3 ms·
1. we don't know how the brain does complicated thing X 2. we have discovered a way to program a computer to do complicated thing X 3. maybe the brain works l
by plg 11y ago
1. we don't know how the brain does complicated thing X
2. we have discovered a way to program a computer to do complicated thing X
3. maybe the brain works like this too
This is faulty reasoning and I see it again and again. This is not how to proceed according to the scientific method
- jhallenworld 11y agoWhy not? You could accept your point 3. as a theory, yet to be proven. Your point 2. is simply a necessity to show that the theory makes some kind of logical sense.
- seanmcdirmid 11y agoNo just no. They've come up with a hypothesis by making observations and guessing. If the hypothesis is also falsifiable, then it is definitely how the scientific method works, since we can now run experiments to determine if the hypothesis is false. The scientific method doesn't say much about how hypotheses are formed, just in how they are evaluated. Now we can argue about whether this can be falsified or not, and that is legitimate. Bad science would be not taking that step or doing that step badly.
- plg 11y agoyes exactly. My criticism is only if point 2 is used as evidence of point 3. I see this a lot. If point 2 is used only as a means to generate a hypothesis, which is then tested empirically, then absolutely this is fine thanks for the clarification