Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conversation

Re:Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conve... by Waterluvian on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @03:14PM (#33806986)

If "actual science" is a real thing, then absolutely nothing humanity has ever done in the name of scientific endeavour is "actual science," given every experiment exists on a continuum of trade-offs.

A case could be made that A/B testing is insufficiently rigorous given specific goals, resources, limitations, context, etc. But that case isn't being made here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conve... by williamstein on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @03:16PM (#33807012)

Some pure mathematics is actually rigorous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conve... by Waterluvian on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @03:17PM (#33807024)

Hah! You're fast. I was about to comment on that: "actual math" probably exists. "actual science" probably doesn't. I'm not sure any experiment can ever be free from error, uncertainty, trade-offs. (And now I'm super curious about this...)

Thanks though. I've narrowed my original comment to more accurately represent the scope I am referring to.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conve... by philippejara on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @03:31PM (#33807203)

to be fair whether mathematics is a science or not is debated[0], so your initial claim might very well stand true depending on which side one takes in the argument.

[0]:https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/10178/is-math...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter 2.0: Our continued commitment to the public conve... by Waterluvian on Wednesday November 30, 2022 @03:41PM (#33807343)

That's fair. Though that gets into semantics which I don't find interesting or fun. In this context, I think it's fair to say we're talking about "things that can be experimented on to learn more things."

[ Parent | on HN ]