Different fields of science are quite different. A field with good epistemics like most of physics is very different than a field that largely does what Feymann called cargo culting. That speech is quite good.
I’m not sure what the term “accepted science” is supposed to mean. It seems like a propaganda term from people who think that science isn’t about empiricism but about something else. Is a paper ‘accepted science’ by virtue of having been accepted by peer review? Is it about whether the relevant government authority accepts the science? Is it about whether authorities like the NYT do?
In practice not knowing frequently means that you want to set yourself up to be resilient to claims being wrong and it’s often not on focusing on the exact probability.
Different fields of science are quite different. A field with good epistemics like most of physics is very different than a field that largely does what Feymann called cargo culting. That speech is quite good.
I’m not sure what the term “accepted science” is supposed to mean. It seems like a propaganda term from people who think that science isn’t about empiricism but about something else. Is a paper ‘accepted science’ by virtue of having been accepted by peer review? Is it about whether the relevant government authority accepts the science? Is it about whether authorities like the NYT do?
In practice not knowing frequently means that you want to set yourself up to be resilient to claims being wrong and it’s often not on focusing on the exact probability.