Yes, but at least they have various hypotheses for their causes. Again, if there's no cause, then treatment would be impossible and everything would be pointless.
So, the stereotype of science is that you carefully observe things and record them as meticulously as possible. The person who can record things as accurately as possible is the most "scientific" one. That is of course important, but that's not the whole of science, because science is actually about coming up with hypotheses, and then testing them. And that hypothesis should obviously something that nobody has ever thought of it yet.
So how do we come up with something that everyone can agree on? Everyone is battling over who has the bestest, the most accurate and the most objective observation or data.Originally Posted by sbbds
Like Rebelondeck has already said, we already have plenty of observations. Saying who can come up with the most objective observation of an apple falling, or whether the apple really fell or not, or even if it exists at all, does not produce an explanation for gravity.
So what Newton did was he simply said that the apple must "fall", because objects are attracted to each other. And there is some mathematical working behind it. It's as simple as that, and it seems to be rational. So he hypothesized that and many people seem to have agreed, and he wasn't proven wrong for a long time, he accurately predicted many things, until Einstein came up with an even better explanation for gravity.
Nobody before Newton had ever said that there must be gravity because objects are attracted to each other. And this is not even based on any kind of observations, since explanations are not observations.
--
So why Socionics is not "science" is because it lacks explanations, and science is all about explaining the mechanisms of how things work. At best, it's correlation, which is again, science is careful to point out that correlation is not causation.
Reply With Quote
