= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - 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 (261)
Wikipedia seems close enough to what you're describing ... and improving Wikipedia (plenty of science pages are flagged as "this is hard to understand for non-specialists) seems like the easiest way to move it closer.
The wikipedia contains millions of topics, so the subset of "settled science" is lost among them. Creating a "Settled Science" portal could be an approximation.
As an example of where my idea differs from the wikipedia approach: the wikipedia Science portal displays a link to article about Albert Einstein. Yes, Albert Einstein was an important scientist, but his personal biography is not science. So one difference would be that the "settled science encyclopedia" would not include Einstein or any other scientist (except among the references). Only the knowledge, which could be also used on a different planet with different history and different names and biographies of the scientists.
Also, in wikipedia you have a whole page about a topic. Some parts of the page may be settled science, other parts are not; but both parts are on the same page, in the same encyclopedia. It would be cognitively easier for a reader to know "if it is on SettledScienceEncyclopedia.com", it is settled science.
EDIT: I agree that improving scientific articles on wikipedia, not just making them more correct but also more accessible to wide public, is a worthy goal.