Comment by okanat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by okanat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Sorry but scientific method has been the default for "Truth" for many academic subjects. It is reliable and idempotent. If all of the human information and most of the knowledge workers are removed from the Earth tomorrow, many will arrive in the same conclusion in most of the natural sciences and maths. The language and representation will be different but prime numbers will still be prime numbers and the matter will still be made of one neutral and two "interactive" elements.

Social sciences like politics, history and economy are harder to replicate with the scientific method, however repeated observations, statiscial information as well as qualitative analysis with evidence-based research can still provide replicable analysis.

> If anyone has a better idea how to determine what is true and what isn't - i'd certainly be very interested

This kind of excuse is often cited to shut down any discussion, especially in history, politics and economics. I find it deeply anti-intellectual and dogmatic. As long as evidence and counter-evidence is followed, it should be possible to discuss alternative interpretations and solutions.

While I agree with your sentiment, I must add to this that to say that something is unequivocally true that holds in all conditions everywhere is difficult to ascertain in general. So we have to deal with that two (or more) things can be true at the same time (sometimes). This may be less the case for things such as prime numbers but more the case when the underlying principle is void of simple cause and effect (in the linear sense).

The scientific method can be used to falsify hypotheses. It cannot prove that something is true. Fields that use the scientific method typically rely on social consensus for determining the truth. Empirically speaking, the social consensus seems to converge to a reasonable approximation of the truth with a high probability, but the process can take decades.

> This kind of excuse is often cited to shut down any discussion, especially in history, politics and economics. I find it deeply anti-intellectual and dogmatic. As long as evidence and counter-evidence is followed, it should be possible to discuss alternative interpretations and solutions.

How do you propose to discuss "alternative interpretations and solutions" if you believe that doing so is "anti-intellectual and dogmatic".

I'm honestly confused how you could respond this way to my comment. It sounds like you are criticizing yourself (?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com