= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Open thread, Jul. 11 - Jul. 17, 2016 - 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 (131)
Sure, quality of data degrades with distance, both in space and time. But I don't think it degrades to the point where it actually is worth throwing it all away.
Is this a serious question, or a statement of anti-epistemology? (That is, all knowledge is uncertain, and so the right question is "how did you get to the level of uncertainty you have" rather than "how do you justify pretending that there is no uncertainty?")
It's not only that data becomes more scarce. It's also that it becomes noisier. Case in point: many people believe the Gospels to be a semi-accurate narration of what happened during that era, but actually they were compiled centuries later, and historically contemporary source are both scarce and painting a completely different pictures.
The furthest we go, the higher the possibility of having bogus evidence.
A bit of both, I guess. A cautionary tale, but also a question I would definitely make if I were discussing with someone with that point of view.