Stargazing live, black holes and the scary ass CP
I wonder if he still tells potential contributors that they're "ice skating up hill"? It's one thing to be a stupid stubborn cunt, but it's another thing entirely to openly admit to it and suggest that it's a good thing.
Though I apply the maxim: it's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Well, we've talked about my dislike/distrust of the term "reason" or "rationality", as if it's some divine way of looking at life. 1) I doubt most things are actually decided on reason, 2)I think we are far better at reasoning ourselves into staying in a position that we give ourselves credit for. Especially if it's embarrassing on the other side, cause you have to admit you were wrong.
That said, I have a very hard time understanding people who stand up and say "That is not true" without really understanding X or Y. Even those who might damn well be right, coincidentally. Cause, ironically, turns out Relativity might not be right... but not in the way the lunatic asylum thinks, but in the "azimov's 'relativity of wrong'" (I think it's just delicious that if Einstien is right, than by his own math, he's wrong - where black holes are concerned. Course, the guy from oxford said, quite logically, "the real world is always more messy than the math, making the impossible, possible - just cause there's stuff you don't account for).
Most things probably aren't decided on reason, but it doesn't stop you putting methods in place to minimise that effect, which is the point. You generate a series of checks and balances, usually involving discussions with others, that ensures you're not just making stuff up. If it goes right, you hold beliefs that gel nicely with how the world works, if it goes wrong you don't but believe it's true anyway even more. I presume it's the latter that you object to, it probably is a big risk.
Relativity of wrong is a great concept, though. Seriously, when I get around to teaching undergraduates philosophy of science (a version of it aimed at actual lab-working scientists, not philosophers who think they understand how it works) that will certainly be included. There's too much "well it's certainly wrong because science is incomplete" and that just gives the wrong impression. To quote Tetronian: "We're all wrong, but I'd rather be *puts on sunglasses* less wrong."
Of course, some of the checks and balances are more complicated than others...