= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on The End of Bullshit at the hands of Critical Rationalism - 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 (58)
This statement does not pass the "fact check".
People have been repeatedly shown to believe what they want to believe for various reasons including status, affiliation, cognitive dissonance, convenience and many others. They happily overlook and downplay the " fallacies, half-lies, evasions" by the home team while emphasizing those of the opponents/enemies.
The factcheck.org site hardly made a dent in the misrepresentations, and is rarely mentioned as an impartial fact checking site (I do not know whether it is one).
A better question to ask is "how to make people care for accuracy and impartiality?" Eliezer's approach was Hanson's OB-inspired "raising the sanity waterline", eventually evolving into CFAR, with a limited success so far. Maybe there are other options, who knows.
Well if scrutiny didn't do any good then why do we have peer review in science? This is a sort of peer review (but hopefully more effective than the standard scientific peer review) on a massive scale.
It's just obvious that rational criticism generally does improve argumentative standards.
a) scientists are slightly better than average in caring for accuracy
b) there is a contradictory evidence whether peer-reviews improve publication quality
Eh... "obvious" is not a good criterion for either impartiality or accuracy.