Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Ti and science

  1. #1
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Ti and science

    Is scientific thinking a Ti activity?
    Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.

  2. #2
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    not necessarily
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  3. #3
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Ti - thinking

    I believe, it is, but the person does not need to be a scientist. It is a reflective, static mode. The clear Ti is abstract logic, and 'not that clear' ( excuse my language :wink: ) is abstract thinking but it could be about any abstract knowledge? for example, moral reasoning is not like maths,not just two sides to the coin...
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  4. #4
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ti and science

    Quote Originally Posted by Dioklecian
    Is scientific thinking a Ti activity?
    No. There are a lot of different kinds of 'scientific thinking,' and they require training and reflection to acquire. You have, for example, "rugged empiricism" and strict cause-and-effect thinking, which is sort of an outgrowth of . Then you have the "I-only-know-what-I-have-observed" standpoint some sensing scientists take to balance out the theoreticians. Then you have a -inspired kind of scientific thinking, which insists on the existence of fundamental laws behind all things. thinking seems to produce definitions, classifications, and codified knowledge. But sometimes types (especially LII's) get so enthralled with their "logically true" categorizations that they distort reality. Ethical types seem to understand the relative importance of different areas of science; some findings are very important to people, while others are meaningless, etc.

  5. #5
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ti and science

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    But sometimes types (especially LII's) get so enthralled with their "logically true" categorizations that they distort reality.
    Is that something all introverted Rationals do? I mean being so sure that something must be true that any evidence to the contrary comes as a complete surprise. They're even able to dismiss the evidence, as if they're thinking that their categorizations or preconceived ideas are so true that this pesky little detail can only be a freak accident.

    I've only seen people do this in private life. If it's at all typical, though, then it's something they do as scientists too.

  6. #6
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ti and science

    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    But sometimes types (especially LII's) get so enthralled with their "logically true" categorizations that they distort reality.
    Is that something all introverted Rationals do? I mean being so sure that something must be true that any evidence to the contrary comes as a complete surprise. They're even able to dismiss the evidence, as if they're thinking that their categorizations or preconceived ideas are so true that this pesky little detail can only be a freak accident.

    I've only seen people do this in private life. If it's at all typical, though, then it's something they do as scientists too.
    Hm... I don't feel like trying to generalize that much, but you might be onto something. I'm only talking about scientists, and only some LII scientists have this tendency. Others are able to curb their enthusiasm for logical elegance and remain objective. The other kinds of scientific thinking all have the potential for non-objectivity, too, but each in their own way. As soon as you take anything to the extreme, you disconnect with reality, I guess.

  7. #7
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    To add to this: scientific thinking is not only NOT merely a activity, it is also not merely a activity. Science would not have gone anywhere without because nobody would have considered the possibilites or made connections between exisiting and perhaps seemingly unrelated theories. Or take , which is needed to see the relationships between processes, grasp of patterns, outlook. And surely I will also throw into the mix because there would not be Anthropology, for example, (yes, if you want to use the term "science," I will throw out the Social Sciences here) without .

    The degree to which each functions come into play for each way of scientific thinking varies by discipline, of course. But scientific thinking is not one function alone. Sorry -dominant people! :wink:
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  8. #8
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim
    And surely I will also throw into the mix because there would not be Anthropology, for example, (yes, if you want to use the term "science," I will throw out the Social Sciences here) without .
    Lol... social "sciences"...
    Well, well, at least grant us statistical analyses as proper science, won't you? You just wait until you get home!

    But to contradict you, too, dear:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    It's annoying and tends to be where the term "ivory tower intellectual" comes from..
    A lot of that is also gone wrong. When people measure knowledge and facts in their relationship to things only they deem meaningful, the theory/approach/empirical "evidence" can be just as flawed/biased and meaningless as the -constructed model lacking connection with reality. Both lack of connection and subjective and biased connection make for some pretty damn annoying ivory tower intellectuals. I will be bold now and claim that good intellectual thinking requires well-developed (and just like with T- and all other functions, can be exercised).
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  9. #9
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't really think Anthropology is solely the result of Fi.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  10. #10
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    I don't really think Anthropology is solely the result of Fi.
    To quote myself in response to this:

    But scientific thinking is not one function alone.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  11. #11
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, back to the original question... can the author specify what he means by scientific thinking? Clearly there is more to science than the algorithm "hypothesis + verification," which ignores the explanatory aspect of science and the initial observation that came before the hypothesis. And then you have the social sciences, which have difficulties with direct verification because of the nature of the subject. So there you often have "observation + hypothesis + discussion + explanation."

    I think different types of scientists focus on different parts of the scientific process, but ultimately science is a collective process that requires all types, albeit in different proportions.

  12. #12
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    I think different types of scientists focus on different parts of the scientific process, but ultimately science is a collective process that requires all types, albeit in different proportions.
    How about "all functions"?

    And I would say that nobody really strayed off topic. The problem is, however, what is meant by "scientific" thinking, I agree. But since we won't reach a consensus on that one, it'll get really boring and tedious now. :wink:
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  13. #13
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism

    No, that's not science (at least not a natural science, which is what most people refer to when they say "science"). Just because you do a correlation study of such and such variables doesn't make it science. You have to identify and experimentally prove exact causal mechanisms.
    I think it's a matter of being semantically accurate and clearly state what, within the context of the discussion, is perceived as science, as Rick suggested. Nowhere was it stated that we are talking about natural sciences and since I am in the Social Sciences, I naturally include those into the term. But let's not go there... :wink:

    Yes, Extraverted Intution is essential... at least how you're defining it. It seems like such an obviously required process that I would think most anyone would engage in regardless of type, which makes me wonder if Extraverted Intution is defined too broadly. Extraverted Intution can't just be a matter of "making connections" and/or "seeing alternatives." Hmm.
    Perhaps it is because you have strong ? I see a lot of intellectuals with weak . They are the once who pick a theory and apply it to every darn thing without being able to redefine/add/cut/alter/toss/connect.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  14. #14
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim

    Well, well, at least grant us statistical analyses as proper science, won't you? You just wait until you get home!
    No, that's not science (at least not a natural science, which is what most people refer to when they say "science"). Just because you do a correlation study of such and such variables doesn't make it science. You have to identify and experimentally prove exact causal mechanisms.
    By this definition Physics is not science either, as nobody knows what exactly causes the equations to work. Plus, the functions used to be different before Quantum Theory and Einstein, so they can hardly be called "exact."

    I don't think it matters whether we call the social sciences "sciences" or not, because the exact same types of thinking are involved in the study of social phenomena as physical phenomena. Social scientists shouldn't be seen as a "lesser" form of scientists, as their task is equally, if not more difficult. Nor should "algorithmic empiricism" be viewed as the only kind of science worth existing. People want to understand why things happen, even if all the cause-and-effect mechanisms aren't understood.

    The vast majority of the science you read about in textbooks is not descriptions of causal mechanisms, but simply descriptions of observable phenomena. "This is what this looks like," etc.

  15. #15
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Balance is essential.....

    I think for INTjs, especially early in life, it is VERY easy to get consumed in . Or furthermore, to get consumed in . The point is, (for any person, probably), that anyone's dominant axis can get off balance. It is relatively easy for this to occur, I think. Perhaps this imbalance comes from different situations arising in life bringing about the use of one function more than the other.

    Personally, I'm realizing that I have a tendancy to use one side of my body over the other, subconsciously. But becoming aware of it, through personal discipline and effort, I can correct my imbalances.

    For whatever dominant main function one has, it's imperative to seek to balance the opposite-orientated second function, in my case. I'm thinking this out as I write it, but it makes a lot of sense in my retrospection.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  16. #16
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim

    Well, well, at least grant us statistical analyses as proper science, won't you? You just wait until you get home!
    No, that's not science (at least not a natural science, which is what most people refer to when they say "science"). Just because you do a correlation study of such and such variables doesn't make it science. You have to identify and experimentally prove exact causal mechanisms.
    By this definition Physics is not science either, as nobody knows what exactly causes the equations to work. Plus, the functions used to be different before Quantum Theory and Einstein, so they can hardly be called "exact."

    I don't think it matters whether we call the social sciences "sciences" or not, because the exact same types of thinking are involved in the study of social phenomena as physical phenomena. Social scientists shouldn't be seen as a "lesser" form of scientists, as their task is equally, if not more difficult. Nor should "algorithmic empiricism" be viewed as the only kind of science worth existing. People want to understand why things happen, even if all the cause-and-effect mechanisms aren't understood.

    The vast majority of the science you read about in textbooks is not descriptions of causal mechanisms, but simply descriptions of observable phenomena. "This is what this looks like," etc.
    I. The scientific method has four steps
    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

    based on this, the scientific method is an Se+Ti or Te activity. it should also be noted that a mathematical relation is often held to be a causal mechanism.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  17. #17
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
    I. The scientific method has four steps
    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

    based on this, the scientific method is an Se+Ti or Te activity. it should also be noted that a mathematical relation is often held to be a causal mechanism.
    I know what the scientific method is. But I think it is itself an abstraction of what science really is, much like a type is an abstraction of a human being.

    The social sciences, for example, follow a slightly different model, because it is harder to obtain quantifiable data for experimental purposes, and the cause and effect mechanisms are generally more complex, or less understood, than in the physical sciences.

    Many people are so taken with the undefiable logic of the scientific method that they look down on the social sciences, as if they are not "real science," or the people who engage in them are intellectually underdeveloped. I think this is silly -- sort of like saying, "I refuse to consider explanations that are not expressed in the form of equations."

    Also, from the scientific method we are all taught in school, it would seem that the ultimate purpose of science is to make predictions. However, many philosophers of science dispute this and say that the real purpose of science is to generate explanations. I agree with that. Is "A + B = C" all we want to know, or do we want to know why A + B = C?

    In my opinion, the best way to determine which functions are involved in scientific activity is to do a survey of people we would consider scientists by whichever definition we choose, and determine their types and see which types are most common. That would suggest that the strong functions of that type are in the greatest demand in that field. I think most socionists here would agree with me that intuitive logical types are most prevalent among scientists, though they by no means are the only ones in the field.

  18. #18
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People need to stop creating these gigantic dichotomies between and . Neither one is more fallable or necessary than the other, especially when it comes to science.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •