Proof of X - Hackdot

Re:Proof of X by LeifCarrotson on Sunday January 24, 2021 @06:30PM (#25897316)

It's valuable because it explains some actions that may be foreign to the observer. It may not be particularly common in most people's lives, and it may not occur to some people at all, but it's especially true in some politics or business relationships that are incomprehensible if you don't have it as a tool.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by Judgmentality on Sunday January 24, 2021 @06:40PM (#25897374)

I really don't see how a theory that can't be invalidated is useful for anything, other than a rhetorical device. Apart from a thought experiment along the lines of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, what good is a theory that can never be tested? It's a tautology.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by michaelt on Sunday January 24, 2021 @07:29PM (#25897693)

Well, you can also use it to transmute your feelings of inadequacy into feelings of cleverness and insight.

It's not that life's passing me by as I punch a keyboard at a big multinational, no siree, it's those those people posting pictures of themselves having fun who are the real fools.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by ZephyrBlu on Sunday January 24, 2021 @11:30PM (#25899147)

I find it hard to believe you have never seen social signaling 'in the wild'.

A lot of behaviour that otherwise seems nonsensical can be explained by social signaling.

Why do rich people often spend tons of money on things they don't need or use? To impress other rich people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by Dylan16807 on Monday January 25, 2021 @02:14AM (#25900252)

You are describing a theory of "some things are signalling", which is pretty different from "everything is signalling"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by ZephyrBlu on Monday January 25, 2021 @03:02AM (#25900620)

Yes I know. The person I was replying to seemed to not believe in signaling in general though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by Judgmentality on Monday January 25, 2021 @12:12AM (#25899523)

I find it hard to believe you have never seen the flying spaghetti monster 'in the wild'.

A lot of behaviour that otherwise seems nonsensical can be explained by the flying spaghetti monster.

Why do rich people often spend tons of money on things they don't need or use? To impress the flying spaghetti monster.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by feanaro on Monday January 25, 2021 @12:40AM (#25899696)

This is not equivalent since it is reliant on the existence of the FSM, which is not usually taken to be proven, unlike (hopefully) the existence of other people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by Judgmentality on Monday January 25, 2021 @01:02AM (#25899842)

How is the existence of other people proof of signalling theory? I believe you exist. Signalling theory could, for example, say I am holding up this argument on the internet because I want to show others how persistent I am. How does your existence prove or disprove why I am saying what I am saying?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Proof of X by stefan_ on Sunday January 24, 2021 @08:09PM (#25897928)

But it doesn't explain anything. It's ability to explain is entirely unproven.

The social sciences for a long time were just ancient white men writing ever larger treatises "explaining" everything. None of it had any explanatory power and fell apart at the slightest mention of an actual experiment.

[ Parent | on HN ]