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.
-
-
If outsiders took the field as reliable when the leaders are loudly saying “no, not yet” that would be pathological (although not the field’s fault). Do you have examples in mind?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The added complexity here is the division of labor in what types of foundational questions a person might focus on. If you are at the intersection of psychiatry and neuroimaging there are 4 or 5 different types of distinct measurements you might make.
-
You might pick one or two to improve and challenge the field on and follow the others in the rest. You need to focus out of sheer necessity.
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.