Is it even a community goal for consensus to be “scientific”, whatever that means to you?
Science seeks to be less wrong, not less confronted. I’d assume that as name suggests.
Indeed, but notice the basic logical error you’re making:
[doing science] → [seeking to be less wrong]
does not imply
[seeking to be less wrong] → [doing science]
(i.e. if an implication is true, it does not follow that its logical inverse is true)
(Or, in other words: “ways to be less wrong” is a superset of “ways of doing science”.)
I am OK to limit this question to “seeking to be less wrong” scope. Downvote without reason is still a problem.
Is it even a community goal for consensus to be “scientific”, whatever that means to you?
Science seeks to be less wrong, not less confronted. I’d assume that as name suggests.
Indeed, but notice the basic logical error you’re making:
does not imply
(i.e. if an implication is true, it does not follow that its logical inverse is true)
(Or, in other words: “ways to be less wrong” is a superset of “ways of doing science”.)
I am OK to limit this question to “seeking to be less wrong” scope. Downvote without reason is still a problem.