wedrifid comments on Qualia Soup, a rationalist and a skilled You Tube jockey - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Raw_Power 31 October 2010 02:18PM

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

Comments (53)

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

Comment author: taw 31 October 2010 06:04:51PM 7 points [-]

This video, for instance, looks like it was taken right out of this very blog

It will be a sad day when fetishization of "science" takes over this site as well.

The word "science" should be taboo. It is used both for idealized pursuit of knowledge when you want to praise it; and then for a particular set of practice of academia which pretends to be about pursuit of knowledge, but it's really the most horrible waste of brainpower in history.

What about pursuit of knowledge involves shady statistics, obsession with "statistical significance", peer review to exclude "outsiders", massive publication bias, very little reproduction of anything (some estimates say that for 95% of published results, nobody bothered even once - but if it wasn't worth reproducing, was it worth studying at all?), hiding results behind pay walls, and focus on whatever lies within established disciplines instead of what's most important?

Not surprisingly nearly none of old discoverers of knowledge like Newton, Darwin, Maxwell, Einstein, etc. would be even considered "scientists" by modern criteria.

As far as I can tell the main reason people are blinded to all problems of practice of "science" is the very word "science" itself.

Comment author: wedrifid 31 October 2010 08:37:16PM 2 points [-]

The word "science" should be taboo.

The word 'should' should be taboo.

Comment author: simplicio 01 November 2010 01:57:55AM 1 point [-]

Why? Certainly "should" is not a trivial concept, but refusing to use it entirely costs a lot in simplicity of expression, in exchange for a slight increase in clarity.

Comment author: wedrifid 01 November 2010 02:03:48AM 0 points [-]

Explain to me what should means.

Comment author: simplicio 01 November 2010 02:08:16AM 1 point [-]

The long version is contained in the metaethics sequence, which I broadly agree with.

To noughth order, though, "should" means "satisfies my utility function, which is partly shared by you and others."