Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com