Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ben_w 241 days ago
That linked page is just a long-winded assertion that only their own definition counts.

It's also a definition which is completely untestable and presently unfalsifiable.

1 comments

He’s a neuroscientist that studies consciousness. I think that gives him more valid reasons to have this definition than someone who programs computers.
He himself would criticise you for doing so, even just on the basis of what he put in that blog post, as you're using an argument from authority.
I believe you’re being disingenuous and hopes that no one reads the full article. Because what he said is more nuance than what you’re proposing that we should not appeal to authority. I’ll post what he said here just to be clear.

“ I fully admit that this is an appeal to authority! But saying you should rely on the framings of a scientific field, like literally just respecting how it defines terms, is extremely reasonable as an appeal. It’s also very different than saying you should blindly believe the conclusions of that field. While “trust the experts” is often too strong a claim, the much weaker ask of “use the agreed-upon vocabulary the experts use when discussing the field” is actually quite reasonable, and most people who want to have an opinion about a scientific (or philosophical) subject should respect the used terms. The same goes for consciousness.”

I think we can do better than to have this level of argumentation. Regardless if the pretending comment had a merit to it or not