Comments
  1. You must read the article before you can comment on it.
    • DellwoodBarker3 years ago

      “Remember, if there isn’t an experiment that can theoretically disprove it, then it is not science.”

      Experimentation Is Key To Unlocking Unknowns and Innovations.

      This article brings to mind the Indie film, Spring, by filmmakers Aaron Moorhead and Justin Benson. Specifically, the main characters’ brief discussion in the church about science and how what may seem like magic/myth fantasy in one era may eventually be proven as grounded reality in later ones.

      1. Update (11/6/2020):

        Everything Changes; Constantly. Nothing Remains; Variably.

    • deephdave
      Top reader of all timeScoutScribe
      3 years ago

      There is no such thing as Science with a capital S. The foundation of science is doubt. It is all about falsifiability. It doesn’t require belief. You should be able to challenge it at all times. It should make risky predictions that are not obvious, and those predictions should then be tested. You shouldn’t be able to move the goal posts after the fact or change how the predictions were set up.

      • SEnkey3 years ago

        A message worth repeating over and over again. I may believe that x danger is real and a high priority, I may also believe that y policy is the best way to resolve or mitigate it - but if you can't prove my beliefs false then I'm not engaged in science.

        Here is an example of where I've been wrong in the last few days. I thought the 'shy-Trump-voter' was a myth. The people I know who vote for Trump aren't shy about it, the ones I know who don't like Trump aren't shy about it. The polls from 2016 weren't as far off as is sometimes portrayed: there were fewer polls in key swing states and late deciders broke for Trump etc. Which is to say that a week ago I thought this election would be over fast and there wouldn't be this shy vote showing up. Science! (or 'science') I was wrong. It appears, based on the evidence, that there were a lot of people - in these heavily polled states, who really were uncomfortable saying that they were going to vote for Trump even though based on exit polling they knew it at the time.

        Now, it is possible that the pollsters have bad systems of polling etc. There are alternative explanations. But based on the current evidence I was wrong to think that there was no such thing as a large cohort of shy-Trump-voters.

        It's easy for me to own a mistake here, because it impacts my life in no meaningful way - I don't get paid for my opinions on political movements or moments. But am I as persuadable by evidence when it comes to areas that do matter? Look at the debates in education on the best way to teach reading, or the impact of standardized testing. Look at the debates on climate change, nuclear energy, etc.

        We would probably all be better off if we were willing to be wrong just a little more.