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 …
-
Show this thread
-
The inferential path between the fMRI instrument and anything meaningful is extraordinarily long, complex, and tenuous. Just at the front end it involves several stages of statistically torturing the distorted and noisy data to get some stable signal out of it.
1 reply 4 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow 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.
3 replies 1 retweet 22 likesShow 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.
1 reply 7 retweets 24 likesShow 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.
5 replies 7 retweets 40 likesShow 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.
2 replies 6 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Meaningness
I wouldn't go that far. Nutrition science did a lot of good work in the early 20th century, figuring out things like the link between vitamin deficiencies and birth defects.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That is true. A century ago.
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.