Nicole RustFeb 23, 2023

"Not even wrong"

The physicist Wolfgang Pauli liked to use the phrase "not even wrong" to describe theories that failed to make testable predictions. You hear it now and again, and it's most often used disparagingly.

Theories can be "not even wrong" for different reasons. First, they are by their nature untestable (that's an unsolvable problem). Second, they are incomplete (a solvable problem and the first step toward a complete theory). The problem with the latter is when someone sells a "not even wrong" theory as fully baked.

To what degree do you see "not even wrong" theories as a problem in brain/mind (and other types) of research?

#neuroscience #cognition

Show threadJorn DiedrichsenFeb 23, 2023

@NicoleCRust
I think some of the most exciting ideas in neuroscience start out as half-baked ideas that where 'not even wrong'.

But I think we should have a time-limit on them. 5 years I'd say. If a new idea still doesn't make any testable prediction after 5 years of being written about and discussed, maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all.

My prime example: "The cerebellum is a forward model for motor control and cognition". A really cool idea, influential, and has motivated tons of experiments. However, it has also become clear that without additional specifying assumptions the idea in itself does not make actual predictions - or can 'predict' anything.

So we need to stop pretending that "cerebellum is a forward model" is a theory - it's not. It's a hazy make-me-feel-good notion that may become testable with additional assumptions - and it is those assumption that form the real theory.

Show threadNicole RustFeb 23, 2023

@DiedrichsenJorn
Great example! And "idea" is a good word for it. Ideas can be right are wrong and they aren't as elaborate as hypotheses - this is why we "flesh out ideas". I wonder if we need an adjective for what you are talking about? Maybe "stagnant idea"?

New idea
Old idea
Good idea
Bad idea
Promising idea
Stagnant idea
...

Show threadSpencer LaVere Smith
@NicoleCRust @DiedrichsenJorn David Poepple has spoken about “conceptual resolution” (akin to spatial and temporal resolution, not resolution like “solution”). It’s a nice tool because it allows for degrees, rather than stark categories like “idea”“theory” or “model”. https://join.substack.com/p/will-we-understand-our-brains
Will We Understand Our Brains?

An interview with David Poeppel.

Join Andrew
Feb 25, 2023 at 5:24amWeb
Show threadPierre Le MerreFeb 25, 2023
@sls @NicoleCRust @DiedrichsenJorn very cool read! Thanks for the link!