News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated by LocalH on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @11:29AM (#28853426)
>The scientific method is perfect.

Nonsense. Nothing is perfect, especially nothing ever created by a human. The scientific method is the best we have developed, in my opinion, but it's not perfect. The scientific method itself was developed by "fallible and irrational humans". Even with the best of intentions and the utmost in effort, all humans are susceptible to fallibility and irrationality. You are, I am, everyone is.

Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated by rcoveson on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @01:24PM (#28854913)
The word/concept "perfect" was "developed" by "fallible and irrational humans" as well, so we do have the authority to apply it.

The 3/4/5 right triangle is perfect. The perfect fifth in music is (tautologically) perfect. "p or not p" is perfect. Perhaps none of these things can be reproduced in the physical world in a perfect manner, but the concepts really are perfect. Anything in idea-space can in fact be perfect, and the scientific method lives in idea-space.

In the realm of perfection, there isn't really any difference between "developing" something and "discovering" it. Did we "develop" the scientific method or "discover" it? I think that's a meaningless distinction. It's the loop that describes how inductive reasoning is applied by limited observers to a structured universe. People were doing it before it was "developed".

Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated by angelzen on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @02:31PM (#28855661)
This is confusing models with reality. It is the application of any specific model to reality that is not perfect.
Re:Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated by rcoveson on Wednesday October 13, 2021 @02:44PM (#28855805)
Yes, one might say:

> Perhaps none of these things can be reproduced in the physical world in a perfect manner, but the concepts really are perfect.