A hypothesis that explains everything that could happen explains nothing. A hypothesis that only explains everything that does happen explains everything.
For every star in the universe, the theory of gravity explains why it is round. If the theory of gravity were also capable of explaining cubical and pear-shaped stars, only then would we need to worry.
ETA: if the hypothesis explains everything that does happen, that might be evidence that it also explains things that don’t happen, so in that sense you’re right.
Describing the structure of what could happen is also an important task, it just isn’t the same as explaining what does happen. The first describes the world as you value it, the second describes the effect of your actions on that world.
Viewing social interaction as primarily driven by signaling isn’t a hypothesis that “explains everything”, as it has implicit in it most of the inferences one would reasonably draw from evolutionary psychology.
However, it is the case that given Robin’s perspective, the statement “Activity X is done for signaling purposes, possibly subconsciously so” is at best inane and at worst tautological.
I guess you are saying my perspective is innane. What does it signal to write a comment saying ” this poster’s perspective is inane”, without offering a reason for believing this?
I think he was just saying that you identify so much behavior as signaling, that pointing out a given behavior as signaling is redundant. Specifying what the behavior might signal (among other things) would be neither inane nor tautological; it’s just that in the context of the overwhelming signaling you hold to be all over the place, saying “Activity X is done for signaling purposes, perhaps subconsciously so” is like saying “that cubic foot of apparently empty space is occupied by air, and some amount of water vapor the exact amount of which varies with overall humidity”. Sure, it’s true, but there is no obvious reason to say it about that cubic foot of apparently empty space and not all apparently empty space near Earth as a whole.
Not in the slightest, and I apologize for the miscommunication. Alicorn is precisely correct in clarifying my intent (and probably does so better than I would have).
I actually think many of your discussions on the effects of various kinds of signaling are quite interesting, in fact.
I would guess because a hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing.
A hypothesis that explains everything that could happen explains nothing. A hypothesis that only explains everything that does happen explains everything.
For every star in the universe, the theory of gravity explains why it is round. If the theory of gravity were also capable of explaining cubical and pear-shaped stars, only then would we need to worry.
ETA: if the hypothesis explains everything that does happen, that might be evidence that it also explains things that don’t happen, so in that sense you’re right.
Describing the structure of what could happen is also an important task, it just isn’t the same as explaining what does happen. The first describes the world as you value it, the second describes the effect of your actions on that world.
I’ll add to the post explaining my interest more.
Viewing social interaction as primarily driven by signaling isn’t a hypothesis that “explains everything”, as it has implicit in it most of the inferences one would reasonably draw from evolutionary psychology.
However, it is the case that given Robin’s perspective, the statement “Activity X is done for signaling purposes, possibly subconsciously so” is at best inane and at worst tautological.
I guess you are saying my perspective is innane. What does it signal to write a comment saying ” this poster’s perspective is inane”, without offering a reason for believing this?
I think he was just saying that you identify so much behavior as signaling, that pointing out a given behavior as signaling is redundant. Specifying what the behavior might signal (among other things) would be neither inane nor tautological; it’s just that in the context of the overwhelming signaling you hold to be all over the place, saying “Activity X is done for signaling purposes, perhaps subconsciously so” is like saying “that cubic foot of apparently empty space is occupied by air, and some amount of water vapor the exact amount of which varies with overall humidity”. Sure, it’s true, but there is no obvious reason to say it about that cubic foot of apparently empty space and not all apparently empty space near Earth as a whole.
Not in the slightest, and I apologize for the miscommunication. Alicorn is precisely correct in clarifying my intent (and probably does so better than I would have).
I actually think many of your discussions on the effects of various kinds of signaling are quite interesting, in fact.