= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Manfred comments on The failure of counter-arguments argument - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (43)
By direct evaluation I mean just evaluating things (both claims and criticisms) using your own brainpower and basic resources that you harness to figure out the truth.
In the case of Svante Arrhenius, this means reading through the paper carefully, looking for math mistakes and important assumptions, and checking these assumptions against external references (e.g. on CO2 spectra, human outputs, atmospheric composition). This can be done to any degree of thoroughness - the more thorough you are, the better evidence you get, but weak evidence is still evidence.
This is probably a lot easier to do for AI predictions than for global warming, or even just Arrhenius' prediction.
Your own brainpower is overrated. Unless you suspect that politics has rotten the field completely, a large collection of experts will be more likely to find flaws than you on your own.
I agree with the checking against external references, though! Experts don't do this enough, so you can add a lot of value by doing this.