https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd
"We’re in an increasingly complex world, which requires increasingly complex
collective decisions. If we avoid magical thinking, it seems clear that getting
the facts right is, while hardly sufficient, at least necessary.
Nowadays, the public is constantly subjected to “zombie arguments”, recycled
scientific controversies, long-settled within science, which retain their
currency in the public consciousness. This confusion derails efforts to act
effectively, even when the information available may be unambiguous within
science.
The public is also somewhat confused about how science establishes facts. Some
believe that once a paper passes peer review, it is established as “true”, on
an equal epistemic footing with every other paper unless proven “false”.
“False” papers are then considered a mark of shame, of negligence if not actual
dishonesty. “Bad” papers are considered “refuted” or even “debunked”.
This is actually not far from the truth in publications in some engineering
fields. One reports on actual achievements; one avoids lies and error. There’s
little room for honestly, competently wrong in reporting the efficacy of an
invention.
In a science in its most delightful phase, though, when much of consequence is
known and much remains unknown, a number of different explanations for
phenomena may be considered and defended. Barking up the wrong tree is a
perfectly legitimate contribution, as much can be learned from considering
whether the prey (the bird of Truth?) is there or elsewhere.
But eventually, truth does emerge."
Via Dewayne Hendricks and Dave Farber.
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
