4 ms·
Whatever the specific case here, I think we're hitting some sort of epistemological point with after-the-fact data analysis. Pseudoscience, basically. I realise
by netcan 7y ago
Whatever the specific case here, I think we're hitting some sort of epistemological point with after-the-fact data analysis. Pseudoscience, basically. I realise that the term is inflammatory but ultimately it comes down to some fundamentals.
There's a reason why science as a philosophy places so much value on experimentation that makes predictions and tests them. Testability is a fundamental. Untestable theories are not just wrong, they're nonsensical to science. Take Ostrom's "Simulation hypothesis." Is it pseudoscientific? Depends. Is it testable? Is a simulated universe different in a testable way? A theoretically testable simulation hypothesis makes predictions. One that isn't, doesn't. A simulation which is 100% unknowable cannot be a scientific theory. This doesn't strictly mean that it isn't true, it just means we can't gain scientific knowledge of it. If it's masquerading as a scientific theory, then it is pseudoscience.
On the "softer" level, there's a reason why science as a cultural, intellectual institution places so much value on eliminating observer effects. Scientists own bias has always been a major detriment to science. Often in the history of science, generations have had to die off before bias can be shed and science advanced in some area.
Basically and practically, the "double blind" designs of experiments are the heart of this. People's objectivity is not to be trusted, not even scientists, not even a little.
Economics, sociology and such have shifted from one flavour of pseudoscience to another. Back in Popper's day, they would create big untestable "theories" that explained everything and nothing. Today, they make micro-theories after they analyze the data.
I think this may be peaking though. The way machines do "data analysis" is starting to shift the way we think on the margins. Machines make predictions, but not theories. They don't care which way causality runs.
- jeffdavis 7y ago"There's a reason why science as a philosophy places so much value on experimentation that makes predictions and tests them." Exactly. There's something that's always bothered me about the "evolution by natural selection is science and everyone who doesn't immediately buy into every aspect of it is an idiot". I personally believe in evolution. It probably makes quite a few good predictions. And I'm sure some experiments have rigor. But a lot of it seems pretty untestable. Add a stress to a population, and it will either die off or evolve to improve fitness. If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? If it evolves, how much will it evolve? Will the population reach a smaller equilibrium, larger, or the same? Does any change count as "evolution" or is someone quantifying which ones actually improve fitness? What about changes that don't seem obviously connected to fitness, like ridiculous peacock feathers, would those be predicted? Are we coming up with falsifiable predictions before the tests, or just explanations afterward? I'm sure someone with more knowledge of the field has answers to all of these questions. But my guess is that they are more nuanced than the "evolution is science and if you question any aspect you are an idiot".
- catalogia 7y ago> If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? Isn't some species dying off a pretty major component of what evolution is?
- jeffdavis 7y agoSo if the species is wiped out, it's evolution; and if it's not wiped out, it's evolution? Doesn't sound like science to me.
- catalogia 7y agoI'm no biologist, if you want high quality answers you'll have to go find one to ask. But I'm pretty sure you have some wrong ideas about how evolutionary biology works as a field. They observe reality and form theories that fit what they've perceived thusfar. They make predictions based on those theories. Subsequent discoveries can confirm their predictions, or confirmation may remain elusive. It works basically the same way as astrophysics. Biology is traditionally considered a "hard science" by people who subscribe to a 'hard/soft science' worldview.
- jshevek 7y agoI've learned through personal experience that it's not sufficient to discuss this with a professional biologist. I've found several biology PhDs ill prepared for this topic. I discovered that even at the PhD level some biologists take evolution on faith without having a decent understanding. I think it's much better to read books or view lectures created by specialists in the field specifically for the purpose of confronting evolution skepticism.
- jshevek 7y agoI respect your skepticism, but I agree with catalogia in that I get the impression that you "have some wrong ideas about how evolutionary biology works" Evolution is a fact, but many people's individual mental models of evolution are flawed. It's easy to remain unconvinced if you have a series of conversations with such people and successfully ferret out those flaws. If you have the time for it, maybe now (covid stay at home) would be a good time to get on Amazon and take a deep dive into evolution and evolution denial?