Hacker News Reader

Comment by MikeTheGreat | Hacker News Reader

I kinda feel like your post is an (implicit) argument in favor of the scientific method:

1. Form a hypothesis (i.e., our current best guess based on what we know, and what we think is going on).

2. Test the hypothesis (i.e., try it and see if it work :) )

3. Based on (2), go back and update our hypothesis

I think it's both reasonable and good to change one's mind over time because you've seen new data / you're in a new situation.

View on HN

I think also part of the problem is English semantics. The terms fact, myth, theory, evidence, research, etc., get thrown around everywhere when it comes to epistemology and peer discussion. They have different meanings in different contexts. People don't always speak with maximum precision. Take GP's comments of the form "Fact checkers said X". This is a hard stance. It also completely contradicts my experience. It would have been softened with "I remember fact checkers saying X" because that opens the door to the possibility their experience does not reflect the whole. A unique reality tunnel. But saying "X happened" opens the door for argumentative replies from anyone with a different experience.

I'm guilty of this, many people do it, maybe even most people. It's easy to lapse into the subconscious mentality that your experience reflects universal experience.

"When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"

— Attributed to Keynes, Churchill, and others with varying details but probably apocryphal.

Looks like jackalopes have flagged the parent, but I’m guessing they were referring to how politicized the “facts” were last year. When people were criticized for wearing masks, and laughed at for saying it was irresponsible to keep New York open and accuse Trump of “scare mongering” over the virus. People were kicked off social media for saying “conspiracy theories” which are considered facts today. Remember Biden and Harris saying no one should take vaccines that haven’t gone through standard FDA approval process? Likely not since our “fact checkers” are horribly biased and couldn’t care less about the scientific method.

We all need to update our mental models if they don't match the reality we're presented with.

What I reject is someone else's claiming the right to censor my comments or append a wrongthink warning to them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com