gistfile1.txt

The linked article about "how science is really done" repeats the fallacy of assuming a contradiction between 
creativity and logical consistency. Since "modifying" a hypothesis in a way that causes it to make different 
predictions creates a new hypothesis, there is no contradiction at all between thinking of new reductio ad absurdums 
as time goes, and applying a strict falsifiability criterion. Understanding the distinction between a reductio ad 
absurdum and a straw man is the basis both for rigorous falsification and for a higher level of creativity. 
Critical thought is to rigorously apply consistent reductio ad absurdums, which is absolutely not the same 
thing as assuming things to be impossible merely because they are said to be impossible. Real criticism takes 
creativity to a higher level, one that generates things that work instead of figments that do not work. It is 
assuming things to be impossible merely because they are said to be impossible that is bad for creativity. 
Although Einstein disregarded unfounded cultural assumptions of impossibility, he did not literally think 
like a child in the sense of treating reductio ad absurdums as if they were straw men. The latter brain limitation 
may sometimes generate stopped clock correct answers, and is likely to get high prestige in today's antiscientifically 
fragmented peer review journals, but it is not what does real scientific progress. There is a higher incidence of 
pseudoscience passed peer review in the most respected journals, explainable by more fragmentation into "fields" 
decreases the chances of relevant empirical data being brought to falsificative use. Imagine the stagnation that 
would have resulted if the reductio ad absurdum "if a lumniferous aether existed, the speed of light would have been 
different in different directions" was treated as a straw man by an establishment saying "I never said that the speed
of light is different in different directions" or "the speed of light is not different in different directions, therefore 
lumniferous aether theory does not predict that it should be". It could sometimes give answers that happen to be correct, 
eg. a 10 year old (without genetic or cybernetic enhancement to shorten or skip non-sophont childhood) saying "Father 
Christmas does not exist" without arguments and mistaking the reductio ad absurdum "if Father Christmas existed, the 
number of stops per second and weight of all the presents would have been impossible" for belief in Father Christmas 
merely because it says "if Father Christmas existed" without ruling it out a priori. That pre-sophont mode of thought 
generates no scientific method. It is also important to pin down what makes a claim falsifiable or non-falsifiable. For 
example, mainstream cognitive bias theory differs from Freudian psychoanalysis in that the former assumes permanent loss 
of data that does not fit in biases while the latter assumes recoverable repressed memories. However, they still both claim
that falsifying data is not available to critical thought. Ergo, under their differences they have the same issues with 
lack of falsifiability, making Karl Popper's argument showing that psychoanalysis is not scientific transferrable to 
showing that modern cognitive bias theory is not scientific. A critical consciousness for rigorous falsification is 
evolutionarily useful for behavioral modification and can be worth its nutrient cost in the brain. A "consciousness" 
for justifying preconceptions would burn nutrients for nothing other than to prevent trial and error learning that 
also burns nutrients from doing useful job, making it non-evolvable. Note the distinction, "different consciousness 
than psychology assumes" does not equal "non-conscious automaton".

Greetings,

Martin J Sallberg