Debunking the Lorentz System As a Framework For Human Emotions 124
New submitter Enokcc writes "In a series of research articles it was claimed that a famous system of nonlinear differential equations originally used to model atmospheric convection can also be used to model changes in human emotions over time. It took an amateur in psychology with a computer science background to notice how extraordinary these claims were, and with the help of experts on psychology he has now published a critique. The latest of the questionable research articles (with 360 citations) is now 'partially withdrawn.'" Notably, skeptic Nick Brown's paper is co-authored by Alan Sokal, famous for exposing nonsense by less diplomatic means.
Modeling (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering how poorly atmospheric conditions and climate are modeled, it's no wonder they can't model human emotions.
Having spent my career working on modeling various physical phenomena, I attest it's easy to fudge the results to produce any outcome you want, if you know how.
Let's not be too angry (Score:4, Insightful)
At least some psychologists are trying to use math beyond statistics. It looks like they screwed up, by I give them credit for trying. Social scientists have historically sucked at using rigorous mathematics to describe the phenomena they observe. I for one, don't want more social scientists scared off by a backlash on this.
Bravo for your sarcasm! (Score:2, Insightful)
We have an uncited researcher giving a speech that discredits his own scientific field with a vague statement on the probability of the validity of research in his field. This is followed by a statement on how "we" were taught something about a field that was on the cutting edge of research (which of course reminds us on how "we" were taught that in the 15th century that everybody thought the Earth was flat), and then using that to draw conclusions on areas of the field that are considered established.
Mods, we have a winner! Mod this up to +5. The immense sarcasm in this post points to how many people talk about a subject they have no firsthand expertise in while drawing a broad conclusion with uncited or perhaps misinterpreted statements from the experts. It is a damning critique of kneejerk thinking. It is the most insightful post on Slashdot in months.
No need for the sarcastic snark (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw that TED talk (and searching TED talks suck and can't find it, although found a wonderful talk by Russel Foster about sleep and our misconceptions about that and how researchers got that all wrong for centuries.) and the person was talking about lay people - lay people taking current studies as fact.
His point was that it takes about a generation for science to really get down to the truth - trying to duplicate results of studies, improved technology in research, more research, etc ...
How many people still believe the non-sense that we only use 10% of our brains?
Of course, someone IN the field would use previous research - even in his own generation. But a lay person shouldn't take too much stock in current findings until it has run it's scientific course.
Anyway, go back to insulting people and getting your silly mod points.
Re:Bravo for your sarcasm! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because neuroscience and psychology arn't hard sciences. In real science (like computer science and mathematics), you look to generate proofs. In pseudosciences, such as phrenology, psychology and neuroscience, you just kinda bull shit some ideas out and publish. They rely on impossible to reproduce experiments that can change day to day, and use comparatively small sample sizes. Even if you are proven wrong, like Sigmund Freud, you still are touted as a hero.
See, that's how you troll them.