Editorial How to Survive Indiepocalypse in 5 Easy Steps

[Fenix]

Self correction stems from the idea that nothing is sacred and everything is open for question.

In ideal world that don't exist - maybe.

Every truth is only provisional can if new facts emerge is open to changes.

Sadly it doesn't happend.

False. This piece of right wing propaganda was spreading like few years ago. It was totally untrue.

True, it is well documented case, and totally true. That even was discussed in Russia (in some places not plagued by liberals).
You don't that open to new facts that can born new theories, isn't it? )

This is not pseudo-psychology. I just say that if you criticism is to be useful for something it must be a knowledgeable criticism not ignorant criticism. For example: creationism was popular and had many proponents but all of that "scrutiny" was not useful. Pitdown man hoax was uncovered by scientists not creationists.

But it is all "knowledgeable criticism" not "ignorant criticism". Who decides? Everytime when someone start to make cheap "psychology" assumption it is cheap try to put your opponent in a bad light, nothing more.
Every question should be discussed on the merits. But that's for the ideal world, obviously.

For example: creationism was popular and had many proponents but all of that "scrutiny" was not useful. Pitdown man hoax was uncovered by scientists not creationists.

Not useful? What usefulness are you talking about?
There are applied researches, and there are fundamental research. First give immediate economical effect, second second move the horizons of science for decades, while have no direct economical impact, first can't exist without second.
Of course your car won't drive faster if you know that there were no "evolution" or evolution does not take the important place that it is attributed to in modern science (problem of occurrence of human eye that impossible to explained via evolution), it was not accidental origin of life on earth (because chances for that are something with hundreds if not thousands of zeros after the decimal point- that's what modern science told us).
But it will certainly have consequences for humanity, because truth is only matters in real science.
Also, creationists are scientists too, so I don't understand this separation.

Nothing more untrue. Look at the average human lifespan in the middle of XX century and now for example.

Please stop telling bullshit.
First I don't understand how this lifespan-hoax is calculated.
Both my grandfathers lived to 90 years. My father died in 63. I have bad health, and I will not live up to even 63.
Second - human life span has absolutely NOTHING with philosophical idea.
You talk like a layman, so all you have is illusion.
Like if our ancestors all lived in unbearable agony and suffering - no, they quite enjoyed their life without computers and mashines you know.
Nothing changed with tecjnical progres, except for the increased risks because of the increased capability for the destruction of humanity.

Thomas Kuhn has made some interesting observations but his book is more beneficial if you don't treat it too seriously. You really should read Karl Popper, he is a much, much better science philosopher.

Why I should prefer demagogue who failed over someone who predict real processes?
Read that article.

In the idealized Popperian view of scientific progress, new theories are proposed to explain new evidence that contradicts the predictions of old theories. The heretical philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, on the other hand, claimed that new theories frequently contradict the best available evidence—at least at first. Often, the old observations were inaccurate or irrelevant, and it was the invention of a new theory that stimulated experimentalists to go hunting for new observational techniques to test it. But the success of this “unofficial” process depends on a blithe disregard for evidence while the vulnerable young theory weathers an initial storm of skepticism. Yet if Feyerabend is correct, and an unpopular new theory can ignore or reject experimental data long enough to get its footing, how much longer can an old and creaky theory, buttressed by the reputations and influence and political power of hundreds of established practitioners, continue to hang in the air even when the results upon which it is premised are exposed as false?

 

[RK47]

It's like I failed my copy protection check in Ultima 7 or something.

 

[Fenix]

Lol...

 

[vivec]

I don't like braggarts except when they are braggarts who do things right. ITS Inc. does it right. :cheersmate:

 

[Lurker King]

VD is also full of shit.

math is a social construct

Yep.

 

[Severian Silk]

What was the subject of this thread again?

Surviving the Indiepocalypse with this book you mentioned...