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.
Ah. I vaguely remember them being based on dissection postmortem but that probably has its own problems...
-
-
Yes I recall that was done also. My feel is that this relied pretty heavily on expert judgment of neurologists to see patterns, rather than big data statistics.
-
Yes that seems like it must be right.
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.