= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Rationality Quotes June 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 (413)
Yes, politicians flip-flop, and they take heat for it. And religious organizations do revise their doctrines from time to time.
But they don't like to admit it. This shows itself most clearly in schisms, where it's obvious at least one party has changed it stance, yet both present the other side as the schismatic one (splitters).
Thus even though they have changed, they do not "update"--or they do, but then they retcon it to make it look like they've always done things this way. (Call it "backdating," not updating.) This is what the superstates do in 1984.
Coming up with real examples is trivial. Just find a group that has ever had a schism. That's basically every group you've heard of. Ones that come to mind: Marxists, libertarians, Christians, the Chinese Communist Party. Triggering issues for the above groups include the nature of revolution, the relationship between rights and welfare, the Trinity, the role of the state in the economy...
How many scientific papers contain the lines: "In the past the authors of this papers were wrong about X, but they changed their opinion because of Y"?
None, because journals are really careful about proof-reading.
Do you mean:
1) Because journals are really careful about proof-reading and there are no errors in journal articles?
2) Because journals are really careful about proof-reading, they delete every sentence where a scientist says that "I've been wrong in the past"?
3) Some other way in which careful proof-reading removes the possibility that "I've been wrong in the past" appears in a journal article?
It was grammar nitpicking. "The authors where wrong".
I had guessed it must be something like that, but I failed to see the typo in the grandparent and changed my mind to the parent being some different joke I didn't get or something. (I've retracted the downvote to the parent.)
Also "this papers".
In short, not nearly enough.