= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
peter_hurford comments on How do you tell proto-science from pseudo-science? - 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 (88)
I'm not sure you're suggesting this, but this essay makes it appear that one should distinguish protoscience from psuedoscience by checking to see whether the topic is approved by the LW community or not.
That's not what I'd intended to intend.
... it's an interesting idea, though. So - what does the LW community think about vetting ideas by their level of approval in the LW community? :)
As availability heuristic-appointed representative of the LW community, I also disapprove.
I disapprove.
I see what you did there.
I'd say It's similar to vetting ideas by their level of approval among the general public, except, I think, rather better. However, if you're not going to solve it for yourself anyway and going to be on the internet anyway, you might well figure out what the domain expert consensus is in roughly the same amount of time and that would be better still.
Isn't it the aspiration of the LW community for the causation to run the other way? That is, the LW community aspires to approve of protoscience but disapprove of pseudoscience.