3 ms·

> Actually arguing on the "lack of things that should logically happen" is exactly the same as arguing on "things that are happening". Reasoning from first pri

> Actually arguing on the "lack of things that should logically happen" is exactly the same as arguing on "things that are happening". Reasoning from first principles is a huge downfall the higher up the science stack you go. The only time you really reason from first principles is in math. When you get to psychology and sociology, you need try fit observed data to hypotheses. The author has suggested interesting follow up experiments, but has given no backing for the disproval of the hypothesis other than "I don't believe that can possibly be true." That's not science, or even an informed opinion on science. That's just religion.

coldtea 9y ago
>Reasoning from first principles is a huge downfall the higher up the science stack you go. The only time you really reason from first principles is in math. When you get to psychology and sociology, you need try fit observed data to hypotheses. Observed reality/experience -- which is what the author invokes -- is not "first principles" though.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  > Observed reality/experience -- which is what the author invokes -- is not "first principles" though. You're missing a huge point though, which is the difference between "observed reality" and calling out BS. The author simply says that all these other things should happen if the hypothesis is incorrect, without any experimental data behind it. There is no evidence behind his assertion that all these other things should happen, so he's reasoning from his life experiences and his personal biases.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >The author simply says that all these other things should happen if the hypothesis is incorrect, without any experimental data behind it That's still not first principles though -- not in the math/logic sense. It's just things he doesn't bother to justify because they are well established. A new paper in Physics doesn't begin by trying to prove the relativity theory or to give citations that show it's true: it just takes it for granted.

coldtea 9y ago

>Reasoning from first principles is a huge downfall the higher up the science stack you go. The only time you really reason from first principles is in math. When you get to psychology and sociology, you need try fit observed data to hypotheses. Observed reality/experience -- which is what the author invokes -- is not "first principles" though.

jimmywanger 9y ago
> Observed reality/experience -- which is what the author invokes -- is not "first principles" though. You're missing a huge point though, which is the difference between "observed reality" and calling out BS. The author simply says that all these other things should happen if the hypothesis is incorrect, without any experimental data behind it. There is no evidence behind his assertion that all these other things should happen, so he's reasoning from his life experiences and his personal biases.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The author simply says that all these other things should happen if the hypothesis is incorrect, without any experimental data behind it That's still not first principles though -- not in the math/logic sense. It's just things he doesn't bother to justify because they are well established. A new paper in Physics doesn't begin by trying to prove the relativity theory or to give citations that show it's true: it just takes it for granted.