= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Je suis Charlie - 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 (72)
Did you try hitting refresh?
It isn't hard to make material that looks like it is of high quality. Humans are really good at motivated cognition. The vast majority of the time, the standard explanation is correct.
I, and so many others, may be completely bullocks on evaluating investigations, but how will this single out the investigations of conspiracy theories? It basically states that I can never acquire knowledge of (any) scientific findings.
Again, what are you calling knowledge? It seems like you are using a notion of knowledge which insists on extremely high certainty. Maybe taboo the word knowledge?
But as a general heuristic, something if it is commonly accepted by the scientific establishment it is much more likely to be true than a fringe position.
I am curious about your answer to my question ".. but how will this single out the investigations of conspiracy theories?".
If a position is a position that isn't in mainstream journals and is described as fringe by the mainstream press then it is an issue. If the subject needs its own journal to specifically push a position then it is in that category. If the position relies on assuming unknown technology exists (e.g. faster than light travel, plane sized holograms, nanothermite) then it is in that category.