I wouldn’t say “anti-scientific”—but it certainly would be good if scientists actually studied rationality more—and so were more rational.
With lab equipment like the human brain, you have really got to look into its strengths and weaknesses—and read the manual about how to use it properly.
Personally, when I see material like
Science or Bayes—my brain screams: false dichotomy: Science and Bayes! Don’t turn the scientists into a rival camp: teach them.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Because the group used Bayesian methods, I had assumed that they would not be anti-scientific. I was surprised when it seemed that they were willing to ignore evidence. I have been reassured that many in the group are rational in the everyday sense and not opposed to empiricism. Indeed it is Science AND Bayes.
I wouldn’t say “anti-scientific”—but it certainly would be good if scientists actually studied rationality more—and so were more rational.
With lab equipment like the human brain, you have really got to look into its strengths and weaknesses—and read the manual about how to use it properly.
Personally, when I see material like Science or Bayes—my brain screams: false dichotomy: Science and Bayes! Don’t turn the scientists into a rival camp: teach them.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Because the group used Bayesian methods, I had assumed that they would not be anti-scientific. I was surprised when it seemed that they were willing to ignore evidence. I have been reassured that many in the group are rational in the everyday sense and not opposed to empiricism. Indeed it is Science AND Bayes.