At first I agreed with your 3 priorities. But as I worked on some other stuff, I think some doubt has crept in. Each of the bullets has some uncertainty around it. Some things are pretty much but not entirely *certainly* correct. But most things have high uncertainty. Evidence can be slight, plentiful, coherent, contradictory, etc. (E.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/28/the-uncensored-guide-to-oumuamua-aliens-and-that-harvard-astronomer/?sh=a5319286abec) And it's difficult for any one clique to know when some thing is novel/new or unique. I have that problem all the time (e.g. Steve's pointing out that the DoD had this long-standing definition of Strawman that I knew nothing about ... new to me, but not new.)
I suppose you can simply add qualifiers: 1) are mostly correct 2) have coherent evidence 3) are novel for some given context Re: Weinstein's Evergreen mistake, I think he screwed up all 3 of them and refused to admit he made any mistake. On 1/29/21 2:00 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I would say to boost signals concerning claims that, > > 1) are correct > 2) have evidence > 3) are novel > > Other types of signals can be attenuated. Realistically, the media follows > this principle above all else: > > 4) have an audience -- ↙↙↙ 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/
