= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Some Heuristics for Evaluating the Soundness of the Academic Mainstream in Unfamiliar Fields - 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)
Comments (272)
steven0461:
In your opinion, has this actually happened? Do you see something among the comments that, in your opinion, represents a negative contribution so that provoking it should be counted against the original post? (I understand you might not want to point fingers at concrete people, so feel free to answer just yes or no.)
I have to say I totally support the appropriateness of this post. It is not politics in the mind killer sense. Mind killing comes in when the social politics of the immediate participants corrupt the issue - not when abstract global or national issues come up.
Finding ways to work out how much to trust an academic field is a critical skill. When we can't trust science or academia to give us straight answers we really put our rational thinking to the test. And sometimes it really matters. Most notably with respect to mainstream opinion in the medical and pharmaceutical realms. There is more fiscal (and hence political) incentive for bias there than anywhere else and getting things right determines your health outcomes in the future.
I would like to see more posts in this vein, perhaps picking specific fields and giving a brief overview of credibility and whether there are correct contrarians to pay particular attention to.