Based on my experience, I would agree wholeheartedly with this. Trained as a hard scientist, Ph.D chemist, I didn't really understand the problems of being a scientist until I got my JD. Learning to understand both sides of a case, or a problem in law, completely and argue either side to the best of my ability was an eye opening experience. Also, law taught me that scientists are human, and blind to their own prejudice. They always talk about pure science and the associated pursuit of knowledge, but don't seems to see how that fits in with their egos, and their petty prejudices.
Karl Popper utilized the asymmetry in logical power between a proof approach and a refutation approach to generating better theories in his requirement that an empirical, scientific, theory must be, in principle, falsifiable. There was also a study where people were tasked with finding the generative principles of sequences of numbers, and it was found that those who actively tried to disprove their guesses were significantly more likely to be correct.
I like to bug the TwiX scientismists by saying that everyone is a scientist. We're all trying to figure out how this thing called life works, and building mental models by which to navigate it.
True, some are better at this than others, some are more rigorous in their process, some are better trained.
But you cannot tell who these betters are by looking at what university they went to nor what degree they acquired there, and especially so outside of their narrow specialties. (That specialties have multiplied and simultaneously grown increasingly narrow at the same time is also a factor in this.)
AUDIs are generally good cars, well-made, reliable, and fun. But even AUDI produces the occasional stinker and monday-morning junker. You can't tell by looking at the polish on the paintwork, only by getting in and taking it for a drive.
As thinking is not my dominant function (INFJ), it is always a pleasure to read the workings of a highly developed thinking function coupled with an elegant articulateness.
Yes! In the 1980s, at UCLA I was trained in Physics. In the lab, if the results did not match the expected result, I learned to throw away my data and do it again, instead of trying to understand what I had seen. This is not how Science moves forward, but this is how scientists are trained
Jolly jokesterism aside, IMO our willingness to believe anything we desire to believe is right up there among the most dangerous failings of homo sapiens. Someone tell me even one area of our lives that it does not impact.
How about asking oneself the following question: "What is my net contribution towards the prosperity of human society?" Tough question. Especially for economics majors.
Great points. It almost seems impossible to get people to look with equal fervor for evidence undercutting a cherished idea. But a good compromise is to get people to be open to persistent validation.
Though often disparaged as a starting point, even a hunch can turn out to be right and it always remains possible that persistent "hunch verification/validation" can "prove" it correct. You can arrive at the truth by "accident" or by utilizing your biased perspective.
My personal example is thinking I could beat gambling casinos with math. I devised a betting scheme that I thought would work. Upon attempted verification/validation, I discovered that my hunch was wrong -- which is probably a good thing, because if I was right I would get rich by taking money away from those who own casinos.
Hint: Some casino owners are not people you should "mess with."
The moral of my story is that I demanded persistent verification/validation, even with my belief that it'd work.
"The problem of Consensus is that when it become institutionalized, it becomes increasingly difficult to question."
One possibility is the Consensus was created for the purpose of industrializing the field. Institutional Consensus effectively means "don't ask questions." Like a company that makes cars that no one wants to buy and then someone in the company asks "why are we making these cars that no one will buy and are not good even for scrapping?" and then someone answers "Don't ask questions."
It's a swindle.
Another possibility is that Consensus is a naturally emerging process. No telos, no design, no nothing. Just that the field of research wears out, or the people in the field wear out, and they see themselves in a shipwreck, in the cold ocean, trying to stay afloat, and then Consensus is a lifesaver they just find and embrace fully, for dear life.
The many swindles that are derived from such accidental Consensus are simply the tricks of marooned people trying to survive in a desert island.
The abundance of lies is a natural and unavoidable consequence of following wrong epistemology.
The “health, safety or prosperity” reminds me of the three sides of the contractor’s triangle, “fast, good or cheap”. You can only pick two. Fast + good = expensive. Good + cheap = slow. Fast + cheap = crap.
When discussing the failure of the “democratization of knowledge” via the internet to improve society, my stock answer is “nobody googles for arguments AGAINST what they want to believe.”
Based on my experience, I would agree wholeheartedly with this. Trained as a hard scientist, Ph.D chemist, I didn't really understand the problems of being a scientist until I got my JD. Learning to understand both sides of a case, or a problem in law, completely and argue either side to the best of my ability was an eye opening experience. Also, law taught me that scientists are human, and blind to their own prejudice. They always talk about pure science and the associated pursuit of knowledge, but don't seems to see how that fits in with their egos, and their petty prejudices.
Karl Popper utilized the asymmetry in logical power between a proof approach and a refutation approach to generating better theories in his requirement that an empirical, scientific, theory must be, in principle, falsifiable. There was also a study where people were tasked with finding the generative principles of sequences of numbers, and it was found that those who actively tried to disprove their guesses were significantly more likely to be correct.
Enjoyed reasonably arguing with myself. I have long established myself as a single issue voter. More Guns = Less Crime, “John Lott”
I remain a flat earther and I don't care how much evidence to the contrary I have to ignore
I like to bug the TwiX scientismists by saying that everyone is a scientist. We're all trying to figure out how this thing called life works, and building mental models by which to navigate it.
True, some are better at this than others, some are more rigorous in their process, some are better trained.
But you cannot tell who these betters are by looking at what university they went to nor what degree they acquired there, and especially so outside of their narrow specialties. (That specialties have multiplied and simultaneously grown increasingly narrow at the same time is also a factor in this.)
AUDIs are generally good cars, well-made, reliable, and fun. But even AUDI produces the occasional stinker and monday-morning junker. You can't tell by looking at the polish on the paintwork, only by getting in and taking it for a drive.
As thinking is not my dominant function (INFJ), it is always a pleasure to read the workings of a highly developed thinking function coupled with an elegant articulateness.
Yes! In the 1980s, at UCLA I was trained in Physics. In the lab, if the results did not match the expected result, I learned to throw away my data and do it again, instead of trying to understand what I had seen. This is not how Science moves forward, but this is how scientists are trained
Why bother with basic problem solving and scientific discourse when you can just refer to social media and AI?
Jolly jokesterism aside, IMO our willingness to believe anything we desire to believe is right up there among the most dangerous failings of homo sapiens. Someone tell me even one area of our lives that it does not impact.
How about asking oneself the following question: "What is my net contribution towards the prosperity of human society?" Tough question. Especially for economics majors.
Great points. It almost seems impossible to get people to look with equal fervor for evidence undercutting a cherished idea. But a good compromise is to get people to be open to persistent validation.
Though often disparaged as a starting point, even a hunch can turn out to be right and it always remains possible that persistent "hunch verification/validation" can "prove" it correct. You can arrive at the truth by "accident" or by utilizing your biased perspective.
My personal example is thinking I could beat gambling casinos with math. I devised a betting scheme that I thought would work. Upon attempted verification/validation, I discovered that my hunch was wrong -- which is probably a good thing, because if I was right I would get rich by taking money away from those who own casinos.
Hint: Some casino owners are not people you should "mess with."
The moral of my story is that I demanded persistent verification/validation, even with my belief that it'd work.
There are people who get this wrong? We are doomed.....
"The problem of Consensus is that when it become institutionalized, it becomes increasingly difficult to question."
One possibility is the Consensus was created for the purpose of industrializing the field. Institutional Consensus effectively means "don't ask questions." Like a company that makes cars that no one wants to buy and then someone in the company asks "why are we making these cars that no one will buy and are not good even for scrapping?" and then someone answers "Don't ask questions."
It's a swindle.
Another possibility is that Consensus is a naturally emerging process. No telos, no design, no nothing. Just that the field of research wears out, or the people in the field wear out, and they see themselves in a shipwreck, in the cold ocean, trying to stay afloat, and then Consensus is a lifesaver they just find and embrace fully, for dear life.
The many swindles that are derived from such accidental Consensus are simply the tricks of marooned people trying to survive in a desert island.
The abundance of lies is a natural and unavoidable consequence of following wrong epistemology.
Consensus is building a wall to keep out the barbarians and protect reputations and funding. Peer review = dogma enforcement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBcHUe4WeQ
Ah, a convincing Demonstro Ad Affectus! Top marks!
🤣
The “health, safety or prosperity” reminds me of the three sides of the contractor’s triangle, “fast, good or cheap”. You can only pick two. Fast + good = expensive. Good + cheap = slow. Fast + cheap = crap.
I used to own a business where the subhead on the price list was "Price, quality, speed—pick any two".
When discussing the failure of the “democratization of knowledge” via the internet to improve society, my stock answer is “nobody googles for arguments AGAINST what they want to believe.”