4 ms·

Why do you, just as the article, jump from one topic to another, acting like it is a logical progression and not a rant? Drapetomania (1851), prefrontal loboto

Why do you, just as the article, jump from one topic to another, acting like it is a logical progression and not a rant? Drapetomania (1851), prefrontal lobotomy, recovered memory therapy, what the hell are you talking about? These are not scientific theories from the modern era. Plenty of hypotheses have been left in the dust because they failed at explaining aspects of a phenomenon. Working memory research has some great, easy to understand progression of theories in the 70's and 80's. Your quote from the NIMH director jumps to a new topic, and is the expression of regret that more didn't get achieved in a very hard field, and the relationship between genes and mental health is not straightforward at all, and just like cancer research, it turned out the problems were much much harder than once thought. Your response is as bad as the article: a rant that ignores the good work, hangs it's hat on the fringe or flashy work. Try again. Show your work.

lutusp 2y ago
> Working memory research has some great, easy to understand progression of theories in the 70's and 80's. Those are descriptions, not explanations. Science requires testable, falsifiable explanations -- theories, not anecdotes. > Drapetomania (1851), prefrontal lobotomy, recovered memory therapy, what the hell are you talking about? These are not scientific theories from the modern era. Yes, that's true. It's true because there are no scientific theories in psychology, past or present. Plenty of narratives, descriptions, but no explanations. Psychology can describe behavior. Neuroscience will eventually explain behavior. > Your response is as bad as the article ... I suggest that you address the topic, not the participants.
- SubiculumCode 2y ago
  That's bullshit. It's like if you tried to say classical physics and chemistry were not science because they provided a description e.g. given heat, on average particles increase in velocity, on average exerting more force/pressure, which on average, is along this formula. Bullshit.
  - lutusp 2y ago
    > That's bullshit. Quite the argument. But you see, science has been defined, and psychology doesn't meet the definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability . Quote: "criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false." ... "According to Popper, some disciplines that have claimed scientific validity—e.g., astrology, metaphysics, Marxism, and psychoanalysis —are not empirical sciences, because their subject matter cannot be falsified in this manner." * Psychology studies the mind. * The mind is not part of nature. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature. * Q.E.D. > Bullshit. I believe you said that already, again without a supporting argument.
    - jonnycomputer 2y ago
      * Psychology studies the mind. Wrong. * The mind is not part of nature. Asserted without evidence. But, frankly, you can point to "the mind" like you can point to "the soul" or "the spirit". You can't. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature Yes, and no. Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument. Why? Because complex, aggregate phenomena are multi-causal, and often historically particular, and there is no practical means to collect enough data, or design experiments, that can untangle all the causal threads. Remember that the phenomenon being explained is already at a higher level of abstraction over a series of objects and events that have a family resemblance. I can tell you (because I've looked at a lot of them) that no two human brains are the same. * Q.E.D. QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects. Mathematical ones, you might say. There is a reason that classical, logic based, approaches to reasoning about the real world (e.g. in robotics failed). (:
      - lutusp 2y ago
        >> Psychology studies the mind. > Wrong. Wikipedia: Psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology): "Psychology is the scientific study of mind and behavior." Do avoid pointless contradictions. Psychology's goal is to scientifically study the mind -- whether they can actually do that remains an open question. >> * The mind is not part of nature. > Asserted without evidence. That would require proof of a negative, the most common tactic of a pseudoscientist ("You cannot prove Bigfoot false? All right, then -- he exists.") This means the positive burden of evidence for the thesis that the mind is part of nature belongs to psychologists -- it is, after all, their claim. > Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument. That's right, and assertions that cannot be falsified, cannot become part of science. This is one reason string theory is in limbo -- no falsifiable experimental validation. This is actually a bad example in modern times, because string theory has pretty much been discarded for multiple reasons, its untestability being just one. >> * Q.E.D. > QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects. Wait ... it's your argument that saying "which was to be demonstrated" has a strict domain of applicability?
- SubiculumCode 2y ago
  And enough with the strict Popperism
  - lutusp 2y ago
    > And enough with the strict Popperism Enough with relying on science's universally accepted definition.
    - jonnycomputer 2y ago
      Silly response. Popperism is not a universally accepted definition of science. Not even by scientists themselves.
      - lutusp 2y ago
        > Popperism is not a universally accepted definition of science. Not even by scientists themselves. Well, false, but you would already know this if you had scientific training. It's discouraging to see so many young people trying to dismantle the Enlightenment without a full awareness of its origins and rationale. Calling the foundation of science "Popperism" is like calling Democracy "Athensism," as though it's a temporary fashion or fad, open to replacement by something easier to negotiate. Scientists sometimes grant a field a temporary reprieve to allow it to evolve -- string theory comes to mind -- but no one with scientific training dismisses the critical role played by falsifiability. In Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (https://centerforinquiry.org/learning-resources/carl-sagans-baloney-detection-kit/ https://centerforinquiry.org/learning-resources/carl-sagans-...), we find this: "Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much." Guess how many scientists risk their professional standing by arguing against this self-evident principle?

lutusp 2y ago

> Working memory research has some great, easy to understand progression of theories in the 70's and 80's. Those are descriptions, not explanations. Science requires testable, falsifiable explanations -- theories, not anecdotes. > Drapetomania (1851), prefrontal lobotomy, recovered memory therapy, what the hell are you talking about? These are not scientific theories from the modern era. Yes, that's true. It's true because there are no scientific theories in psychology, past or present. Plenty of narratives, descriptions, but no explanations. Psychology can describe behavior. Neuroscience will eventually explain behavior. > Your response is as bad as the article ... I suggest that you address the topic, not the participants.

SubiculumCode 2y ago
That's bullshit. It's like if you tried to say classical physics and chemistry were not science because they provided a description e.g. given heat, on average particles increase in velocity, on average exerting more force/pressure, which on average, is along this formula. Bullshit.
- lutusp 2y ago
  > That's bullshit. Quite the argument. But you see, science has been defined, and psychology doesn't meet the definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability . Quote: "criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false." ... "According to Popper, some disciplines that have claimed scientific validity—e.g., astrology, metaphysics, Marxism, and psychoanalysis —are not empirical sciences, because their subject matter cannot be falsified in this manner." * Psychology studies the mind. * The mind is not part of nature. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature. * Q.E.D. > Bullshit. I believe you said that already, again without a supporting argument.
  - jonnycomputer 2y ago
    * Psychology studies the mind. Wrong. * The mind is not part of nature. Asserted without evidence. But, frankly, you can point to "the mind" like you can point to "the soul" or "the spirit". You can't. * Science requires empirical evidence and empirical falsifiability, "empirical" meaning derived from nature Yes, and no. Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument. Why? Because complex, aggregate phenomena are multi-causal, and often historically particular, and there is no practical means to collect enough data, or design experiments, that can untangle all the causal threads. Remember that the phenomenon being explained is already at a higher level of abstraction over a series of objects and events that have a family resemblance. I can tell you (because I've looked at a lot of them) that no two human brains are the same. * Q.E.D. QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects. Mathematical ones, you might say. There is a reason that classical, logic based, approaches to reasoning about the real world (e.g. in robotics failed). (:
    - lutusp 2y ago
      >> Psychology studies the mind. > Wrong. Wikipedia: Psychology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology): "Psychology is the scientific study of mind and behavior." Do avoid pointless contradictions. Psychology's goal is to scientifically study the mind -- whether they can actually do that remains an open question. >> * The mind is not part of nature. > Asserted without evidence. That would require proof of a negative, the most common tactic of a pseudoscientist ("You cannot prove Bigfoot false? All right, then -- he exists.") This means the positive burden of evidence for the thesis that the mind is part of nature belongs to psychologists -- it is, after all, their claim. > Sometimes falsifiability is too blunt an instrument. That's right, and assertions that cannot be falsified, cannot become part of science. This is one reason string theory is in limbo -- no falsifiable experimental validation. This is actually a bad example in modern times, because string theory has pretty much been discarded for multiple reasons, its untestability being just one. >> * Q.E.D. > QED belongs in the realm of logic, which is best applicable to abstract objects. Wait ... it's your argument that saying "which was to be demonstrated" has a strict domain of applicability?
SubiculumCode 2y ago
And enough with the strict Popperism
- lutusp 2y ago
  > And enough with the strict Popperism Enough with relying on science's universally accepted definition.
  - jonnycomputer 2y ago
    Silly response. Popperism is not a universally accepted definition of science. Not even by scientists themselves.
    - lutusp 2y ago
      > Popperism is not a universally accepted definition of science. Not even by scientists themselves. Well, false, but you would already know this if you had scientific training. It's discouraging to see so many young people trying to dismantle the Enlightenment without a full awareness of its origins and rationale. Calling the foundation of science "Popperism" is like calling Democracy "Athensism," as though it's a temporary fashion or fad, open to replacement by something easier to negotiate. Scientists sometimes grant a field a temporary reprieve to allow it to evolve -- string theory comes to mind -- but no one with scientific training dismisses the critical role played by falsifiability. In Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (https://centerforinquiry.org/learning-resources/carl-sagans-baloney-detection-kit/ https://centerforinquiry.org/learning-resources/carl-sagans-...), we find this: "Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much." Guess how many scientists risk their professional standing by arguing against this self-evident principle?