Will_Newsome comments on How to Fix Science - Less Wrong

50 Post author: lukeprog 07 March 2012 02:51AM

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

Comments (141)

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

Comment author: Bugmaster 05 March 2012 04:54:59PM -2 points [-]

Science is broken.

Wait, is it ? You say,

What we currently call "science" isn't the best method for uncovering nature's secrets; it's just the first set of methods we've collected that wasn't totally useless like personal anecdote and authority generally are...

That makes science as we know it the best method indeed, simply by definition. You list some problems with the way science is done, and outline some possible solutions, and that's fine. But your opening sentence doesn't say, "science isn't as efficient as it could be", it says "science is broken". That's a pretty audacious claim that the rest of your post does not support -- especially since, in a deliciously ironic twist, you link to scientific articles as evidence that "science is broken".

Comment author: Will_Newsome 05 March 2012 05:13:41PM 4 points [-]

especially since, in a deliciously ironic twist, you link to scientific articles as evidence that "science is broken".

I don't think it's ironic. Assuming that all science is representative of all science, if science isn't broken then science saying that science is broken means that science is broken (because it's in a logically impossible epistemic state). If science is broken then science is broken. So in any case science saying that science is broken means that science is broken. Of course all science isn't representative of all science, but that takes the sting out of the irony.