• HikingVet
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

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

      • Rodeo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Rodeo
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Perhaps “historical curiosity” was a little obtuse of me.

      • HikingVet
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        And how many people are still using Alchemy?

        • beardown@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          “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!”

        • explodicle@local106.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They told us the history of alchemy in chemistry class, it’s good to know the context.

          • HikingVet
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            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
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        ·
        11 months ago

        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