No. Trust is a bug, not a feature in this context. Now, *if* the referees come back with a nuanced evaluation of any of the objections, then I would be impressed. One of the reasons most philosophers and scientists don't respond well to falsificationism is because it can be myopically taken out of context (which I think this Ground Truth effort does as well). Theories are never actually falsified, per se. It's a mix of testing and iteration, mixing and matching from old theories and tiny incremental progress.
The same would be true of the evaluations from the referees. It's not a matter of trust, argument from authority. It's a matter of good faith mechanistic explanation ... something Weinstein fails at continually. Irony is broken, here. Weinstein wants us to see him as democratizing, anti-censorship, blahblah. But he never seems to deliver the contextual nuance required for it. His appeals to emotion, anecdote, special pleading, and a variety of other fallacies obstruct democracy. This is where, despite my misgivings, someone like Joe Rogan is WAY more informative and defensible. Another fundamental pillar of Popperianism is *openness*, that untested hypotheses can enter the testing pipeline from anywhere. Rogan is open minded to a fault. (If your mind is too open, your brains will fall out.) Weinstein is *motivated* and pre-filters hypotheses, especially anything appearing "woke" or "mainstream". And that's just stupid. On 7/19/21 8:58 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > Am I correct in asserting that the gist of what you guys say about this > ground truth exercise is that if you don't trust the referees you can't trust > the result? If yes, I'll agree with you on that point. -- ☤>$ 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/
