Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Corsair4 t1_j8421wk wrote

Reply to comment by Shiningc in Will AI accelerate or enable the treatment or cure of developmental conditions/psychiatric disorders in this decade? by thedogbreathvariatio

Prove it. Find me a definition of a scientific theory that explicitly excludes data, or a basis in data. I've provided you with plenty of sources. Put your money where your mouth is.

And can you please describe how this (incorrect) emphasis on theory relates to biomedical sciences and establishing mechanistic causes for neurological pathologies?

Can you explain to me specifically how gathering data doesn't help with figuring out how things work? How do you know your hypothesis is correct without data?

0

Shiningc t1_j8865h9 wrote

theory
noun.

a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:

economic theory

scientific theory

Darwin's theory of evolution

noun.

something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theory

Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't have any data or basis in data. It's an explanation of data.

0

Corsair4 t1_j887m7e wrote

Please explain specifically how data collection doesn't help with "figuring out how things work".

I've only asked you several times now. Maybe this time, you'll actually defend your stance. Who knows, I'm an optimist.

Or maybe, you're full of shit and have no way of explaining how data analysis somehow doesn't help with "figuring out how things work". I don't think asking someone to defend their own stance is unreasonable, but well, here we are.

0

Shiningc t1_j887yd7 wrote

Because just collecting data doesn't allow us to find causal connections, or "explanations" for that data. The data just might be a bunch of garbage data.

We need explanations or theories to know what data is relevant in the first place.

0

Corsair4 t1_j888fif wrote

That's not what I asked. I'm not saying that hypotheses are not important.

Here is your original statement.

>Well again the problem is thinking that science is about gathering data and doing measurements. That doesn't really help with figuring out how things work.

For this to be true, you must be able to "figure out how things work" without data and measurements.

I'm not the one taking the stance that hypotheses are not important. You are the one taking a stance that data is not important. Defend it.

Explain to me how you validate a hypothesis without any data. Don't use Darwin or Einstein, their contributions were based in explaining previous data, as well as explaining anomalous data. Therefore, you cannot use them as an example here.

0

Shiningc t1_j888v3a wrote

Obviously I said "science is about gathering data and doing measurements". Science is about coming up with theories and explanations. Otherwise you might just have a bunch of garbage data and measurements that don't help with anything.

0

Corsair4 t1_j8892d3 wrote

>Obviously I said "science is about gathering data and doing measurements".

Wow, you don't even know what you said.

No, you didn't say that "science is about gathering data and doing measurements".

You specifically said that

>Well again the problem is thinking that science is about gathering data and doing measurements.

This conversation has run it's course. There is no worthwhile discussion to be had with someone that doesn't even understand their own written claims. Just lead with that next time, and save us all some effort.

0

Shiningc t1_j88b3es wrote

Can you actually read? I said "Science is about coming up with theories and explanations." after that sentence. Obviously I included the "problem" part in its meaning.

1