The best scrutinizer is someone that feels motivated to actually find the truth. This should be obvious.
How does “this should be obvious” compare to average social science reporting on the epistemic hygiene scale?
Like, this is an empirical claim we could test: give people social psych papers that have known flaws, and see whether curiosity or disagreement with the paper’s conclusion predicts flaw discovery better. I don’t think the result of such an experiment is obvious.
How does “this should be obvious” compare to average social science reporting on the epistemic hygiene scale?
Like, this is an empirical claim we could test: give people social psych papers that have known flaws, and see whether curiosity or disagreement with the paper’s conclusion predicts flaw discovery better. I don’t think the result of such an experiment is obvious.
Flaws aren’t the only things I want to discover when I scrutinize a paper. I also want to discover truths, if they exist, among other things