|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tao3300
752 days ago
|
|
|
We trust the consensus of published, peer-reviewed experts. That's different than the kind of Demos that does things like declare war on Persia, kill Jesus and Socrates, or edit Wikipedia. > If an idea is disputed, then you trust it less. If it comes from a small number of reputable sources, then you trust it more than a large numbers of unreliable people. So with the Wiki. Right. That makes Wiki kind of unreliable. Not completely. And not to the point of uselessness, but you should trust it about as far as you can throw it. > Human knowledge isn't from the platonic realm. Citation needed ;) |
|
|
Ye of little faith! The Demos, after much bickering, have also decided to largely trust the consensus of published, peer-reviewed experts.
But what you really have to ask when you say you trust the consensus, is who forms the consensus of peer-reviewed experts?
It's rare to get an explicit consensus from an actual organization. When Cochrane does a large meta-analysis, and whisper "moderate evidence", I stop reading and immediately trust them with my life. Unfortunately, they very rarely have confidence in anything.
Most of the time, the consensus of published, peer-reviewed expert is also not something people form on their own. When has your neighbor last read and synthesized the literature to determine what the consensus is on hydroxyapatite in toothpaste, before going to the store?
Individual experts, I also trust only as far as I can throw them. The consensus of experts I'm happy to rely on. But that, very often, also comes from trusting the Demos, I'm afraid.