anbuend wrote:
Science is not about finding the elegant explanation. (Although I question the elegance of this one. Only a very abstract thinker would see it so because when you try to connect it to concrete reality it fails miserably in almost every possible way. A stupid online recreational test as a measure of anything about someone??? Yikes.) Science is about testing explanations ruthlessly until you find one that doesn't fall apart no matter what parts of reality you subject it to. And then understanding that even your best explanation will one day be replaced because the search for knowledge is never over. People becoming overly wedded to the pet theories they find aesthetically pleasing is one of the things that holds science back, and that's what SBC is doing with this kind of theory if you can even call it a theory given its lack of rigorous testing. (All hypotheses have to be tested in every conceivable way. SBC doesn't do that. I've read his books and his actual studies and they're an exercise in frustration, like most autism "research" out there today.) Stuff like this only holds science back.
Yea. I agree. The idea of science is to find an explanation that is as simple as
possible but no more, if I may quote what Einstein said. If too many posteriori modifications and/or exceptions have to be made for a theory to apply in the real world, that's a sure sign that the original theory is either incorrect or too simple to be of much use in practice.
Of course coming up with my own theories can be a very rewarding/satisfying activity and it's something I enjoy doing, regardless of whether I have the will or means to test it. There's really no fault as long as you're willing to abandon your theory in favor of a different theory if the evidence points somewhere else.