←back to thread

598 points leotravis10 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bawolff ◴[] No.45129304[source]
There has been this trend recently of calling Wikipedia the last good thing on the internet.

And i agree its great, i spend an inordinate amount of my time on Wikimedia related things.

But i think there is a danger here with all these articles putting Wikipedia too much on a pedestal. It isn't perfect. It isn't perfectly neutral or perfectly reliable. It has flaws.

The true best part of Wikipedia is that its a work in progress and people are working to make it a little better everyday. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact we aren't there yet. We'll never be "there". But hopefully we'll continue to be a little bit closer every day. And that is what makes Wikipedia great.

replies(28): >>45129452 #>>45129539 #>>45130082 #>>45130452 #>>45130510 #>>45130655 #>>45130889 #>>45131753 #>>45132388 #>>45133857 #>>45134041 #>>45134322 #>>45134802 #>>45135047 #>>45135272 #>>45135426 #>>45135634 #>>45135865 #>>45135925 #>>45136197 #>>45136339 #>>45136658 #>>45137707 #>>45139242 #>>45140012 #>>45140417 #>>45140938 #>>45148201 #
xorvoid ◴[] No.45130082[source]
I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving.

It’s a bit hard for me to imagine something better (in practice). It’s easy to want more or feel like reality doesn’t live up to one’s idealism.

But we live here and now in the messiness of the present.

Viva la Wikipedia!

replies(3): >>45130299 #>>45130539 #>>45137130 #
visarga ◴[] No.45130539[source]
> In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving.

Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it. But philosophers still talk about Truth, they didn't get the message. As long as we are using leaky abstractions - which means all the time - we can't capture Truth. There is no view from nowhere.

replies(12): >>45130704 #>>45131096 #>>45131683 #>>45132515 #>>45133898 #>>45134781 #>>45135149 #>>45136260 #>>45136680 #>>45141021 #>>45146195 #>>45148949 #
postmodern99 ◴[] No.45130704[source]
> Scientists realized there is no "Truth", only a series of better and better models approximating it.

> it

What is "it", if not truth?

replies(3): >>45131026 #>>45131215 #>>45132080 #
inetknght ◴[] No.45132080{3}[source]
> What is "it", if not truth?

There's a misconception in this thread and commonly elsewhere.

Scientists aren't after truth. They're after facts.

Truth depends on context. Facts are indisputable.

Imagine you're looking at your computer screen and you see green. Someone else looking at their computer screen might be red/green color blind and might see a shade of brown. The color being green and red can simultaneously be true. But the fact might be that the displayed color is a mix of certain EM frequencies, and each person's brain interprets those frequencies differently.

replies(3): >>45132294 #>>45134048 #>>45136297 #
1. psychoslave ◴[] No.45136297{4}[source]
>Scientists aren't after truth. They're after facts.

Is Bertrand Russel a scientist or a philosopher according to you?

https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/classicreadings/chapter/bertr...

What about Albert Einstein?

https://todayinsci.com/E/Einstein_Albert/EinsteinAlbert-Trut...

Or Richard Feynman?

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/the-fundamental-principles-o...

Finding resources for perspectives on truth by Ada Lovelace, Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin is left as an exercise.