= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - 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 (1430)
So you do accept scientific evidence, then- simple (approximate) models that explain well-verified patterns should be taken as practically true, until their limits are found. Right?
(Otherwise, on what grounds do you cite research about confirmation bias?)
Link to a previous discussion I had about post-modernism and science. Brief summary: Models - no, Predictions - yes.
Yes and no, depends on the context. In reality, some of patterns can be taken as practically true and some of it is not.
As an example, If I drop something from top of building, it's always go down to the ground; this pattern is always reproducible with the same result by all peoples who can test it. But, if I drink hot water when I'm sick and I get healthy in the next morning, that would become biased, because it's not always reproducible with the same result.
I think, it's only a matter of how someone defined the value for "well-verified" and "limit" until it become true for himself.
So you're talking about a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one- we should be far more skeptical about our generalizations than we're inclined to be. A good point in this community, but phrasing it as "no truth" probably communicates the wrong concept.