There is a spectrum going from programming lore on one end (based on strong, nearly leakproof abstractions) through fMRIology to social psych and say startupology. The abstractions they depend on get progressively leakier, and conclusions shakier.
Conversation
Fandom seems almost like an epiphenomenon of shaky foundations but not in itself an indictment of the foundations. You look for more social reassurance when your truths have a half life of 5 years rather than 50. But that’s degree, not kind.
1
Replying to
This sounds like an interesting thread of questions, but I’m not sure I understand what it is. Is the point that there’s a continuum from reliable science to pseudoscience? Yes definitely. “Quasi” refers vaguely to the middle ground there.
1
1
There are fields that haven’t quite managed to get into a normal-science groove yet, because the methods are still shaky or there’s still ontological problems. Kuhn called them “pre-paradigm”.
2
1
3
Replying to
I think my line of questioning is trying to get at whether the fandom community around a science or quasiscience is directly relevant. Radiologists and psychologists aren’t signal processing experts re fMRI, but they are not “fans” so much as adjacent experts
2
1
2
Related thread I’m pulling at is that not all domains will even admit a strong paradigm understanding. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily dubious. They’re just low paradigm. Fundamentally nebulous rather than just at a nebulous stage on the way to a more rigorous stage.
1
4
Replying to
Right. One can do good work in a field in which nebulosity is inevitable and no hard-edged ontology is possible. Again in fact that’s what I most enjoy.
1
4
Replying to
I think what you’re calling a quasiscience may be the specialized restriction to science of what I’ve been calling an escaped reality. A domain of phenomenology that admits a shaky epistemology and ontology that will crash with probability —> 1 given enough time
1
1
Like the world of a movie, where the suspension of belief is possible for about 2 hours if you do nothing more than stay in a seat and watch. Or a conspiracy theory where you can sort of believe so long as you avoid asking certain skeptical questions.
1
1
Replying to
Aha! Yes, a tacit social agreement to not ask particular awkward questions is key to keeping quasisciences going.
1
5
Replying to
I think that’s actually fine and healthy in general. A sort of fake it till you make it epistemology. Cellphones as design fiction in Star Trek without people asking how they work before they get real etc. Intent rather than rigor determines pathology level.
Replying to
Well... except no one confused star trek with reality. Institutions make major decisions based on taking neuroscience and AI as reality, and would make different ones if they understood that they mostly aren’t.
1
2
Replying to
Yeah hence the importance of intent. Speculation, entertainment, inspiration are good quasiscience intentions. Justification, analysis etc are bad intentions that may also be bad faith
1
2
Show replies

