Comment by lisper | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lisper | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

OK, I will lay this out for you. You wrote:

> It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not.

the referent for which was:

> You really believe that the question of human fallibility is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

So you claimed that science does not inquire into human fallibility. That is manifestly false, as a simple web search for "scientific inquiry into human fallibility" will reveal:

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=scientific+inquiry+into+hum...

Here is the first hit from that search when I do it:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459211045...

It's a paper entitled "The Role of Human Fallibility in Psychological Research: A Survey of Mistakes in Data Management." That paper has 31 references.

Oh, and one more thing before I go:

> pay special attention to the final sentence in the comment you linked

No, that's not the part that merits attention. This is:

> people think science is the gold standard of reasoning, truth discovery, etc

That's right, people do think that. You might want to give some thought as to why that is.

You're missing many things, but one in particular: curiosity.

It was an impressive "State opinion as fact, declare victory" mic drop though (the ending in particular, could it get any better). What do you give yourself, a 10/10?

I must say though, I do like the paper you picked as an example!

Against my better judgement, I am going to respond to this: you appear to be one of the least self-aware people I have ever interacted with. You literally asked for that smack-down:

> I am calling you out, you fast talking egomaniac coward, bring that big brain out of hiding and show off its real power: state clearly and explicitly, precisely what is incorrect in that comment.

So you really shouldn't be surprised when, again against my better judgement, I obliged you.

I tried really hard to avoid this confrontation. I offered you a lets-agree-to-disagree olive branch not once but twice and you responded with ad hominems and insults.

So I'm going to offer you one last piece of advice (again against my better judgement, because I think the truth is that you are beyond my ability to help): you can sometimes get away with being obnoxious on the internet, but it works a lot better if you don't do it at the same time that you put your profound ignorance and unwillingness to do your homework on proud display.

Thank you for the feedback and wise counsel.

I have one last question: the various things you state above in the form of facts, do you actually consider them to be exactly that, or have you been speaking casually/colloquially this whole time (as is the style of the era we are in)?

Hard to say without knowing more specifically what you are referring to. This has been a very long thread. But maybe this;

https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient...

will answer your question. See myth #3.

> Hard to say without knowing more specifically what you are referring to.

Every single assertion of fact you made upstream in this conversation, or in the entire thread.

You have an impressive Motte and Bailey, Dumb Farmer (or at least I hope, for your benefit) routine going on.

If you would like, later I can go through the comments and choose some assertions you have made, and you can respond with proofs for each, which I will then critique. This seems like a fine way to demonstrate the superiority of your cognition, what do you think of the idea? Are you up for it? Can you participate without resorting to rhetoric and evasion?

And regarding your link and the very clever ontology it is based on: science is not composed only of the scientific method, it is also composed of human scientists. And if one is to replace "the scientific method" with "scientists" in that piece, the truth value of all of the statements changes drastically.

In my experience, scientists and their fan base don't like speaking with this level of precision, and will typically respond in a predictable manner, using predictable dismissive/evasive phrases, not unlike how a large language model behaves (which shouldn't be all that surprising if you put a bit of thought into it).

> And regarding your link and the very clever ontology it is based on: science is not composed only of the scientific method, it is also composed of human scientists. And if one is to replace "the scientific method" with "scientists" in that piece, the truth value of all of the statements changes drastically.

Yes, that's true. But I'm not defending scientists, I am defending science -- since you are demanding precision, I am defending the scientific method as described here:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introducti...

BTW, I am not claiming that as original work, just a statement of what I am prepared to defend.

So, assuming you've read that too, the answer to your question is: everything I say (and I do mean everything, including what I am saying right now) is a hypothesis. I have different degrees of confidence in difference hypotheses, ranging from ones that I have already rejected (in this thread I conflated Kant and Wittgenstein not once but twice) to those in which I have great confidence and am willing to give long odds against them being wrong. The hypotheses I've advanced above run the gamut, and the thread has been very long, so I'm not going to go through it all and assign confidence levels to everything I've said. If there's something specific you want to know, you'll have to ask about it specifically.

I will say this though: I'm pretty sure you are confusing motte-and-bailey on the one hand, and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts on the other. This is an HN comment thread whose main topic is the death of another human being. That calls for a very different approach than a technical paper for publication. Most people understand this implicitly. Apparently you don't. And before you respond to that, you should re-read the preceding paragraph very, very carefully because unlike you, I do learn from my mistakes (or at least I try), and so I am now choosing every word I write to you with exquisite care.

> So, assuming you've read that too, the answer to your question is: everything I say (and I do mean everything, including what I am saying right now) is a hypothesis.

See, was that so hard?

Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach? I mean, you seem smart enough, and you certainly have the self-confidence.

> I will say this though: I'm pretty sure you are confusing motte-and-bailey on the one hand, and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts on the other.

Would you like to try proving out your hypothesis while I shoot holes in it, like one shoots fish in a barrel?

In this case I would start here:

"pretty sure"

"you"

"and the appropriate levels of precision for different social contexts"

"the"

"appropriate"

Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols (which we throw around daily as if they are simple trivialities), if you put some effort into it?

Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy, whereas if one puts effort in, it becomes much harder. This is only one of the many ways in which reality is fundamentally paradoxical, and also funny (it is funny to watch people think they are thinking about it....which they are, but not in the way they think they are....which is funny. Funny upon funny...the gateway to all understanding? Now that would be funny!).

> Is there some reason you do not adopt a more sophisticated approach?

Like what?

> you seem smart enough

Thank you.

> Presumably you can see the vast complexity that underlies these symbols

Yep. But symbols are the only tools available here, so I have no choice but to use them despite their limitations.

> Maybe that's the thing though: if one puts little effort in, discerning reality is easy

I think you underestimate the effort I've put in. I've already smacked you down once for failing to do your homework. Please don't make me do it again, I really take no joy in it.

> Like what?

- explicitly revealing that your hypotheses stated in the form of facts are actually hypotheses

- wondering if your hypotheses are true

> But symbols are the only tools available here, so I have no choice but to use them despite their limitations.

There is more than one way to use symbols. For example, one can use them in a deceptive, misinformative manner, or one can use them in the opposite way.

> I've already smacked you down once for failing to do your homework. Please don't make me do it again, I really take no joy in it.

I offered you a challenge explicitly above, I recommend you take me up on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com