Studying Behavior Is not Going to Get You to Real Knowledge.

There is at least one Unfalseability issue.

I do not authorize psychological nor psychiatric formulations, interpretations nor diagnosis, etc.

Short preamble of self citations:

I already argued with informal logic why the mind is not real, Part 1, and in Part 2 within the same post I argue why pretending to study the mind empirically is nonsense.

I already showed some consequences of acting upon the false Belief the mind is Real : Crimes against Humanity and Cruelty Towards other Animals:

I wrote about a trivial case of why Economics is not a Science.

Now, extending my work on those own citations to Behavior Studies there is one case that is Unfalsifiable in Behavior Studies. A case for which there will not exist an empirical test that can disprove the belief that behavior is understandable:

Testing the hypothesis that behavior evolved to be misunderstood...

There is no SINGLE empirical test, no crucial experiment!, that can show that Human Behavior can actually be understood!. All and any behavior, why I pick my nose fails the trascendental criteria of Science. But it feels good sometimes to be inconsequential...

Mere accumulation of models called erroneously "Theories", hypotheses and comunally claimed valid empirical results is suspicious of an Unfalseability knowledge seeking endeavor.

It raises suspicions of an expected field of Human Intellectual Expression outside of Science and Empiricism.

It does not point to knowledge growth and development nor refinement by mere Analogies with Real Scientific Knowledge Progress.

Comparing the History of Science before the 20th Century with Behavior Studies does not pass muster: Compare it to Quantum Mechanics and The Theory of Relativiy not to Democritus´ beliefs about the physical ideal appearance of Atoms. (!?)

As analogies go by I find it even more apt to compare to the History of Bad Medicine!, Heck!, more apt to compare it to the still atrocious History of Psychiatry.

After all Newtonian Mechanics, Galileo’s Physics Emprical Experiments, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and the Theory of Evolution do study Falsifiable and Real stuff.

Psychology, specially Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry study, and the latter pretends to medically treat imaginary unreal stuff: mental stuff. They belong by field of pretense study in the same category entirely different from Real Science and Valid Empiricism!.

The analogies with Scientific Progress seem to me anchoring rhetorical fallacies: Comparators of the history of Psychology to the History of Science are picking a soft spot, an anchor from which they will feel unasailable in their erroneousness. A refuge against reason in which to continue being wrong.

--"Get out babblers!"

--"Kidda, try to be respectfull, they are wrong... and some of them know it..."

--"It’s going to be difficult for them to go outside into the World accepting publicly they deceived a lot of people"

--"But they are trying to fool me!"

--"Yes, and they will continue trying to fool you"

--"But now, just now, you know better..."

Just considering without detailing the numerous proposals to make a systemic set of unproven or later disproven claims about human behaviors, it seems evident to me that by just counting the number of "Theories of Personality", even if one were to be correct, almost all would be wrong!. Except perhaps one.

The number of misnamed "Personality Theories" goes above a mere few dozens.

Aprioristically, without getting into the details of each one individually, each new one has less probability of being correct!. Everytime someone puts a new so called theory of personality has aprioristically an even lesser probability, a lesser chance of being correct than the person who put the last before this new one.

The burden of proving this new one is actually the one and only true theory of personality became higher just by proposing a new one...

The newest how many factors personality model or tests are more likely to be erroneous than the previous ones proposed before when they were first proposed.

That is evident aprioristically without needing to read or pretend to understand what they claim or pretend to measure. They can´t measure antyhing real[.].

Saying there could be many correct, that each has it’s niche, it’s special utility, is saying none is an Empirical nor Scientific One. There is no single Empirical nor Scientific Theory than can PROVE that is the case. None that proves there exists a Theory showing those special applications of the Big One are Valid. That would be a real Scientific Theory!: A General One that Shows how Special Ones are Correct and Valid.

By claiming special uses, niches, they are actually showing there is no Empiricism and no Science behind any of them and the aggregate of all of them. Adding one more to the mix makes it even more obvious there will never be one correct and valid.

Special case uses sounds very strawperson circularitily fallacious...

Consider personality tests: There were and are so many, that without needing to get into the proclaimed improvements, the comunally agreed better fits with "reality" and "observations", I would expect it to be even more useless and erroneous as one is put forth after another.

If that reads grandiose and/or condescending, pedantic and spitefull even, specially under someone’s claim that I don´t know what I am talking about, that what I wrote is clearly, evidently absurd, I have one for that someone:

Show me the argument for my informal argument, not me, being absurd: Show me two premises and one conclusion where I can see quickly with my own eyes how right you are.

That is evidently absurd: knowing it is absurd by just seeing it.

And absurd is among other things illogical or without reason beyond belief.

And that requires an argument, even if an informal one, not a narrative, and certainly not a lonely isolated utterance like: it’s absurd. That is just helping me prove my point...

To anyone just trying to claim my narrative is absurd: Notice if you didn’t the first time by re-reading at least the previous three paragraphs, specially the one in the middle.

I can see why behavior might have evolved to be difficult or impossible to understand in an environment such as nature by itself, by it’s lonesomeness. I think simple ecological understanding can explain it for me more elegantly and eloquently than I could.

In a human world that seems to me far worse: Humans are very skilled at not only exploiting, harming or abusing their same species paisani. They are savant when doing the same to their families, partners, descendants, ascendants, comunities, etc.

They are also very competent at doing it to outstanding resourcefull individuals at least in cases where they attack in droves.

They can do that by grouping into Professional Societies expressly created to protect Guild Interests.

In such an imaginary world, really, these are mere thoughts, I see a benefit of most Human Behavior evolving to be difficult or impossible to understand on an evolutionary basis or as a learned trait in a specific individual’s life.

We really don´t dwell, sometimes at all, on whys when we behave to other people.

Why would we?, behaving towards others comes naturally absent harmfull culture. Behaving feels good absent harm and punishment.

Does a great Artist keep wondering what comes next or just follows the flow?.

Great Athletes and Artists as far as I understood and remember are really bad Teachers: they have trouble explaining how they do what they do so well...

Why Evolution would have provided me with toolery to understand my thinking processes?. I see it didn´t provide me with detailed knowledge of my bowel movements, why my thinking should be different?.

I see another analogy popping back in believers in the reality, empiricism and even Science of Psychology or Mind Studies: With proper study my bowel movements can be explained by Science.

I have a praphrase of "High Fidelity", the Movie: My Thinking does not have shit for Brains...

We all are Artists of our own behavior, if we had a bad outcome, even a bad result, that does not take away our Talents, really we have them when behaving to others.

Lack of appreciation happens even to the Best Actors, Actresses and Athletes. I ask you to consider at least resisting being fooled by Psychobabble.

We all are beautiful even behaving as assholes..

PS: I see a problem with explaining Animal Behavior as I elaborated. Fear Not!, there is a Theory of Evolution for grounding in Reality said Studies. As a warning: Psychobabble would need to show first their "models" of "diseases" or "disorders" are detrimental to the Species. With over 100% believing to have a "mental disorder" doing so looks to me a Cyclopean barrier requiring an Herculean effort. Better just exiting as it goes. And they would have to explain how a Correct True Theory explains all their previous bad results, bad models, etc. As Relativiy explained Newtonian Mechanics as a Special case of Relativity. See you...

Self Quotation Koda on Evolution, Behavior, Colegiality and Irrationality:

Thanks.

Federico Soto del Alba.