I'll attempt to correct you on postmodernism. But I expect you to move the goalposts again. Here are 2 articles that may help. I've posted them before, to no avail.
https://michel-foucault.com/2018/12/19/postmodernism-didnt-cause-trump-it-explains-him-2018/ https://www.vox.com/features/2019/11/11/18273141/postmodernism-donald-trump-lyotard-baudrillard But I'll move on to the relevant question of the practical reasons the Ground Truth Challenge will not deliver. There are 3 referees, who exhibit very different *methods* for evaluating the objections. 3 is a very small sample. Anyone familiar with the recent achievements of induction (both [un]supervised) will recognize that's useless. Perhaps 30 referees would give us some practical progress. But 3? No. Of course, you could cite qualitative research, case studies, etc. as valid types of knowledge. But even with peer-review (and its many flaws), such results are subject to cherry-picking and confirmation bias. E.g. you chose the least offensive of the valid objections to use in your post. How much a remdesivir regimen costs is trivial compared to misrepresenting the biodistribution results in order to scare the hell out of people and vie for clicks and youtube views. In short, this has absolutely nothing to do with silly red herrings like the understanding of what is false. The failure of the Ground Truth Challenge will be about *method*. On 7/20/21 11:51 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > To somewhat reflect on an exercise like this; it obviously depends on your > understanding of what is "false". A postmodern point of view emphasizes the > importance of perspective, there is no absolute ground truth. If you view the > world from this perspective, then obviously an exercise like this is > meaningless. On the other hand, modernists argue there is a ground truth and > an exercise like this can help to get to the ground truth. (I admit I don't > really know what is postmodernism and modernism, that's my understanding and > I'm open to learn if someone more knowledgeable corrects me) > > Personally, I don't really know where to draw the line. There are obviously > issues where the truth is subjective, but I do think there's enough validity > in an objective ground truth to experiment with an exercise like this. Take > the example from the very first "valid" falsification - Malone claimed a > treatment cost for Remdsivir is approximately $6-$8k and the submission was > made that this is false, it is only about $3k. Malone was wrong, there's no > subjectivity involved, he made an objectively measurable false claim. > > Again, I like to withold my final verdict on the process till it's completed > and we can study the results, but the openness and transparency of the > process enthuses me. Of course, there could be practical reasons why it does > not deliver what's expected? -- ☤>$ 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/
