Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> You seem very confused about what the scientific method is, and how it eliminates the need to trust scientists instead of science.

You seem very confused about how science is implemented.

The scientific method absolutely does not eliminate the need to trust scientists.

Have you even heard of ethics boards? Institutional Review Boards? The Hippocratic Oath?

You are trusting in scientists in the collective. You think that somehow makes the scientific method immune to the problems of human behavior. If anything, it exacerbates it, and it is only because of the diligence of scientists, almost completely orthogonal to the scientific method, that progress is made.

> eliminating falsifiability

It's hilarious to watch you claim this, while I've listed multiple examples of how we investigate scientists OUTSIDE of the scientific method. Corruption. Blackmail. Bribery. Because I recognize that we do in fact trust in the scientist, and I know that trust can be misplaced, I am MORE alert to the problems that can corrupt scientific findings than you are.

You would seem to be dumbfounded, "How on earth could TWO scientists BOTH be bribed by the same corporation?!?"



Your position has no bearing on the question of whether sciencism is internally inconsistent and incompatible with the scientific method.

If you really want to grandstand to an audience of none about your philosophy of human behavior, I suggest a blog.


What evidence would convince you that any of the arguments you have made, or the way you have characterized my beliefs, is wrong?

If you can't come up with any way to falsify your claims, how do you know you're not fooling yourself?




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: