Hacker News Reader

Comment by undershirt | Hacker News Reader

I think so. Are you familiar with epistemology and how assumptions can be formally justified?

Are you familiar with fallibilism? Aristotle justified geocentrism too. Who's to say your justification is correct for real this time?

Fallibilism seems to smuggle a claim of certainty about how we can't be certain about anything, which leads to a performative contradiction when brought up in an argument where people are trying to arrive at certainty.

If you don't like such skepticism, then it should be okay to believe in fields. Where do you draw a line, how much skepticism is enough? Does radio exist? You can't see it, just like other fields.

I was only addressing your argument. If fallibilism leads to a contradiction then it doesn't work to undermine all agnostic arguments against the actual reality of fields.

My warning is that science becomes something like a 'scientism' religion when "real" is used as shorthand for "effective abstraction". Science has philosophical boundaries that isn't part of the science curriculum.

It was your argument that you verified that we can't verify. But if we can't verify, then how could you verify? Fallibilism doesn't lead to a contradiction, it only rejects infallibility. If you think agnosticism helps you prove your infallibility, prove it. Also radio demonstrates that your approach is unworkable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com