Taboo “pseudoscientific”. Here are some things we could ask instead —
How was this instrument created? Was it created through a process that looks like iterative hypothesis testing, or was it created through a process that looks like ostensible experts writing down their existing beliefs and elaborating on them — experiment, or authority?
Does it work? What do the promoters of this instrument claim that it will do for you? Do these claims bear out in reality? Are there reasons to relate the specifics of the instrument to those outcomes, or would a completely different instrument (different questions, different axes) be just as effective? (Here I’m thinking of the criticisms of acupuncture which claim that using a random map of acupuncture points yields the same effects as the “traditional” maps.)
Do these axes “cleave nature at the joints”? Do the resulting “types” represent clusters? What does principal component analysis, k-means clustering, or other data analysis have to say?
Why these specific axes and not others? What other axes were considered and rejected? Were they rejected because data doesn’t support them, or because they didn’t fit a preconceived notion, aesthetic, etc.?
Are any of the axes or types redundant with one another, and included not because they are supported by data or outcomes, but because they fit a preconceived notion, aesthetic, etc.?
To what extent does this instrument cohere with other approaches to the subject, especially ones that started from different theories? (Does it approach the same reality as others, albeit from a different direction?)
How is the instrument treated by those who do believe in it? How do they promote or defend it? Is it treated in a manner more resembling a medical diagnostic or other scientific instrument, or in a manner more resembling a practice like palm-reading or horoscopes?
Taboo “pseudoscientific”. Here are some things we could ask instead —
How was this instrument created? Was it created through a process that looks like iterative hypothesis testing, or was it created through a process that looks like ostensible experts writing down their existing beliefs and elaborating on them — experiment, or authority?
Does it work? What do the promoters of this instrument claim that it will do for you? Do these claims bear out in reality? Are there reasons to relate the specifics of the instrument to those outcomes, or would a completely different instrument (different questions, different axes) be just as effective? (Here I’m thinking of the criticisms of acupuncture which claim that using a random map of acupuncture points yields the same effects as the “traditional” maps.)
Do these axes “cleave nature at the joints”? Do the resulting “types” represent clusters? What does principal component analysis, k-means clustering, or other data analysis have to say?
Why these specific axes and not others? What other axes were considered and rejected? Were they rejected because data doesn’t support them, or because they didn’t fit a preconceived notion, aesthetic, etc.?
Are any of the axes or types redundant with one another, and included not because they are supported by data or outcomes, but because they fit a preconceived notion, aesthetic, etc.?
To what extent does this instrument cohere with other approaches to the subject, especially ones that started from different theories? (Does it approach the same reality as others, albeit from a different direction?)
How is the instrument treated by those who do believe in it? How do they promote or defend it? Is it treated in a manner more resembling a medical diagnostic or other scientific instrument, or in a manner more resembling a practice like palm-reading or horoscopes?