5 ms·

It's an interesting connection. Too bad the article veers off into fantasy land so they can posit vastly complicated triggers for the observation.

qntty 11y ago
Isn't making sense of data by proposing possible explanatory frameworks the essence of scientific theory? Are you just anxious to see evidence that could possibly support or deny their theories? Or are you categorically opposed to thinking beyond the most literal interpretation of data? Where do ideas for experiments come from if not somone's unsupported fantasies?
- jessriedel 11y ago
  > Where do ideas for experiments come from if not somone's unsupported fantasies? They come from small, modest guesses in accordance with Occam's razor. You have got to be able to distinguish between (1) reasonable hypothesis generation and (2) unhinged fantasies with a thousand moving parts unsupported by data.
  - qntty 11y ago
    The fact that a single experiment needs to be an attempt to test a modest guess doesn't mean that this is how every scientist experiences the process of coming up with ideas for experiments. There is nothing about doing science that requires you to refuse to fantasize about the big picture, even if the big picture has a million moving parts (which it always does in social science).
    - jessriedel 11y ago
      As a physicist, sometimes I sit in my bathtub and fantasize about the possibility that the entire observable universe is a big simulation run by aliens. But I don't publish it in the Washington Post. The social sciences do not have a good track record when it comes to their unhinged theorizing.
      - qntty 11y ago
        I don't think that this article says anything that could really be called unhinged for a popular exposition of psychology. Plus, some fields of social science would do better if they existed merely as a way of giving people more accurate fantasies of how the world works. Better than existing as think tanks for political causes.
      - jacinda 11y ago
        You may not, but other people do. --- Bostrom goes so far as to say that unless we rule out the possibility that a machine could create a simulation of a human existence, we should assume that it is overwhelmingly likely that we are living in such a simulation. “I’m not sure that I’m not already in a machine,” he said calmly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/12/27/aianxiety/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/12/27/aianxie... ---
        stordoff 11y ago
        > unless we rule out the possibility that a machine could create a simulation of a human existence Even if we rule that out, doesn't the possibility that we are in a simulation still exist? Maybe the creators of the simulation exist in an n-dimensional space, and the reality we experience is a gross simplification of that. TBH, I find the idea comforting in a weird sort of way, as it gives a structure to everything (e.g. Of course quantum states only collapse when observed - why bother simulating something no one is looking at?).
  - skybrian 11y ago
    I don't see any complicated hypotheses in the article. They are all fairly simple and plausible enough to be worth testing.

qntty 11y ago

Isn't making sense of data by proposing possible explanatory frameworks the essence of scientific theory? Are you just anxious to see evidence that could possibly support or deny their theories? Or are you categorically opposed to thinking beyond the most literal interpretation of data? Where do ideas for experiments come from if not somone's unsupported fantasies?

jessriedel 11y ago
> Where do ideas for experiments come from if not somone's unsupported fantasies? They come from small, modest guesses in accordance with Occam's razor. You have got to be able to distinguish between (1) reasonable hypothesis generation and (2) unhinged fantasies with a thousand moving parts unsupported by data.
- qntty 11y ago
  The fact that a single experiment needs to be an attempt to test a modest guess doesn't mean that this is how every scientist experiences the process of coming up with ideas for experiments. There is nothing about doing science that requires you to refuse to fantasize about the big picture, even if the big picture has a million moving parts (which it always does in social science).
  - jessriedel 11y ago
    As a physicist, sometimes I sit in my bathtub and fantasize about the possibility that the entire observable universe is a big simulation run by aliens. But I don't publish it in the Washington Post. The social sciences do not have a good track record when it comes to their unhinged theorizing.
    - qntty 11y ago
      I don't think that this article says anything that could really be called unhinged for a popular exposition of psychology. Plus, some fields of social science would do better if they existed merely as a way of giving people more accurate fantasies of how the world works. Better than existing as think tanks for political causes.
    - jacinda 11y ago
      You may not, but other people do. --- Bostrom goes so far as to say that unless we rule out the possibility that a machine could create a simulation of a human existence, we should assume that it is overwhelmingly likely that we are living in such a simulation. “I’m not sure that I’m not already in a machine,” he said calmly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/12/27/aianxiety/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/12/27/aianxie... ---
      - stordoff 11y ago
        > unless we rule out the possibility that a machine could create a simulation of a human existence Even if we rule that out, doesn't the possibility that we are in a simulation still exist? Maybe the creators of the simulation exist in an n-dimensional space, and the reality we experience is a gross simplification of that. TBH, I find the idea comforting in a weird sort of way, as it gives a structure to everything (e.g. Of course quantum states only collapse when observed - why bother simulating something no one is looking at?).
- skybrian 11y ago
  I don't see any complicated hypotheses in the article. They are all fairly simple and plausible enough to be worth testing.