3 ms·

Categories and abstraction generally is essential for solving a problem. Furthermore, how we categorize disciplines as scientific or pseudoscientific is very im

Categories and abstraction generally is essential for solving a problem. Furthermore, how we categorize disciplines as scientific or pseudoscientific is very important. From the article: > But to claim it is “science” is inaccurate. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

dataviz1000 5y ago
Yes. We use categories to describe a system. We categorize an engine into a the ignition system, cooling system, air intake system, ect.. We describe node.js by its categories -- errors, file system, streams, ect.. Systems are cyclic which means humans can pretty well make assumptions of a future state of a system by the current and past state of that system. If we want to know a future state, we need to first describe the system. I really like Robert Pirsig's idea of an analytical knife from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" to cut up systems into categories or category trees, there isn't a one way to do it but rather many ways to describe a system in categories that are more and less useful.
okareaman 5y ago
The slippery slope argument. If we don't hold the line, pretty soon we'll be calling astrology a science. Psychology has the potential to be a science, but it's early and we don't know enough. Electricity wasn't a science until Michael Faraday made it one. On the other hand, astrology has no potential to be a science.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when slipping down the slope doesn't actually happen (or can't possibly follow from the described beginning state). Some slippery slopes do actually exist. For example, if you put your weight over the line, you can literally slip down a slippery slope. On the subject of categories, they cease to be useful when the contents of the categories can no longer tell you anything about the category itself. The further you get down this axis, the less useful the category is. So any dilution of the strength of a category by overly broad inclusion should be scrutinized.

dataviz1000 5y ago

Yes. We use categories to describe a system. We categorize an engine into a the ignition system, cooling system, air intake system, ect.. We describe node.js by its categories -- errors, file system, streams, ect.. Systems are cyclic which means humans can pretty well make assumptions of a future state of a system by the current and past state of that system. If we want to know a future state, we need to first describe the system. I really like Robert Pirsig's idea of an analytical knife from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" to cut up systems into categories or category trees, there isn't a one way to do it but rather many ways to describe a system in categories that are more and less useful.

okareaman 5y ago

The slippery slope argument. If we don't hold the line, pretty soon we'll be calling astrology a science. Psychology has the potential to be a science, but it's early and we don't know enough. Electricity wasn't a science until Michael Faraday made it one. On the other hand, astrology has no potential to be a science.

DangitBobby 5y ago
The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when slipping down the slope doesn't actually happen (or can't possibly follow from the described beginning state). Some slippery slopes do actually exist. For example, if you put your weight over the line, you can literally slip down a slippery slope. On the subject of categories, they cease to be useful when the contents of the categories can no longer tell you anything about the category itself. The further you get down this axis, the less useful the category is. So any dilution of the strength of a category by overly broad inclusion should be scrutinized.