= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Many Weak Arguments vs. One Relatively Strong Argument - 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 (86)
Sounds a lot like Lord Kelvin saying that biology's vital force was infinitely beyond the reach of science, and equally wrong in the light of history. Flag: Getting a kick out of not knowing something; motivated uncertainty.
"Science" changed, and will continue to change to incorporate things once not considered possible.
For a while, transmutation of one element into another was impossible (Aristotle), then it was theoretically possible but never accomplished (classical alchemy), then it was shown to be impossible (Lavoisier), then it was observed.
Likewise it has become possible to observe, then predict, and now explain astronomical events. "What is the Sun made of?" is a scientific question now. Likewise "what is our destiny?" may be a scientific question in the future.