But, for what it's worth, reading the current state of the spreadsheet, Jocelynn clearly thinks more like I do. Paul, in my opinion, doesn't understand how to evaluate the claims. Max is in the middle, perhaps taking too much of a myopic, literalist perspective on falsification.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nEsf6l_dEv_NQqLvoHYP-eRZ0UmZGqo16uSHub53h9Q/edit#gid=31863150 As expected, this Ground Truth Challenge is mostly a waste of time. And I'm sure Bret *loves* the attention. But to the extent it gets people talking at least somewhat dispassionately about composition and narrative, maybe it'll be slightly helpful. So far, 5 of the counterclaims are scored as "valid". I.e. One of Weinstein, Kory, or Malone made a blatantly false statement. But the devil is always in the details. On 7/20/21 8:16 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > No. Trust is a bug, not a feature in this context. Now, *if* the referees > come back with a nuanced evaluation of any of the objections, then I would be > impressed. One of the reasons most philosophers and scientists don't respond > well to falsificationism is because it can be myopically taken out of context > (which I think this Ground Truth effort does as well). Theories are never > actually falsified, per se. It's a mix of testing and iteration, mixing and > matching from old theories and tiny incremental progress. > > The same would be true of the evaluations from the referees. It's not a > matter of trust, argument from authority. It's a matter of good faith > mechanistic explanation ... something Weinstein fails at continually. Irony > is broken, here. Weinstein wants us to see him as democratizing, > anti-censorship, blahblah. But he never seems to deliver the contextual > nuance required for it. His appeals to emotion, anecdote, special pleading, > and a variety of other fallacies obstruct democracy. > > This is where, despite my misgivings, someone like Joe Rogan is WAY more > informative and defensible. Another fundamental pillar of Popperianism is > *openness*, that untested hypotheses can enter the testing pipeline from > anywhere. Rogan is open minded to a fault. (If your mind is too open, your > brains will fall out.) Weinstein is *motivated* and pre-filters hypotheses, > especially anything appearing "woke" or "mainstream". And that's just stupid. > > > On 7/19/21 8:58 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: >> Am I correct in asserting that the gist of what you guys say about this >> ground truth exercise is that if you don't trust the referees you can't >> trust the result? If yes, I'll agree with you on that point. > -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
