• HikingVet@lemmy.caBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 年前

    Faulty pattern recognition isn’t something we should be holding on to.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 年前

        So not at all based in science? Interesting as a historical curiosity but nothing more?

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 年前

          Interesting because of the psychological insights into not how all people are, but how people make up theories in general. Same way religion has scientific significance in an anthropological sense.

        • beardown@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 年前

          “I turned 5 pounds of lead into gold this morning using this one weird trick that chemists HATE! Subscribe to my premium substack to learn more!”

          • HikingVet@lemmy.caBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 年前

            Yes, but no one credible still uses it. Which was the point I was making.

    • cuerdo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 年前

      The problem is that we still don’t have a proper pattern recognition. We could discard all the soft sciences such as Economics, Sociology or Psychology.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 年前

        What hard sciences could replace economics and sociology? They’re not very rigorous, but they seem to be useful. Psychology also takes some load off psychiatrists