Total Pageviews

Monday, June 8, 2020

Brilliant thoughts explaining what real science should be

“The first principle 
is that you must not 
fool yourself,
and you are 
the easiest 
person to fool.” 
—Richard Feynman, 
from his1974 Caltech 
commencement address.



If history is a guide, 
censoring opinions
that contradict 
the science
consensus,
doesn’t 
end well. 



German philosopher 
Hegel said the only thing 
we learn from history 
is that we learn nothing 
from history. 



We are our own 
worst enemies 
when it comes
to identifying 
shortcomings 
in our beliefs.

We are victims 
of confirmation bias, 
groupthink, anchoring, 
and other biases. 

And we are often 
unaware of our biases, 
which is why we’re the 
easiest people to fool. 

“In science we need to form 
parties, as it were, for and 
against any theory that is 
being subjected to serious 
scrutiny,”  wrote the science
philosopher Karl Popper, 
in 1972. 

“For we need to have 
a rational scientific 
discussion, and discussion 
does not always lead 
to a clear-cut resolution.” 




Seeking evidence 
that contradicts 
our own opinion  
is very important 
in real science.

A real scientist
has the duty of
attempting to falsify 
his own theory.

It's human nature
to defend your beliefs,
but the science 
is likely to improve 
after honest debate.

And debate is not 
harsh ridicule and 
character attacks,
considered to be 
debate by leftists.



In his 2016 Caltech 
commencement 
address, 
Atul Gawande 
highlighted five 
hallmark traits
of pseudoscientists: 

(1) conspiracy, 

(2) cherry-picking data, 

(3) producing fake experts, 

(4) moving the goalposts, and

(5) deploying false analogies 
and other logical fallacies. 

“When you see several or all 
of these tactics deployed,” 
      said Gawande, 
“you know that you’re 
not dealing with a 
scientific claim 
anymore.” 




Charlie Munger, 
Warren Buffett’s
right-hand man, 
described his own
mental model 
during his 2007 
USC Law School 
commencement 
address: 
“I’m not entitled to have 
an opinion on [a] subject unless 
I can state the arguments against 
my position better than the people 
do who are supporting it.”