<story><title>Fuck Nuance [pdf]</title><url>http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>unabst</author><text>I call this the &amp;quot;abstraction paradox&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;There is no way that an abstraction can fully equate what it abstracts. &amp;quot;Apple&amp;quot; could never equal a real apple. But abstraction allows us to think about real apples. In science, all theories and models are abstractions. Hence, they are always approximations, and can be invalidated or nullified with edge cases that can indeed be backed by evidence.&lt;p&gt;But the opposite is also true. If a theory is based on evidence, then it will always be an approximation of the truth to some degree. Hence, there will always be hard evidence that validates the theory also -- ideally the evidence the theory is based on.&lt;p&gt;The ultimate test is application. If a theory or model has purpose, as in, has a use, then the value of that theory can be measured by its consequences. Otherwise, frankly, academics arguing over what has no consequence will have no consequence outside the circles of those who argue over it. I sense &amp;quot;fuck nuance&amp;quot; as a message to them.&lt;p&gt;We still use Newtonian mechanics where objects are big and slow enough. But we also use general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, etc, where more accuracy is required. So we already know theories have limits and degrade with constraints, and we switch theories.&lt;p&gt;This is true of EVERY THEORY. And that is the abstraction paradox.&lt;p&gt;If you&amp;#x27;re arguing over someone &lt;i&gt;just&lt;/i&gt; to prove them wrong, congratulations, you&amp;#x27;ve just proved you&amp;#x27;re completely redundant. So fuck you. (in the spirit of the author)</text></comment>
<story><title>Fuck Nuance [pdf]</title><url>http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>yummyfajitas</author><text>This article is a truly fantastic critique of how modern social sciences (besides economics) are carried out and publicized in modern society. Any critique one dislikes - typically &amp;quot;your theory predicts X which is false&amp;quot; - can be dismissed by &amp;quot;nuance&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;things are more complicated&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;that&amp;#x27;s different in unspecified way&amp;quot;, etc.&lt;p&gt;In statistical terms, these dismissals are little more than a call for overfitting - if I can arbitrarily add more dimensions to a theory, I can make it fit any data set.&lt;p&gt;This is a fantastic article that can be applied in so many places.&lt;p&gt;In applied social sciences this critique is far easier to work around. &amp;quot;Yeah, my theory is pretty one-dimensional and does lack nuance. My code is in $REPO - feel free to run an experiment and see if your multidimensional theory generates any alpha over mine.&amp;quot;</text></comment>