ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
0% Positive
Analyzed from 136 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#science#epistemology#talk#data#political#voice#bart#simpson#philosopher#wrote

Discussion (1 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Now she regrets the title. At the time, it was a useful way to talk about the epistemology of science. Now, that language has been co-opted to spread disinformation.
When scientists are being excruciatingly precise, they'll say that they can rule out falsehoods but never really assert the truth. Philosophers call it the Problem of Induction: you only have finite data, and new data might invalidate any theory.
Used sloppily, this means you can just ignore any science you don't like. But nobody does that consistently; it's always ideologically motivated, not rooted in epistemology. It's lazy, and stupid, but it's a constant feature of political discourse about science.
Which is too bad, because the actual epistemology of science is fascinating. Popperian falsification isn't nearly as complete as we're often led to believe. But it's hard to talk about in public without it turning into a political diatribe.