site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 30, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If for writing scientific papers it was common for scientists to enlist the help of lawyers to make the case for the hypothesis more convincing, how would:

a) the number of theories which are supported by a consensus of scientists change?

b) the percentage of theories which are supported by a consensus of scientists, but are actually false, change?

As a lawyer who has to review medical and scientific information regularly despite having absolutely no scientific or technical background, God no.

Reminds me of a corporate case I heard about, a few decades ago, with a contract that had been drawn up by a team of accountants and lawyers. Unfortunately none of the lawyers could understand the maths, and none of the accountants could wade through the law, so they specified quite different responsibilities for each party in certain circumstances. Big panic when they found out.

Look at patent law cases that actually go to the mat. Then look away quickly. That retinal burning sensation and after image of Satan is what you get with this unholy union.

Do you know a good one? I read the Amazon One-Click patent and was filled with a mixture of disgust and reluctant admiration for the sheer chutzpah on offer.