4 ms·

"You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, becau

"You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
What's wrong with that, if it works and is correct? What's the point made there?
- luddypants 12y ago
  The point was probably that this is not scientific. Whatever model you come up with won't really have any predictive power. See arguments against pseudo-science, e.g. Freud and Marxist theories.
  - afarrell 12y ago
    In other words, if your theory can't help you recognize a wrong answer, it can't tell you when you've got the right one.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Dewie 12y ago
  The problem is Just-so stories[1] that have no basis in evidence, but can be moulded to sound plausible given any kind of phenomena. So imagine there are two mutually exclusive phenomena - chances are that you could come up with a plausible-sounding, "evolutionary psychology"-story for both scenarios. And how good is a framework if it can plausibly explain any and all phenomena? Useless. This might have more to do with how "evolutionary psychology"-sounding theories are presented on Web fora than how they are used in a more academic setting. You can easily run across participants on Web fora who almost admit to just making up shit on the spot that fit with the phenomena that they are presented with, based on their expert knowledge of Stone Age humans. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Creating a seemingly meaningful justification for behavior isn't science, it's just folk wisdom. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable, they need to have predictive value.
  - scottbot 12y ago
    This ain't actually how science works, it's just an idealized account. Special relativity wasn't technically falsifiable compared to its competing theory by Lorentz, because both produced mathematically equivalent predictions. If you pick up a random science paper these days, odds are you'll find all sorts of unfalsifiable claims. Does this mean modern scientists are doing it wrong? No, but even if you think it does, it still shows modern historians are on the same footing.
    - InclinedPlane 12y ago
      You can call activities which work outside of the framework of science whatever you want, but they aren't science. The foundation of science is testing theories against evidence, which means falsifiability. Relativity is a perfect example because it made very specific and testable predictions such as gravitational lensing, frame dragging, gravitational redshift, and gravitational radiation.
      - scottbot 12y ago
        If you define science as anything that's falsifiable, then of course anything that isn't, isn't science. And hey, free sciencecountry, that's your prerogative. That said, the philosophers of science who originally discussed falsifiability have gone on to say its inadequate, and a huge chunk of work that's published and funded as science these days isn't strictly falsifiable. Science is a word like any other, that we all agree on to make meaning. Right now lots of practicing scientists work on a definition that includes but isn't limited to falsifiability, but of course the great thing about it is you're welcome to decide what criteria is most comfortable to you. I like to think that the work Einstein did on Special Relativity before 1915, that wasn't mathematically distinct from Lorentz or Poincare, was scientific even though it wasn't falsifiable.
gweinberg 12y ago
Of course you can make up a story for pretty much everything you find. But could you hypothetically come up with just as compelling a story for things you don't find? I don't think so.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  I try to do this any time I get some new theory that seems to explain things: reverse it or switch around facts. Does it still sound like it might mean something? If it can explain reality and counterfactuals just as well, then it's probably useless. I'm a bit upset with how many things I hear that might just be wrong or trying to influence me.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

What's wrong with that, if it works and is correct? What's the point made there?

luddypants 12y ago
The point was probably that this is not scientific. Whatever model you come up with won't really have any predictive power. See arguments against pseudo-science, e.g. Freud and Marxist theories.
- afarrell 12y ago
  In other words, if your theory can't help you recognize a wrong answer, it can't tell you when you've got the right one.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Dewie 12y ago
The problem is Just-so stories[1] that have no basis in evidence, but can be moulded to sound plausible given any kind of phenomena. So imagine there are two mutually exclusive phenomena - chances are that you could come up with a plausible-sounding, "evolutionary psychology"-story for both scenarios. And how good is a framework if it can plausibly explain any and all phenomena? Useless. This might have more to do with how "evolutionary psychology"-sounding theories are presented on Web fora than how they are used in a more academic setting. You can easily run across participants on Web fora who almost admit to just making up shit on the spot that fit with the phenomena that they are presented with, based on their expert knowledge of Stone Age humans. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Creating a seemingly meaningful justification for behavior isn't science, it's just folk wisdom. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable, they need to have predictive value.
- scottbot 12y ago
  This ain't actually how science works, it's just an idealized account. Special relativity wasn't technically falsifiable compared to its competing theory by Lorentz, because both produced mathematically equivalent predictions. If you pick up a random science paper these days, odds are you'll find all sorts of unfalsifiable claims. Does this mean modern scientists are doing it wrong? No, but even if you think it does, it still shows modern historians are on the same footing.
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    You can call activities which work outside of the framework of science whatever you want, but they aren't science. The foundation of science is testing theories against evidence, which means falsifiability. Relativity is a perfect example because it made very specific and testable predictions such as gravitational lensing, frame dragging, gravitational redshift, and gravitational radiation.
    - scottbot 12y ago
      If you define science as anything that's falsifiable, then of course anything that isn't, isn't science. And hey, free sciencecountry, that's your prerogative. That said, the philosophers of science who originally discussed falsifiability have gone on to say its inadequate, and a huge chunk of work that's published and funded as science these days isn't strictly falsifiable. Science is a word like any other, that we all agree on to make meaning. Right now lots of practicing scientists work on a definition that includes but isn't limited to falsifiability, but of course the great thing about it is you're welcome to decide what criteria is most comfortable to you. I like to think that the work Einstein did on Special Relativity before 1915, that wasn't mathematically distinct from Lorentz or Poincare, was scientific even though it wasn't falsifiable.

gweinberg 12y ago

Of course you can make up a story for pretty much everything you find. But could you hypothetically come up with just as compelling a story for things you don't find? I don't think so.

MichaelGG 12y ago
I try to do this any time I get some new theory that seems to explain things: reverse it or switch around facts. Does it still sound like it might mean something? If it can explain reality and counterfactuals just as well, then it's probably useless. I'm a bit upset with how many things I hear that might just be wrong or trying to influence me.