Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iiioiia t1_irfdlqx wrote

Reply to comment by TheTrueLordHumungous in “Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of knowledge.” How Karl Popper’s philosophy of science can overcome clinical corruption. by IAI_Admin

>> a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged." > > > > Its false, the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority.

If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):

a) considering the "fact" that the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority?

b) considering that "the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority" may not actually be factual?

1

TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irgfvqz wrote

> would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):

Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.

1

iiioiia t1_irizc8w wrote

>Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.

The purity standard is what was stated on the label: 100%.

1

VitriolicViolet t1_irgmgcl wrote

so in other words you might.

the fact you had to qualify it means you were wrong.

0

TheTrueLordHumungous t1_irgmrxz wrote

I don’t understand the point of this pedantic argument.

1

iiioiia t1_irizgjb wrote

They are useful for identifying the limits of instances of human consciousness, at least. With an adequate sample size, it can also be used to develop an algorithm for how the human mind will behave when it is put into certain situations, what forms of rhetoric and memes it will grasp for when it finds the ground it was standing on no longer (or doesn't actually) exists, etc.

1