4 ms·

Your link doesn't say "this whole dichotomy has been debunked." From one of the sources: But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated sh

Your link doesn't say "this whole dichotomy has been debunked." From one of the sources: But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory. ... Nonetheless, the contexting model simply cannot be described as an empirically validated model. Which explicitly does not debunk it, but states that it's not empirically validated. That doesn't mean it's incorrect, although it could be.

caminante 3y ago
Good point on nuance on a technical level, i.e., debunked != failure to support relationship. However, on a practical level, people throw this around as if it were empirically supported (which doesn't seem to be the case). If there have been hundreds of studies failing to make the connection, I won't take the bet that it will eventually get validated. On a meta-level, that's also a weird quote. > But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory Pick any theory. If you can't validate it, and plenty of people have tried to validate it, then that's a failure of the theory, right?
- IshKebab 3y ago
  > Pick any theory. If you can't validate it, then that's a failure of the theory, right? Definitely not. There are a ton of theories that are very difficult to validate because you simply can't run the experiment due to practical or ethical reasons. That doesn't mean they are invalid. For example my theory that UBI is unworkable. Basically impossible to prove because it's just too expensive to ever run a real UBI experiment. Or the theory that eugenics would decrease genetic illnesses. Good luck testing that! Even a lot of basic and fairly self evident stuff is difficult to actually prove when it involves people. Are the gender biases of children (toy preferences etc) innate? They definitely are but it's very difficult to actually test.
  - caminante 3y ago
    > There are a ton of theories that are very difficult to validate because you simply can't run the experiment due to practical or ethical reasons. But they HAVE run high/low context experiments. > For example my theory that UBI is unworkable. Basically impossible to prove because it's just too expensive to ever run a real UBI experiment. Are you referring to Universal Basic Income? If so, countless experiments have been run. [0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#:~:text=Universal%20basic%20income%20pilots%20are,of%20negative%20income%20tax%2C%20including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...
    - IshKebab 3y ago
      > Are you referring to Universal Basic Income? If so, countless experiments have been run Sure, but those experiments are fundamentally flawed because they are of such limited duration, and because they only apply to a small portion of society. Obviously people's behaviour is going to be different if they know they can't abandon their careers, and the economy is obviously not going to be affected at all by these trials but it definitely would by actual UBI! To do a proper test you'd need an entire country to try UBI for at least one lifetime. Good luck with that.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        Indeed, the incomes in such experiments are not universal.
        caminante 3y ago
        Why ignore the facts? The link had explicit examples of universal experiments that met the parent's goalpost criteria (i.e. "entire country"). See the nationwide program in Iran[0]. If you're not satisfied, then you need to provide your criteria and references to support your argument. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...
      - caminante 3y ago
        > To do a proper test you'd need an entire country to try UBI for at least one lifetime. Good luck with that. My link provided examples that did that! See the Iran study [0]! I deleted the rest of my comment elaborating on your fallacies because it's clear that you're acting in bad faith, and there's no point. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...

caminante 3y ago

Good point on nuance on a technical level, i.e., debunked != failure to support relationship. However, on a practical level, people throw this around as if it were empirically supported (which doesn't seem to be the case). If there have been hundreds of studies failing to make the connection, I won't take the bet that it will eventually get validated. On a meta-level, that's also a weird quote. > But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory Pick any theory. If you can't validate it, and plenty of people have tried to validate it, then that's a failure of the theory, right?

IshKebab 3y ago
> Pick any theory. If you can't validate it, then that's a failure of the theory, right? Definitely not. There are a ton of theories that are very difficult to validate because you simply can't run the experiment due to practical or ethical reasons. That doesn't mean they are invalid. For example my theory that UBI is unworkable. Basically impossible to prove because it's just too expensive to ever run a real UBI experiment. Or the theory that eugenics would decrease genetic illnesses. Good luck testing that! Even a lot of basic and fairly self evident stuff is difficult to actually prove when it involves people. Are the gender biases of children (toy preferences etc) innate? They definitely are but it's very difficult to actually test.
- caminante 3y ago
  > There are a ton of theories that are very difficult to validate because you simply can't run the experiment due to practical or ethical reasons. But they HAVE run high/low context experiments. > For example my theory that UBI is unworkable. Basically impossible to prove because it's just too expensive to ever run a real UBI experiment. Are you referring to Universal Basic Income? If so, countless experiments have been run. [0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#:~:text=Universal%20basic%20income%20pilots%20are,of%20negative%20income%20tax%2C%20including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    > Are you referring to Universal Basic Income? If so, countless experiments have been run Sure, but those experiments are fundamentally flawed because they are of such limited duration, and because they only apply to a small portion of society. Obviously people's behaviour is going to be different if they know they can't abandon their careers, and the economy is obviously not going to be affected at all by these trials but it definitely would by actual UBI! To do a proper test you'd need an entire country to try UBI for at least one lifetime. Good luck with that.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      Indeed, the incomes in such experiments are not universal.
      - caminante 3y ago
        Why ignore the facts? The link had explicit examples of universal experiments that met the parent's goalpost criteria (i.e. "entire country"). See the nationwide program in Iran[0]. If you're not satisfied, then you need to provide your criteria and references to support your argument. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...
    - caminante 3y ago
      > To do a proper test you'd need an entire country to try UBI for at least one lifetime. Good luck with that. My link provided examples that did that! See the Iran study [0]! I deleted the rest of my comment elaborating on your fallacies because it's clear that you're acting in bad faith, and there's no point. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...