Identity communities often form based on outsider understandings of fields on the boundary of science and pseudoscience. When I asserted recently that fMRI stuff is largely nonsense, I got many outraged responses, apparently mostly from psychiatrists.https://twitter.com/EikoFried/status/1141015324474712071 …
-
-
I would guess few psychiatrists can follow details of fMRI data processing methods, so their faith in it has another basis. Confronted with the extreme nebulosity of human mental dysfunction, having SOME authoritative knowledge source must be reassuring?
Show this thread -
This tweet thread prompted by the analogy with upset responses whenever I say “deep learning stuff is mostly nonsense.” Those seem to come mostly not from actual AI researchers, but AI fans. Personal and non-professional community identities depend on belief in AI progress.
Show this thread -
“Quasiscience” may be a useful term for a field somewhere between science and pseudoscience. The foundations are dubious and the whole thing may be nonsense. There well may be some real stuff there, but it’s impossible to sort out which, given the methods used.
Show this thread -
Quasisciences address problems everyone wants answers for, but for which no good methods are available. Practitioners collude to obscure the foundational problems. Funders want answers and choose to overlook doubts. Identity communities form around the field’s outputs.
Show this thread -
Everyone has to decide what to eat, so there’s infinite funding for nutritional research, which was a quasiscience for decades. It seems to be collapsing into a pseudoscience now: no one takes it seriously anymore. It’s just is legitimate to use dowsing.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.