Medawar: "intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not. The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionally strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination."https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/945828423586295808 …
-
-
Imagine if "trial" and "convict" were the same word. But maybe the horror is more obvious if you're Bayesian and used to the principle of http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence/ … vs. Popperian "Today we shall again try hard to shoot this hypothesis and hope to miss." CC
@reasonisfun. -
Regardless, nobody who ever said "Let's go critique that power structure!" came back and said, "Well, actually it turns out this power structure is fine." It's just not the same meaning of "critique" as art criticism. "Critique" is a merely ambiguous word.
-
That's due to those people being closed to criticism of their critiques; it is in fact possible to understand a power structure more after seeing its criticisms answered (e.g. that's how I try to understand them more)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"don't bother us"? They couldn't consistently say "don't criticize us" if they value criticism on principle as Popperians do
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.