> That's a laughable argument based on a claim of authority.

How exactly do you think that scientific grants are evaluated right now? I have some bad news for you...

Anyway, I'm just telling you that I actually do have enough experience to know the difference between a good question and a bad one, and I'm applying that experience here.

> Do not misrepresent my point. My point was: if people care, even marginal reduction of uncertainty is worthwhile.

No, your point was that there's no normative standard for evaluating science. You said it like, three times. Here, I'll quote you:

> There isn't a normative standard for good research beyond doing good research. Some fields have an easier time setting up and controlling experiments, but no research can predict how useful it'll turn out to be. You're conflating control convenience for utility.

You like the research, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about, and who am I for having an opinion anyway. And then I tell you that I actually do have some relevant knowledge, and you dismiss the knowledge as "normative". Convenient!

Reducing uncertainty is great. I'm all for it. Sometimes it's even worth paying for. Doing the 150,000th derivative observational study finding that poor people are sicker than rich people is not an example. Poor people are sicker than rich people. Let's move on.

▲

nilirl 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> How exactly do you think that scientific grants are evaluated right now? I have some bad news for you

A problem of authorization can be solved with delegated authority. I'm saying your use of it is as evidence for your reasoning is weak. Those are two different problems.

> your point was that there's no normative standard for evaluating science. You said it like, three times.

Yes, but you equated me saying "no normative standard" to "no standards at all." You setup a false dichotomy. My larger point was that what's normative is political. And you saying your standard should be the norm is also political.

> You like the research, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about, and who am I for having an opinion anyway. And then I tell you that I actually do have some relevant knowledge, and you dismiss the knowledge as "normative". Convenient!

You're placing words in my mouth. I didn't say I like the research, I'm saying I don't like your grounds for dismissing it. I don't dismiss your expertise but I reject it as sufficient evidence for your argument.

> Doing the 150,000th derivative observational study finding that poor people are sicker than rich people is not an example. Poor people are sicker than rich people. Let's move on.

If you cannot see the hubris here, if you cannot see how unscientific it is to conclude (reductively) the results of an experiment before the experiment, then we are at an end. Let's move on.

▲

timr 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> Yes, but you equated me saying "no normative standard" to "no standards at all."

No, I concluded that from a process of deduction, but fair enough. You're arguing that nobody can be qualified to critique the thing you support.

> You setup a false dichotomy. My larger point was that what's normative is political. And you saying your standard should be the norm is also political.

Yes yes. What's "normative" is now "political" (for some reason), and my standard is also "political" and therefore is not relevant.

It's just another way to try to arrive at the same place through the back door: my standard is wrong, because it's "normative" (or "political", or whatever other word you use in the next post), but your standard is (again, for some reason) not those things.

You don't like what I'm saying, so you reject my ability to say it. And when I catch you in this fallacy, you'll slip back to arguing that all research might be relevant to someone somewhere, and who are we to judge anyway, man, and blah blah blah. You're obviously just being big-brained and magnanimous.

▲

nilirl 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, your deduction was unsound. And continues to be unsound. You can critique anything as long as you know you can be wrong too.

> Yes yes. What's "normative" is now "political" (for some reason), and my standard is also "political" and therefore is not relevant.

You're hand-waving. Your stance is political but not irrelevant. Your stance is philosophical (resting on chosen assumptions) and not empirically irrefutable.

Not acknowledging that is why you fail to convince.

You've made this argument about you and your ability to "catch" people. You have no argument that stands on its own construction.

	▲	try_the_bass 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Having read through this whole discussion, and as an outsider: they're approaching this from a much stronger and consistent position than you. This is most obvious given how far you've moved the goalposts along the way.
	▲	qsera 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What is your point man? Can you state simply? Is it that cutting funding for "science" is bad, without exception?