3 ms·

Well, it's true that "hastily written papers for research grants" sets a pretty low bar when it comes to the determination of useful truths about anything. But

Well, it's true that "hastily written papers for research grants" sets a pretty low bar when it comes to the determination of useful truths about anything. But it's also true that it's a bar that your opinion doesn't even come close to clearing. I'm glad that you're not "for" reductionism when it comes to complex emergent phenomena, but I'm not sure anyone is "for" reductionism. Some people are "for" useful abstraction. Epistemologies... my take on them is as follows. An epistemology restricts the ways in which something can be interpreted. Periodically, this has indeed been a problem. I am not sure that it is the problem you are describing; I think perhaps you mean to say that starting with an arbitrary epistemology, its easy to interpret anything to justify prior beliefs. As soon as you formalized your epistemology, though, it would start to lock you into its logic. What sounds right would take more and more work to justify if it was not, in fact, true. That's one of the benefits of having an epistemology. That's also one of the reasons there is a history of prior false belief for you to point at. All of the "fads" you mention are beliefs that can no longer be justified within the context of a scientific method. They are not arbitrary fads; they arose out of specific, historical misapprehensions, and it is not that they cannot be individually repeated; they categorically cannot be repeated. Within the context of a specific, logically coherent method, error runs out of space. Comparing the methods and knowledge of late 20th century medicine to those of early 19th century medicine --- should you chose to --- would refute the point you are trying to make. Meanwhile, you are responding to a person who has related his first-hand experiences and observations about a personally tragic case of clinical depression with a glib, slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory about the causes of his wife's illness. This is probably the product of a messed up personal relations landscape, but I will tell you that it is one to which I am extremely sensitive. Nothing is inherently false just because you pulled it out of your ass, but it is not a reliable method of producing anything you should share with anyone without making damn sure it is to the point and useful.

coldtea 12y ago
>But it's also true that it's a bar that your opinion doesn't even come close to clearing. Yeah, that's were traditionally people engage in discussion and evaluating each other's arguments (and even each other's opinions). Instead of expecting to settle things with some link to some research here or there, that they know even less about it that the ones that conducted it, and they have at best took a quick read of the final paper, without attempting to verify the results or anything. Really, scientific papers, as far as their consumers in popular science are concerned, are not more than the holy scriptures of yore. Something you believe because it comes from a source of Truth. Personally, if I'm allowed to say so, I don't believe in anything not mature enough to make it to a university syllabus. That would be 20 years and several papers by different authors at least to get to that. >As soon as you formalized your epistemology, though, it would start to lock you into its logic. What sounds right would take more and more work to justify if it was not, in fact, true. That's one of the benefits of having an epistemology. That's only true if epistemologies are not, like religion, flexible. But epistemologies are not some external entities, they are practiced and believed by fallible (like everyone) people. >Meanwhile, you are responding to a person who has related his first-hand experiences and observations about a personally tragic case of clinical depression with a glib, slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory about the causes of his wife's illness. Well, I'll have to disagree about the "slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory" part. Modern life is out of touch with the human animal and messed up, what's incoherent about it? It's an insight we celebrate in our most famous poets, writers, artists and philosophers. It's also something that can be gauged by the increase of depression incidents in particular countries and particular decades. And who told you I, and people close to me, haven't experience depression? It's not like that persons first hand experiences are the be all end all, and it's not like first hand experience mean that much in any case. There are all kinds of people with a wrong opinion (could be me, for example, as I'm saying this) that had "first had experiences" that got them to that opinion.

coldtea 12y ago

>But it's also true that it's a bar that your opinion doesn't even come close to clearing. Yeah, that's were traditionally people engage in discussion and evaluating each other's arguments (and even each other's opinions). Instead of expecting to settle things with some link to some research here or there, that they know even less about it that the ones that conducted it, and they have at best took a quick read of the final paper, without attempting to verify the results or anything. Really, scientific papers, as far as their consumers in popular science are concerned, are not more than the holy scriptures of yore. Something you believe because it comes from a source of Truth. Personally, if I'm allowed to say so, I don't believe in anything not mature enough to make it to a university syllabus. That would be 20 years and several papers by different authors at least to get to that. >As soon as you formalized your epistemology, though, it would start to lock you into its logic. What sounds right would take more and more work to justify if it was not, in fact, true. That's one of the benefits of having an epistemology. That's only true if epistemologies are not, like religion, flexible. But epistemologies are not some external entities, they are practiced and believed by fallible (like everyone) people. >Meanwhile, you are responding to a person who has related his first-hand experiences and observations about a personally tragic case of clinical depression with a glib, slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory about the causes of his wife's illness. Well, I'll have to disagree about the "slightly incoherent and profoundly reductionistic non-theory" part. Modern life is out of touch with the human animal and messed up, what's incoherent about it? It's an insight we celebrate in our most famous poets, writers, artists and philosophers. It's also something that can be gauged by the increase of depression incidents in particular countries and particular decades. And who told you I, and people close to me, haven't experience depression? It's not like that persons first hand experiences are the be all end all, and it's not like first hand experience mean that much in any case. There are all kinds of people with a wrong opinion (could be me, for example, as I'm saying this) that had "first had experiences" that got them to that opinion.