasonably deal with the mainstream. Let's take the creation evolution debate. If someone comes along claiming a creationist position, but is completely unable to even describe what the evolutionary position is, or what might be good about it, then their idea is bunk. If someone is very good at explaining evolution as it really happens, but then goes on to claim something different can happen as well - then it becomes interesting.

Anyone proposing an alternative idea needs to know precisely what it is an alternative to - otherwise they haven't done their homework, and it isn't worth my time.

Comment author: RobinZ 09 May 2010 03:46:02PM 10 points [-]

Yes! This is a key point in the Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist, for example:

Someone comes along and says “I’ve discovered that there’s no need for dark matter.” A brief glance at the abstract reveals that the model violates our understanding of perturbation theory. Well, perhaps there is something subtle going on here, and our conventional understanding of perturbation theory doesn’t apply in this case. So here’s what any working theoretical cosmologist would do (even if they aren’t consciously aware that they’re doing it): they would glance at the introduction to the paper, looking for a paragraph that says “Look, we know this isn’t what you would expect from elementary perturbation theory, but here’s why that doesn’t apply in this case.” Upon not finding that paragraph, they would toss the paper away.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit