Eliezer isn’t given an exact definition but it seems to me like he’s pointing to scientific knowledge being knowledge that comes from scientific papers.
There’s weak evidence for most scientific statements that you could make that comes from scientific papers.
The fact that most published papers about homeopathy find that homeopathy is effective is a type of scientific evidence. On the other hand the fact that most high quality trials that are published show that it has no effect suggests that overall we should believe that it has no effect. Especially, if we combine the evidence from the high quality trials with evidence we have about published physical theories.
I can’t think of good examples that are revelant for this discussion where there’s no scientific evidence (nothing is published in a paper that’s Bayesian evidence).
Eliezer isn’t given an exact definition but it seems to me like he’s pointing to scientific knowledge being knowledge that comes from scientific papers.
There’s weak evidence for most scientific statements that you could make that comes from scientific papers.
The fact that most published papers about homeopathy find that homeopathy is effective is a type of scientific evidence. On the other hand the fact that most high quality trials that are published show that it has no effect suggests that overall we should believe that it has no effect. Especially, if we combine the evidence from the high quality trials with evidence we have about published physical theories.
I can’t think of good examples that are revelant for this discussion where there’s no scientific evidence (nothing is published in a paper that’s Bayesian evidence).