= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChrisHallquist comments on Trusting Expert Consensus - 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 (79)
Not officially, I guess, but many will try to dismiss objections to their views by saying "oh, I've got a consensus on my side" (when they don't). See here.
Edit: added a link to the same post as a postscript.
Is this an example of a diseased discipline? Philosophers explore conceptual space. Mathematicians explore number space I guess? Yet the latter seems less fractured as discipline at least by my understanding which is probably pitiful.
As discussed recently, there are plenty of cliques in math, physics and other communities, as well. Scientists are fallible.
No doubt, but in science there is an expectation of consensus for the science to be useful.
For science to be useful it has to adequately reflect reality. Consensus is entirely irrelevant.
How is reflection of reality verified?
Empirically.
And when you have N empircally adequate theories..?
Then you are indifferent between them and can choose on e.g. aesthetic criteria.
Consensus sounds better.