You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

FiftyTwo comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Mestroyer 24 September 2013 01:25AM

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

Comments (261)

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

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 24 September 2013 09:38:22AM *  8 points [-]

Just thinking... could it be worth doing a website providing interesting parts of settled science for laypeople?

If we take the solid, replicated findings, and remove the ones that laypeople don't care about (because they have no use for them in everyday life)... how much would be left? Which parts of human knowledge would be covered most?

I imagine a website that would first provide a simple explanation, and then a detailed scientific explanation with references.

Why? Simply to give people idea that this is science that is useful and trustworthy -- not the things that are too abstract to understand or use, and not some new hypotheses that will be disproved tomorrow. Science, as a friendly and trustworthy authority. To get some respect for science.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 24 September 2013 12:41:32PM 1 point [-]

What would this do that Wikipedia and encyclopaedias don't do?

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 September 2013 02:16:54PM 3 points [-]

Wikipedia contains plenty of scientific claims that are open to be overturned by new experiments.