zlacker

>The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me.

Name one time in the entirety of recorded history when "the decentralized market of ideas" did anything of the sort.

>>krapp+(OP)
The box office flop of Morbius

>>krapp+(OP)
> Name one time in the entirety of recorded history when "the decentralized market of ideas" did anything of the sort.

This is literally how most scientific progress is made.

>>s3r3ni+02
No, scientific progress is made by people educated in a particular field of study in the work of prior authorities in that field, making hypotheses and following established experimental methods, then publishing their results for review and verification by their peers. In other words, by the "centralized authority" of scientific consensus.

Science absolutely does not work by just letting everyone believe whatever they want and somehow just expecting the truth to "win."

>>krapp+w2
I would call a group of educated professionals debating all sides / data for a particular hypothesis, coming to a general consensus after rigorous evaluation and debate, essentially what the "market of ideas" is meant to convey.

What you don't see here, for example, is any mention of a "President of Science" or other committee making that call, nor particular suppression of lines of inquiry.

>>s3r3ni+i3
What you also don't see in that process is every viewpoint given equal weight and consideration, or in the case of ignorant quacks, even any consideration.

>>s3r3ni+02
According to Structure of Scientific Revolutions this isn't true; people hold onto silly ideas firmly for their entire lives, and they have to be discredited either by a revolution or retiring so they can't fight for it anymore.

Linguistics being an example where ideas about grammar are only accepted because Chomsky is still around forcing everyone to accept them; AI language models don't seem to follow them.

>>vkou+s6
And that’s decided by the president of science?

>>pigeon+U9
No, it's decided by an unelected cabal of experts (appointed by the previous cabal of experts), who vet and haze new entrants for years and decades, before so much as giving them five minutes of their time, or letting them speak to a room full of laymen who don't know better (undergraduates).

You're right, though, public vaccine discourse would have been significantly better if we required internet research experts like Joe Rogan or any of the talking heads on Fox to have a PHD in immunology or epidemiology or at least a double-masters in biology and economics before we allowed them to speak to more than ~ten people at a time.

>>astran+W6
You've never changed your mind?

>>kbelde+Na
I'm not a scientist with a publishing history, so we can't tell.