6 ms·

> I usually mention that's kind of proven to help scientifically (at least in some papers) and empirically but avoid saying its efficiency is a strict fact. Al

> I usually mention that's kind of proven to help scientifically (at least in some papers) and empirically but avoid saying its efficiency is a strict fact. All good but I must disagree with “kind of proven”. Things can be either proven or not proven, and this is not proven.

qwerty456127 7y ago
I've read the original paper by Jaeggi et. al., one paper replicating it successfully and one paper proving the results transfer to different tasks. At this point wasn't it logically correct to say that's scientifically proven? Now we know there are papers which prove those proofs questionable. That's what I mean. If only we had a bullet-proof test to measure fluid intelligence (classic IQ tests have quite a well-known number of problems, solving math problems and puzzles is known to be much more of a skill, working memory is working memory - not intelligence itself) objectively...
- kranner 7y ago
  > At this point wasn't it logically correct to say that's scientifically proven? Ah, I see. Yes, at that point it would have been correct to claim that it was proven.
gwd 7y ago
> Things can be either proven or not proven, and this is not proven. On the contrary, nothing in science is ever proven, only disproven. We can have less or more confidence in a particular model; and whether you should use a particular model depends on the cost/benefit analysis. In this case, there is some evidence that it might be helpful, although somewhat disputed; but playing the game certainly doesn't hurt, and doesn't cost much, so it might make sense to give it a try.
- kranner 7y ago
  > On the contrary, nothing in science is ever proven, only disproven. Sure, but science is a specific case and I was talking about the all-or-nothing nature of the meaning of 'proven' itself.

6 ms·

> I usually mention that's kind of proven to help scientifically (at least in some papers) and empirically but avoid saying its efficiency is a strict fact. Al

by kranner 7y ago

qwerty456127 7y ago
I've read the original paper by Jaeggi et. al., one paper replicating it successfully and one paper proving the results transfer to different tasks. At this point wasn't it logically correct to say that's scientifically proven? Now we know there are papers which prove those proofs questionable. That's what I mean. If only we had a bullet-proof test to measure fluid intelligence (classic IQ tests have quite a well-known number of problems, solving math problems and puzzles is known to be much more of a skill, working memory is working memory - not intelligence itself) objectively...
- kranner 7y ago
  > At this point wasn't it logically correct to say that's scientifically proven? Ah, I see. Yes, at that point it would have been correct to claim that it was proven.
gwd 7y ago
> Things can be either proven or not proven, and this is not proven. On the contrary, nothing in science is ever proven, only disproven. We can have less or more confidence in a particular model; and whether you should use a particular model depends on the cost/benefit analysis. In this case, there is some evidence that it might be helpful, although somewhat disputed; but playing the game certainly doesn't hurt, and doesn't cost much, so it might make sense to give it a try.
- kranner 7y ago
  > On the contrary, nothing in science is ever proven, only disproven. Sure, but science is a specific case and I was talking about the all-or-nothing nature of the meaning of 'proven' itself.