7 posts
If science keeps changing its mind, is any of it authoritative? The honest answer requires noticing that revisions have sizes. Going from a flat Earth to a sphere corrects 8 inches per mile; going from sphere to oblate spheroid corrects three hundredths of an inch.
Most of what people do carries far less deliberation than observers assume. Research shows intentional explanation is the automatic default — under time pressure people judge even accidental acts as deliberate — and that reading calculated motive into ordinary behaviour is the effortless option, not the accurate one.
The mathematical case for trusting majorities has two conditions attached. One of them — that people judge independently — is destroyed by the ordinary act of letting them see each other's answers. Experiments show groups converging hard, feeling more confident, and getting no more accurate.
Two governments can both fail, two claims can both be wrong, and two systems can both constrain people—without being equally false, harmful, powerful, or correctable.
When empirical frameworks are absent, analytical minds redirect their reasoning towards faith. This post explores how social confinement and neural reward systems make faith intellectually rich and psychologically satisfying, and how cognitive foundations and social ecology contribute to this phenomenon.
The claim that neuroscience disproved free will rests on a reading of the readiness potential that its own field has largely retired. The follow-up claim — that telling people this makes them behave worse — was tested across 145 experiments and found nothing.
Two findings usually get quoted separately and belong together. False news does diffuse farther, faster and deeper than true news — but bots spread both at the same rate, and 1% of individuals accounted for 80% of all fake-news exposure. The mechanism is real; the flood is not.
