I’m new to the community so I appreciate your willingness to explain the poor reception this video got. That said I think the point you critique is still valid and that you might be less critical if you’d watched the last 5 minutes of the video. Are we in a “more privileged position”? Yes, and he acknowledges that towards the end. However, “more” is a relative term. In all likely-hood a thousand years from now scientists will look back and say we were less wrong than we had been in the past but still far more wrong than they will be. If with each new revolutionary thought or finding we think we’ve come to final truth we’re likely to slow our efforts. However, if we can think of it instead as becoming less wrong we stay motivated to make the next step to becoming even less wrong. Either way I appear to have been misguaged the interests of the community and would appreciate any suggestions for further submissions. Is there a page on submission guidelines/protocol that I’ve missed?
Cogitus_Maximus
Karma: 10
It would be really nice if studies had a sort of thoroughness check list at the top of the paper next to the abstract clearly stating sample size, sampling process, number of peer reviewers, study methodology(double-blind, panel etc), and any other relevant information to the papers validity. If some sort of crude standardization could even occur within specific fields it would make cross-study comparison much easier. Or what if papers could be published online in a format inviting public criticism and community concerns would be forced to be answered to by authors.
Thanks much for the feedback.