Again, it depends on the claim. If you are specifically making the claim that X is worse than Y, then yes, you do need to look at both X and Y.
-
-
If peer-review is good in physics, the papers which get through will also be the ones which reveal the state of the field and which ideas are winning. This is how science advances although it too can and has gone wrong & might be now for all I know.
-
I of course agree that physics has a much much higher epistemological standard than critical theory. The question is, how to devise a test of that sort of claim, in a way that will satisfy the most people. At least, that was my original question.
-
I have no idea. But I do know that testing for weakness in living up to an ideal, evidence-based epistemological standard is a very different project to showing the existence of an experiential and irrational one.
-
I think your argument's pretty good, as usual, and yet, I think I still find it reasonable for people to at least ask about experimental controls in hoaxes such as these.
-
And I think I understand your argument that it's beside the point, because X is theology, and Y is science, and so they can't really be compared. (Maybe crudely put.)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.