Science is not logiomancy. Consequently, like every form of pseudo-divination, it gets you the right answer provided the author already knows the right answer. Good scientist => good papers. Good science => wordcelibate nonsense.
If you have a good scientist, they sometimes produce a sea of pseudoscientific whatthefuck, with the right answer at the bottom. (It's okay, nobody can for real tell the difference between science and pseudoscience, so they're equally persuasive.)
If you have a bad scientist who knows the scientific [recipe] you get lots of rigorous statistically literate data, supporting the wrong conclusion, because statistical methods aren't anywhere near powerful enough to constitute logiomancy. (What a waste of effort - even other scientists only read the abstract then ctrl-f to see if they're cited.)
By the way, all working forms of divination except logiomancy are just asking someone who already knows the answer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In a sense, logiomancy is the same, except there's no someone, it's asking unconscious material that already knows the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment