Reason wrote:
>
> Anders Sandberg:
>
> > As for pseudoscience and loose thinking, maybe one way handling it
> > would be to set up an epistemic policy on the list. Such a policy
> > would suggest proper standards for what claims could be posted and
> > how much empirical or scholarly backup is proper. For example,
> > "Posting of claims contradicting known or widely accepted physical
> > phenomena must be backed up by at least one independent empirical
> > study".
>
> As Anders says, punishment is not really necessary: a simple "hey -- list
> rules, please read [url]" and general acceptance of the sensible nature of
> the list rules works nearly all of the time. If humans have this innate
> desire to conform and have rules, take advantage of it says I.
Ah, but who decides what is 'known or widely accepted physical
phenomena'? Should this also apply only to theories explaining
phenomena, not the phenomena themselves? Do we now need a Board of
Scientific Correctness to decide what is and is not 'known or widely
accepted theory about physical phenomena'? Also, should not individuals
who ARE scientists here, like Amara Graps or Robin Hanson, be allowed to
post their own studies without having to reference one by other persons?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:10 MDT