This is genuinely striking. Tracing demarcation back to Mesmer's rigged trial and Fisher's shuffled cups, then landing on "what would your assertions cost you if they were false" as the actual test, gives the problem a mechanism instead of just a definition. The Semmelweis and Morton cases are where it really earns its keep, since they show the difference between a claim's instrument being liable and the doctrine behind it being liable. And filing the falsification conditions in a public registry before publishing is a stellar bit of the essay practicing what it preaches. Masterful work, Barnes, as always.
This is genuinely striking. Tracing demarcation back to Mesmer's rigged trial and Fisher's shuffled cups, then landing on "what would your assertions cost you if they were false" as the actual test, gives the problem a mechanism instead of just a definition. The Semmelweis and Morton cases are where it really earns its keep, since they show the difference between a claim's instrument being liable and the doctrine behind it being liable. And filing the falsification conditions in a public registry before publishing is a stellar bit of the essay practicing what it preaches. Masterful work, Barnes, as always.