Re:Writing and the narrative fallacy (2018)
by bryanrasmussen on Sunday May 24, 2020 @02:58PM
(#23293728)
because of the words "biologically inclined", psychological proof has a pretty big inductive gap to leap to get to establishing a biological inclination.
Re:Writing and the narrative fallacy (2018)
by jessriedel on Sunday May 24, 2020 @03:15PM
(#23293868)
Aspects of human beings that are widely present in people all over the world, and are therefore likely resistant to effective removal using known practical tools, is generally considered reasonable (but not incontrovertible) evidence for biological inclination. It is not necessary to have linked this to a particular gene, and doesn't cease to be "biological" if it involves gene-environment interactions. It was correct to say that most plants were biologically inclined to use the sun's energy before photosynthesis and DNA were understood.
Re:Writing and the narrative fallacy (2018)
by bryanrasmussen on Sunday May 24, 2020 @03:26PM
(#23293943)
sure, a big enough psychological study without any obvious flaws might sufficiently bridge the inductive gap for me. But I'm unaware of any, and I doubt to see one because it would be real difficult to get right. That said I haven't really looked for one, for the reasons given.
Re:Writing and the narrative fallacy (2018)
by jessriedel on Sunday May 24, 2020 @04:52PM
(#23294599)
There's lots of biological knowledge we have that existed before formal studies. What I said about photosynthesis applies to claims by non-scientists observing plants informally.
There is plenty of evidence that shows that humans are susceptible to these types of fallacies, whether it's at explaining the world around us or even explaining our own behavior. My favorite study on self-justification is the split-brain experiment. But essentially if we are susceptible to after-the-fact narrative fallacies of our own behavior, we are definitely susceptible to it for the rest of the world, about which we know much less and which is far more complicated.