> While the post discusses that the suspended developer didn't even do that, calling them "not backed by empirical evidence" is simply false.
Before even getting to that, we have to address the fact that these aren't the terms used by the people pointing out the phenomenon; not to mention figure what what it should mean for a "concept" to be "backed" by evidence. Of course these phenomena exist, and that existence is evidenced; but to expect "evidence" to support grouping those things together, or choosing a term for that group, etc., is a category error.
3 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 18.9 ms ] threadBefore even getting to that, we have to address the fact that these aren't the terms used by the people pointing out the phenomenon; not to mention figure what what it should mean for a "concept" to be "backed" by evidence. Of course these phenomena exist, and that existence is evidenced; but to expect "evidence" to support grouping those things together, or choosing a term for that group, etc., is a category error.