Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomlock | Hacker News Reader

These disciplines aren't built on the edifice that you imagine they are. What you're doing, in examining the edification of certain disciplines, is quite postmodern. I encourage you to extend that examination to all fields.

View on HN

Which disciplines aren't built on the edifice I imagine they are? If you're suggesting that math and physics aren't built on what I imagine them to be, then demonstrate your point.

All of them. Every field is fallible, phrenology was once just science. Why would you think something like that couldn't happen again?

You seem to be arguing that all epistemologies are fallible and therefore they are all equivalent. This is a pretty silly line of argument. The fact that a thing is fallible does not mean that it is the equal of things that don't even bother with the truth.

So, you feel like when someone says all fields are fallible and that you should examine their edification critically, that they are simultaneously making the claim that all fields are equivalent?

Do you feel you are fallible in your identification of which fields are concerned with the truth and which ones aren't?

I'm saying that you have made no argument whatsoever that math and physics are equivalently fallible to gender studies, you've merely insinuated it. If you've got an argument to make, feel free to make it. But citing the replication crisis does not cut it.

Things are either fallible or they aren't, and since it seems you're willing to accept that all fields are fallible "to some degree" aka are fallible, we shouldn't edify any of them uncritically. Are you saying that you can claim things can be fallible without being equivalent? Because that's what I'm saying, and I'm glad we agree.

The replication crisis is a perfect example of the problem faced by all fields, of papers of questionable veracity being accepted by peer-reviewed journals. Convenient for you to say it is not up for discussion. However, I am casting a critical eye on your seemingly infallible nature, and I choose to consider it relevant.

> The replication crisis is a perfect example of the problem faced by all fields, of papers of questionable veracity being accepted by peer-reviewed journals.

You're absolutely right. Now, feel free to explain how that is relevant to THIS issue.

Because both address getting papers that are incorrect and have made up evidence into prominent peer-reviewed journals.

Yes, but what is at issue is the nature of the papers that got past. The papers that passed peer review in the replication crisis were reasonable, but wrong. These papers were not.

What makes you feel like you're an expert on what is and isn't reasonable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com