[extropy-chat] Science and Fools

[Chris Hibbert]

Robin wrote:
> Consider topics like moral philosophy, epistemology, what Shakespeare
> really meant, how to write a compelling novel, how to seduce the
> opposite sex, how to get a team to work together, etc. Maybe progress
> hasn't been rapid enough in these areas over the centuries. But that
> doesn't mean there aren't people who know a lot about these subjects,
> people you could stand to learn from. How can you justify disagreeing
> with people who have studied these topics in great detail, just because
> progress hasn't been rapid?

I thought the conversation made it clear that there may be times when 
the best thing for an uninformed baysian to do when trying to understand 
a new field was to accept the informed consensus.

But I think the relevant characteristic of these stagnant fields is that 
there's still disagreement among the experts, and while there may have 
been sound and fury, it doesn't seem to have led to a settled consensus. 
  If a reasonable amount of effort indicates that experts disagree, then 
the uninformed baysian can't know which expert to believe without 
investing the time to become an expert.

There may be someone who knows a lot more than I do, but I have no cheap 
way of finding out which one to believe.  The above rule of thumb 
("accept the expert consensus when it exists") doesn't help in some 
cases.  The right baysian response may be "no one knows" or it may be 
something else.

Chris
-- 
In Just-spring when the world is mudluscious
   -- E. E. Cummings
http://www.ralphlevy.com/quotes/balloon.htm

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
http://mydruthers.com