This one is definitely real: “The version dodge: “That’s not what the theory means anymore.”” This was a key move when a lot of good ecologically minded critiques came out
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Hi - as an epidemiologist I can say that when Friston tried to do epidemic modelling, his work was very clearly without merit. But, the idea that humans behave a bit like Bayesian reasoning would suggest is rational seems both sensible and testable. It's interesting to see this comment.
The paper itself seems like more of a rant / humour article, but it would be very interesting to see what neuroscientists and others generally think - do they feel able to speak freely on this?
It was verbatim what all the main FEP people said, and they meant it.
And the problem with Bayes theory stuff is just that while it may be a good description of data, whether it’s the mechanism generating the data is a bigger and less evidenced claim
Thanks - I can't emphasise enough how, well, *silly* actual specialists found Friston's epidemic models; we all make mistakes but to be so loudly and confidently wrong, claiming in the national press to have discovered "epidemiological dark matter" as Friston did ... This is not what serious >
> scientists do! It seems healthy to propose ambitious hypotheses and theories that can be tested, even to the point of raised eyebrows from colleagues, but not to insist on them somehow.
Comments
And the problem with Bayes theory stuff is just that while it may be a good description of data, whether it’s the mechanism generating the data is a bigger and less evidenced claim