Something similar goes for phrenology (the prediction of mental attributes from head shape): Science can discover where phrenology works and which traits it can predict and where it stops working. The sheer number of possible traits and populations one can correlate makes me confident you’d find something scientific if you looked. But if science discovers that elongated heads predict high extraversion among Swedes, and is otherwise largely wrong or unpredictive, would you say that phrenology is science?
Steven Kaas quipped something I find applicable: “Yes, I was wrong, but that only makes me falsifiable which makes me scientific which makes me right.”This should be taken as general truth about the path towards becoming right—not a post hoc defense of something specific that didn’t replicate.
But if science discovers that elongated heads predict high extraversion among Swedes, and is otherwise largely wrong or unpredictive, would you say that phrenology is science?
Why would you not? Does the word ‘phrenology’ really scare you that much? Fortunately, names can be changed, as SIAI has recently demonstrated.
The last line doesn’t follow at all. Science can discover how priming works, including how it stops working.
Reminds me of this tweet:
Something similar goes for phrenology (the prediction of mental attributes from head shape): Science can discover where phrenology works and which traits it can predict and where it stops working. The sheer number of possible traits and populations one can correlate makes me confident you’d find something scientific if you looked. But if science discovers that elongated heads predict high extraversion among Swedes, and is otherwise largely wrong or unpredictive, would you say that phrenology is science?
Steven Kaas quipped something I find applicable: “Yes, I was wrong, but that only makes me falsifiable which makes me scientific which makes me right.”This should be taken as general truth about the path towards becoming right—not a post hoc defense of something specific that didn’t replicate.
Same as response above—the context was a best case scenario in which the effect is real.
Why would you not? Does the word ‘phrenology’ really scare you that much? Fortunately, names can be changed, as SIAI has recently demonstrated.
Moved goalposts.
How so? The last sentence addresses a best case scenario. In this scenario,
1) the effect exists
2) it goes away
Figuring out all that would be science.