gjm comments on The Temptation to Bubble - Less Wrong

24 Post author: gressettd 23 September 2015 11:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (29)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 25 September 2015 02:11:56AM 1 point [-]

We already teach the scientific method, but only as applied to the school science fair, instead of a general method for getting to a clearer view of things.

Because it's not a good method for getting a clear view of things.

So my advice: don't be a moron. Say you have no opinion. Didn't read the holy book (either your own or the enemy's religion)? No opinion. Didn't read the bill? No opinion. Read no articles from climate science journals? No opinion. Etc.

Except then your at the mercy of, at best, the people who ignore this advise, or at worst, the people who intentionally made things overly complicated in order to screw you.

For example, why can't most people read the bill? Because the bill is extremely unnecessarily long. Why is the bill extremely unnecessarily long? The better for the lobbyists to hide all the ways they're screwing you on behalf of their clients.

Comment author: gjm 25 September 2015 03:38:28PM 2 points [-]

There is nothing in the post you linked to that supports your statement that the scientific method is "not a good method for getting a clear view of things".

(What there is: Eliezer argues for calling things "scientific beliefs" only when they are generalizations endorsed by scientific study, rather than particular statements that follow from those generalizations; and for calling things "science" only when they are publicly known. None of that has any bearing on how well, or how widely, the scientific method is effective in distinguishing truth from error.)