"The more socially 'networked' a fact was (the more people and things involved in its production), the more effectively it could refute its less-plausible alternatives."https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html?fbclid=IwAR17guxGAqNasskKDDm6DEWefTJv4hdDPewly_OOMPLJX_H2Vkfg96_seF0 …
-
-
Scientific epistemology works because of competition, not the noble principles of scientists. I hate when a scientist says "I love being proven wrong," because it's a horrible lie because it's partly true (they love having typos and minor points corrected), but mainly very false.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
it would be enough to greatly differentiate between the latest unconfirmed findings, and the aggregate consensus of decades of thousands of minds dedicated on a topic; unfortunately the former makes for better headlines so we are doomed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Agree that knowledge of process might not help. I do though think knowledge of networks of beliefs helps. Many outsiders think too much smoking gun and too little weight of evidence. Awareness of interconnected beliefs needed to get it right.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If taxpayers figured out "the people, politics, institutions, peer review & so forth" behind 'the creation of science' they would vote to slash funding by 90%.
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.