I debated whether or not to call it an oblate spheroid like a huge nerd or just use the “earth is round” shorthand that most people are familiar with. While not perfectly round, I think most people would agree an oblate spheroid is a round shape in the general sense.
That was actually what I was getting at - there are too many variables in life. Only go as correct as you need to in the moment, and be understanding when others aren’t precisely correct either.
And? So what? We are talking about things of consequences.
I disagreed with your statement that “no one could ever get all the data and present accurate facts” and sought to use a ubiquitously understood example that is somehow divisive (see: flat-earthers) despite science that’s been well understood for hundreds of years making it obviously factual.
I’d say if you’re arguing over basic objective, a priori truths, you’ve already lost the plot.
I disagree. I would argue it is “of consequence” if someone is unable to look at the available data and come to the conclusion that the planet we’re standing on is round. Especially if that person is in a position of power or influence over others, because their capacity to make rational conclusions from available information is profoundly corrupted. e.g.: They shouldn’t be a science teacher at a school because they don’t understand even basic scientific principles that are universally understood.
Claiming I can’t ever prove to you that this case in front of me is green because what even is green is just… dumb.
Pareto principle, 80% of the effect is determined by 20% of the variables. To get “all of the data” on an open ended question would be fruitless, but you can be reasonably sure of a theory the more evidence corroborates it. Nothing can ever truly be known in a Platonic sense, but the basis of science is in "most likely"s.
I’m not fine with 90%, but 90% is significantly more reassuring and evidence-based than 0%. And if measuring that last 10% would mean some type of logistical nightmare, then we can act with relative assurance on a 90% likelihood. If you didn’t know, that’s how every fucking scientific test works. P-value of 0.1.
deleted by creator
If someone says the Earth is round, are we seriously concerned that enough data has not been collected to consider this an accurate fact?
It is, in fact approximately round - it’s more precisely an oblate spheroid.
I’d say go as accurate as is relevant to the current situation.
I debated whether or not to call it an oblate spheroid like a huge nerd or just use the “earth is round” shorthand that most people are familiar with. While not perfectly round, I think most people would agree an oblate spheroid is a round shape in the general sense.
That was actually what I was getting at - there are too many variables in life. Only go as correct as you need to in the moment, and be understanding when others aren’t precisely correct either.
(which I think is what you were getting at, too?)
deleted by creator
I disagreed with your statement that “no one could ever get all the data and present accurate facts” and sought to use a ubiquitously understood example that is somehow divisive (see: flat-earthers) despite science that’s been well understood for hundreds of years making it obviously factual.
I disagree. I would argue it is “of consequence” if someone is unable to look at the available data and come to the conclusion that the planet we’re standing on is round. Especially if that person is in a position of power or influence over others, because their capacity to make rational conclusions from available information is profoundly corrupted. e.g.: They shouldn’t be a science teacher at a school because they don’t understand even basic scientific principles that are universally understood.
Good thing I didn’t say that, then!
Pareto principle, 80% of the effect is determined by 20% of the variables. To get “all of the data” on an open ended question would be fruitless, but you can be reasonably sure of a theory the more evidence corroborates it. Nothing can ever truly be known in a Platonic sense, but the basis of science is in "most likely"s.
deleted by creator
I’m not fine with 90%, but 90% is significantly more reassuring and evidence-based than 0%. And if measuring that last 10% would mean some type of logistical nightmare, then we can act with relative assurance on a 90% likelihood. If you didn’t know, that’s how every fucking scientific test works. P-value of 0.1.
deleted by creator
I don’t get it. Are you rejecting science as a tool for discerning truth? Did you even read my post? Because I did answer your question about the 90%.