A critique of evo psych can not be: they find the genders to be different and that is a horrible outcome. That is scientism. Only two valid critiques are possible: 1. genders are not different, the data is wrong; 2. causal link between differences to other observations is wrong.
-
-
Proponents of using science to answer moral questions often fall into the trap of thinking that there's a true single method all scientists agree to follow. They also pretend theory isn't an integral part of the process.
-
Theory is actually really important but many scientists sadly neglect it. There are whole field that collect data but don't really test theories. It's not as simple a picture from the outside, and from the inside often you can't see the wood for the trees.
-
As humans, we look for explanations that helps us recognize what is going on and help us predict what might be next. Science is the continuous quest for good models and the benchmark is the accuracy of the predictions, secondary, how well it fits with other models. 1/2
-
And roughly there are two kinds of models: 1. external behavioral/statistical models; 2. internal causal models (with perhaps statistical submodels). Science (and people) really prefer 2, but they are the hardest to obtain. Crossing that "why-line" too soon is dangerous. 2/2
-
I'm glad you think models are really important. Many in science sadly overlook them. In fact I often worry I'm not scientific enough because I'm a comp modeller. However, I'm a little surprised you feel the need to explain this to me.
-
haha, sorry, that was not my intention, I am merely establishing our common ground, see where our thinking diverges. Since you were just explaining to me your views on science …
-
But then it does go back to my question, when is something scientism, what are the criteria? Because using science to make sure other fields (philosophy/politics/morality) are realistic is not scientism, imho. But using science to prescribe things for those fields is.
-
I think we agree on the things you are saying in your last two sentences.
- 8 more replies
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.