2 ms·

There was an experiment showing causation between one human phenomenon - memorizing a 7-digit number instead of a 2-digit number - and another human phenomenon

There was an experiment showing causation between one human phenomenon - memorizing a 7-digit number instead of a 2-digit number - and another human phenomenon - choosing to eat a piece of cake over a piece of fruit. Clearly I can design experiments to test this causality. How do I test the claim that the brain has a single pool of resources allocated to cognitive processing and willpower? I cannot think of a way to examine the brain and measure the levels of this resource pool, cognitive processing, and willpower. In the same fashion, you cannot measure the brain and tell me that it isn't an instance of "hard work merits a reward" at work. There is no way that you can falsify my alternative hypothesis.

ronaldx 13y ago
To formally define a hypothesis, the claimant should be obliged to define cognitive processing and willpower in terms of what you call "human phenomena". Then we can design experiments to challenge the hypotheses, as in any other science. If you want to test "cognitive processing reduces willpower" vs "hard work merits reward", you would presumably define these four terms differently (or preferably rewrite them to be less ambiguous) and then you could design experiments which test each statement. I am not an expert in experimental psychology but the main wikipedia page even makes direct reference to this idea as operational definitions: "Operational definitions are definitions of theoretical constructs that are stated in terms of concrete, observable procedures". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology#The_Four_Canons_of_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology#The_Fo...
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Yes, you can falsify a hypothesis about a model built from operational definitions, but you can't actually know that this model corresponds to reality at a physical level. Science is about knowing reality at a physical level. I can come up with an operational definition for a human soul (psychology means "study of the soul") but I can't actually come up with a scientific experiment that demonstrates that I have one. I don't actually have a problem with unfalsifiability, I think these models are quite valuable, I have a problem with it being presented as scientific truth.

ronaldx 13y ago

To formally define a hypothesis, the claimant should be obliged to define cognitive processing and willpower in terms of what you call "human phenomena". Then we can design experiments to challenge the hypotheses, as in any other science. If you want to test "cognitive processing reduces willpower" vs "hard work merits reward", you would presumably define these four terms differently (or preferably rewrite them to be less ambiguous) and then you could design experiments which test each statement. I am not an expert in experimental psychology but the main wikipedia page even makes direct reference to this idea as operational definitions: "Operational definitions are definitions of theoretical constructs that are stated in terms of concrete, observable procedures". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology#The_Four_Canons_of_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology#The_Fo...

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yes, you can falsify a hypothesis about a model built from operational definitions, but you can't actually know that this model corresponds to reality at a physical level. Science is about knowing reality at a physical level. I can come up with an operational definition for a human soul (psychology means "study of the soul") but I can't actually come up with a scientific experiment that demonstrates that I have one. I don't actually have a problem with unfalsifiability, I think these models are quite valuable, I have a problem with it being presented as scientific truth.