Corsair4 t1_j83y4nr 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
>There is not a single scientific theory that contains “data”, because if it did, then by definition it stops being a theory and it just becomes data.
You have just proven you don't understand what a "theory" is in science.
The dictionary definition of a Scientific Theory notes specifically that it is an explanation that has been repeatedly and thoroughly tested in accordance with the scientific method. YOU CANNOT HAVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WITHOUT DATA CORROBORATING IT. A Scientific Theory, BY DEFINITION, must include data supporting a hypothesis. A Scientific theory without supporting data is not a theory - it is a untested, unsubstantiated hypothesis. The single exception is cases where it is entirely impossible to gather data - which is not a situation that applies to life sciences.
You have a dangerous, fundamental misunderstanding of science.
>Of course, we test a theory by data, but the theory itself is not data.
No, you don't. You test a hypothesis. A theory is something that already has a veritable mountain of supporting evidence in the form of data from experiments. If your theory has no data, 99% of the time it is a hypothesis, not a theory.
If you're going to pedant, at least be accurate.
Shiningc t1_j840umv wrote
Yes, it is tested by data, but in no way that a theory contains any data. Nor is it based on any data.
>You have a dangerous, fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Speak for yourself. You are making contradictions because if a theory contained any data, then it ceases to be a theory.
Corsair4 t1_j8421wk wrote
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?
[deleted] t1_j87j1y4 wrote
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments