Vladimir_M comments on Some Heuristics for Evaluating the Soundness of the Academic Mainstream in Unfamiliar Fields - Less Wrong

73 Post author: Vladimir_M 15 February 2011 09:17AM

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

Comments (272)

Sort By: Leading

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

Comment author: Vladimir_M 16 February 2011 01:10:36AM 6 points [-]

DuncanS:

Someone once said that all science is either physics or stamp collecting. It's close - you have to have some organising principles of decent mathematical quality to do reasoning with any certainty. Without that, stamp collecting is the limit of the possible.

I disagree with this. In many areas there are methodologies that don't approach a mathematical level of formalization, and nevertheless yield rock-solid insight. One case in point is the example of historical linguistics I cited. These people have managed to reach non-obvious conclusions as reliable as anything else in science using a methodology that boils down to assembling a large web of heterogeneous common-sense evidence carefully and according to established systematic guidelines. Their results are a marvelous example of what some people call "traditional rationality" here.

Comment author: DuncanS 16 February 2011 09:49:29PM 3 points [-]

In a way making a forum post is an example of the very kind of thing that I'm criticising - it's a piece of freeform expression, and it's a medium in which mistakes creep in easily.

I think you're right to disagree with my statement there. The key thing isn't the presence of mathematics - it's the existence of some kind of set rational process - the "established systematic guidelines" that you mentioned.