= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on My new rationality/futurism podcast - 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 (129)
Only if you also consider telling people about bad or fake scientific research "being against the scientist tribe". Under that definition, many people on LW would be against the scientist tribe.
And it's not just random people in that community who believe in myths. It often includes people teaching the topic at universities. I wouldn't expect an average person to have correct beliefs about things, but I expect better from people who pretend doing science. (Unless it is a pseudoscience or "sacred science".)
If skeptics.stackexchange works for you, okay. (To verify that, I would have to read the book again, list the specific claims, and then either look at what stackexchange already said about them, or ask the question if it wasn't asked before.)
It's not like that's different in a science like proper biology. You have always some issues that people care deeply enough to read the primary sources and some issues that are just fun to talk about and where myths get passed around.
There are scientistis like Feymann who don't simply believe others that they should brush their teeth but few people care about primary sources on that level.
The main problem with just reading the book is that it simply presents the viewpoint of one person and as gjm suggests a person with an agenda. A book has no dynamic mechanism for checking-and-balancing itself.
Skeptics has a mechanism where multiple people look at answers and vote on them. It's not perfect but it's a better to form my opinion than reading an opinionated book by one side of a conflict.