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.

passive_fist comments on Confusion about science and technology - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: NancyLebovitz 23 October 2013 12:27PM

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

Comments (36)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: passive_fist 23 October 2013 11:42:43PM *  1 point [-]

In a nutshell, it's simply this: Stuff that people actually care about are more likely to be under intense scrutiny and thus more likely correct.

If you sift through the chemical literature, I guarantee you will find scores of papers that talk about compounds and synthesis methods that are false or bogus. It's not really important; no one ever cares about them enough to actually investigate the problems. Remember that passing peer review doesn't mean, "There is no doubt about this work." It just means, "Not obviously wrong; here it is exposed to the world and everyone is invited to look at it more deeply."

It's much the same in even more rigorous fields like math and physics. I have personally found serious errors in at least two math papers that have been published in respectable journals. Neither of them had any citations, otherwise people would have found the errors sooner. I was the first citation.

On the other hand, papers that have thousands of citations are more likely to be correct, simply because more people have looked at them.