I appreciate you all! I hope I have given credit where it's due for some good points. Follow up is here: www.redteamofscience.com/p/physics-de...

Response here: www.redteamofscience.com/p/physics-de...

Why do you say that?

If you are new to it, base rate neglect is like saying that you have a new hypothesis that you're sure is true for the combination to a padlock, and then another and another. Observers are free to count the combinations and critique.

Base rate neglect is one of the most serious issues in science. It applies to physics. This post is a drop in the ocean on the topic.

I don't mind this at all. I think you're right. I think physics is at least interesting for what it can still get wrong.

Proposing theories is of course costly if there are googols of theories to propose. The other argument would be that the low base rate theories drown out the rest. I would call any literature with a tiny number of likely true results a crisis.

CC #metasci

How extreme is this limitless advocacy? Enough that this author has gotten away with saying that the "rabbit hole" of Hitler's big lie or Orwellian dystopia is a solution to the paradox they would not "prefer."

The replication crisis started in much the same way, with a relatively normal paper. www.redteamofscience.com/p/tylenol-an...