• 0 Posts
  • 50 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle



  • nfh@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzEat lead
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    We can’t prove that the world we live in wasn’t created last Thursday, with our memories, the growth rings in trees, and so on created by a (near) omnipotent trickster to deceive us. But science and rationality give us tools for determining what’s worth taking seriously, and sorting out the reasonable, but unconfirmed, claims from the unverifiable hogwash.


  • nfh@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzThe 1900s
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    26 days ago

    And even then it’s probably not a hard rule as much as a good heuristic: the older a source is, the more careful you should be citing it as an example of current understanding, especially in a discipline with a lot of ongoing research.

    If somebody did good analysis, but had incomplete data years ago, you can extend it with better data today. Maybe the ways some people in a discipline in the past can shed light on current debates. There are definitely potential reasons to cite older materials that generalize well to many subjects.





  • Knowledge is what happens when you’ve evaluated enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that something is false. If you haven’t seen the evidence, but still think it’s true or false (you don’t lack belief), then you have a belief about it. As such, knowledge is a type of belief with extra justification.

    If I’ve reviewed enough evidence I’m comfortable saying I can reject the null hypothesis, that is I have a belief that it’s knowledge, I’ll call it as such. If I haven’t, I’ll couch my confidence in my belief accordingly.





  • nfh@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldPronouns bad!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think we agree that most self-identified conservatives aren’t actually very invested in the status quo or tradition, and are actually regressive reactionaries, but I think it’s a clearer point to say that most self-identified conservatives aren’t in fact conservative, than that conservatism isn’t actually what people (claim they) mean when they say conservative. At that point, conservatism loses its meaning.