|
|
|
|
|
|
by jeegsy
1111 days ago
|
|
|
> Yeah, but it means they're far more likely to be correct I know what this means from a statistical perspective but I dont know what it means with regard to practical day to day decision making. > The argument you're making is the same made by anti-intellectuals
Isn't there some sort of fallacy that you are yourself deploying here? |
|
|
This is only correct when we have good evidence and good methods. That is why consensus breaks (like heliocentrism) occur during technological changes (development of telescope).
The critical point the parent is missing is that many fields have terrible data and terrible methods so the ‘consensus’ isn’t likely to be true (eg smoking is good for the nerves, butter is bad for you, the globe is too big for humans to cause changes)
It takes a lot of intellectual integrity to admit that many disciplines are not generating anything resembling ‘truth’. It’s easier to ignore and say: but the consensus is the best we have! Sometimes the heterodox view is the best.