= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Outside the Laboratory - 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 (336)
To use slightly different language I would suggest it is always a warning flag but only an actual problem when it causes real-life expectations or field related claims. I say always a warning flag because the kind of brain that can maintain religious belief despite scientific education and experience tends to have traits that I distrust.
Placing a warning flag onto a theist scientist's work would only be justified if you had evidence in support of the claim: P ( good science | scientist is theist ) < P ( good science ) .
Less Wrong provides many excellent philosophical examples in support of that claim. But what about real world examples? Do theist scientists actually tend to do lower-quality science?
Don't confuse a prior with a priori. ;)
Fixed. Thanks. I didn't realize that my statement read, "A priori reasoning can only be justified if it's a posteriori."
Edit: so what about my actual statement? Or, are we done having this discussion?