4 ms·
No, it's not allowed, because this is pseudo-science. For future reference you can detect pseudo-science very easily because pseudo-science is just the formaliz
by dnomad 8y ago
No, it's not allowed, because this is pseudo-science. For future reference you can detect pseudo-science very easily because pseudo-science is just the formalization of non-observable entities.
The "scientist" in this study posit the existence of many non-observable entities: "mathematical intelligence", "nonmathematical intelligence", "systemising mechanisms" and "empathising mechanisms" and "lawful systems." Then he posits a theory which relates these entities -- which, again, are not observable or real in any sense. Finally he collects real data to support his theories about all these imaginary entities. Now, data is always good, but you can see the problem here?
No attempt is ever made to ground any of this in observable reality. It's garbage in, garbage out, from the get go.
Unfortunately this sort of pseudo-science, as we've seen time and again, can be seized upon by all manner of propagandists eager to push their narrative. That's why this sort of nonsense -- which is non-sense in the purest form because we cannot observe or measure any of the entities supposedly at work here -- is very popular with the public but is regarded very suspiciously by actual scientists.
- Scea91 8y agoWhat are you talking about? WAIS-R arithmetic score is an observable entity.
- j88439h84 8y ago> formalization of non-observable entities. Like most of mathematics and computer science?
- dnomad 8y agoMathematics is not science nor would any mathematician claim to be a scientist. Pseudo-science necessarily adopts a scientific pose hence the name. None of this is particularly controversial but you can see by the downvotes how committed people are to their various self-serving narratives.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jamesrcole 8y ago> you can see by the downvotes how committed people are to their various self-serving narratives. How can you see this purely based on downvotes?
- dempseye 8y agoHe's positing the existence of a non-observable entity.
- skolemtotem 8y ago> None of this is particularly controversial Judging by the fact that most maths degrees are listed as science degrees, it's pretty clear that "mathematics is not science" is a controversial claim.
- abstractbill 8y agoI don't think that's true. Certainly among the people in my department while I was doing my PhD in mathematics, it was universally agreed that mathematics is not a science (because mathematicians don't do experiments as a part of their work). Even outside of math departments I see some evidence of that agreement -- for example, why else would the "STEM" acronym list Science and Math separately?
- anonytrary 8y ago> Judging by the fact that most maths degrees are listed as science degrees How colleges categorize their departments has an element of politics to it, so I wouldn't pay much attention to that. I've got both a math and science degree, and none of my professors or peers would consider math to be part of science -- even considering our math department was listed under our science department. I think OP is correct that this topic is not controversial at all, at least among the people who actually do math and do science. There's no question that math and science are completely separate things.
- j88439h84 8y agoCan you explain what you mean by 'observable' and 'real'? As I understand it, most science involves using instruments to measure quantities that fit into some simplified model of the world. How does this differ?