Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 121 to 130 of 130

Thread: Thread split: is Socionics a religion?

  1. #121

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,065
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    You have a few elements that are right, but your thinking isn't quite there yet, so you're mixing errors in with truth. It's funny, because the things you have right are things I told you years ago.

    Put aside any of the vocabulary or philosophies that you've picked up, and just think things through. . . What do you use to explain an observation? Imagine observing something, and now you're going to try to explain it, what tools do you reach for? Do you make a comparison, drawing an analogy between it and something else you've seen before? - That would mean drawing on prior observations. Walk through the steps you'd take to try to explain something . . . try to do it without using anything you already know, no other observations you've ever made of anything . . . can you do it?
    What I mean is that we don't "derive" anything from observations when we come up with a theory, because you can't "see" explanations. You can't "see" cause and effect. There are so many things in scientific theories that you can never see or touch or hear. And you certainly can never see any claims being made about the future, which is what scientific theories frequently allude to. Those things will essentially have to be made up by human creativity and imagination.

    Anyway yes, this used to puzzle me because I thought "Well how can you PROVE it to be true? How can we know something is right?". It turns out that that is not possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    You have to start somewhere, with something, ideas don't just float through the air unattached to any previous experience or knowledge and land on a person fully formed, you build from the materials you've collected - those other ideas, other observations, other experiences that you've encountered personally, or heard or read about elsewhere. So yes, our ideas about the world are theories of the world we've created and processed, but the theories don't arrive out of nowhere, they're collections, ways of putting things together that make sense.

    We even do this in our sleep, images going through our heads become processed into a story that makes sense. You could suggest that we create the story first and then find the images to represent it . . . but does that actually make any sense to your own experience of dreaming? And that's the thing right there "your own experience" - that is the first and foremost basis for each person, those things they've taken in through their senses, the images and sounds and sensations, and sure we create stories about our world from those, but the stories come after the experience. I don't believe that people are born with beliefs about the world before they've opened their eyes or taken their first breath, because they have no experience to base those beliefs upon.
    They do start from somewhere, and they do have a base, but they start with previous theories, or other theories. But they're not based on any observations. And if we go all the way back, then we arrive at things like myths and legends, which are again baseless and not based on any observations. They're explanations, they're bad and false explanations about reality, but they're explanations nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Btw, completely off-topic, but this is why I think that some myths and stories and gods could be based on actual events. Because if you pass down knowledge in the form of oral history, and you've witnessed some event - a fire, flood, comet, volcano, or even just noticed interesting patterns in the sun, moon, and stars, the easiest way to pass on that knowledge in a way that can be remembered and preserved is through a story. A meteorite flies through the air and hits a mountain becomes Zeus hurtling someone down from the heavens or what-have-you. Memory devices often turn things into songs, rhymes, or stories gathering the parts together in a new way to make sense of them and recall them later. And like in dreams, people draw things together that don't make any sense on their own, or that are confusing and turn them into a narrative. Even a weird narrative that itself doesn't hold together that well is better than scattered and disjointed pieces that don't fit anywhere. And sometimes all that's missing to bring things together more coherently is another observation . . . so you can go from the idea of spontaneous generation of flies from meat to realizing that leaving meat uncovered allows flies to lay eggs on meat to hatch into more flies.
    It seems more that scientific theories are essentially based on myths and legends. Newton did get his ideas of gravity from things like astrology and the occult, which even he himself thought was absurd, but he went with it anyway because he had no better way to explain gravity.

    So if we go all the way back, then we essentially start with baseless myths and legends. Some people think God exist, even though they've never seen a God - why?

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well I hope you realize that what you have been promoting so far, as in "evidence-based" and all that, is actually Inductivist and Empiricist.

    If you BASE something on observational evidence, then you have no choice but to say "we have observed X, therefore X should repeat again in the future".

    You can't come up with BASELESS conjectures and hypotheses, which is what science actually is.

    (...)

    So if we go all the way back, then we essentially start with baseless myths and legends. Some people think God exist, even though they've never seen a God - why?
    Nah, it's nonsensical to try and create a hypothesis and an experiment to test it based on your idea of "x happened now so it will happen again".

    That is just so terribly shallow and completely devoid of any deductive logic or systematic understanding.

    You really terribly and disgustingly oversimplified my way of thinking and the scientific thinking as well.

    I personally do not go simply for evidence or for a repeated pattern of observation, there has to be a more encompassing understanding than that, where the rules do all have to hold up in cross-checks too.

    What you mean by the word "base" is very very different from what I mean by it. See above as to what I mean by it, it has to be making sense from understanding of other things, that is what I mean by a basis.

    And science is not about completely randomly picked conjectures.

    And that thing with myths and legends. My god.

    Have you ever conducted any research in science? Doesn't sound like it. I have.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well we're not basing it off on observations, but rather we're explaining the observations. Or we're making claims about observations.

    And if the top-down processing is true, then our observations and sensory perception are also a kind of theories and conjectures about the world, that are automatically generated by our brain.

    So this is what we mean by saying that everything is theory-laden or the theory-laden nature of science.

    Besides, we can't either deductively or inductively justify conjectures, as that will only lead to either infinite regress or circular reasoning. There's no guarantee that our conjectures will not change or be proven wrong in the future.

    And that's exactly what we mean by Falsficationism, as we're not trying to prove something right, but we're trying to prove something wrong. Falsficationism was created in response to Inductivism and Empiricism and even Rationalism, as they were all found to be invalid and inadequate forms of creating knowledge about the world.

    Science has nothing but error-correcting mechanisms to correct our baseless conjectures. We try to prove wrong our unproven, baseless hypotheses and conjectures, so we can make better ones. That's what we mean by "conjectures and refutations".
    1. Sensory perception is not the same kind of conjecture as a myth. The aim of sensory perception is to line up the perception with actual things in the tangible world, even with errors in this process it largely lines up to the point of organisms being able to survive in the environment rather well. A myth is simply imagination running free beyond a point where it's no longer trying to ground the idea with the information conveyed by the senses from the tangible.

    So your idea that sensory perception is as theory-laden as random imagining, is really false and was derived from pure wordplay ignoring any real anchor in anything specific and concrete. This is why I say I can't respect your intelligence anymore at all.

    2. You are trying to take one fad or something and try to base all your thinking in it? Inductivism or Falsificationism or any other "ism" alone cannot achieve the aim of reaching the most refined way of scientific thinking.

    3. It is sad that based on some other fad you got into, you equate sicence with pure error-correcting. This is what I call terribly and disgustingly shallow.


    End of story. I'm done with this thread lol, I really can't respect your intelligence any more in any fashion whatsoever if you really meant what you said here.
    Last edited by Myst; 02-16-2019 at 05:21 PM.

  3. #123
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    ILI INTp
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Two answers. One, no. That's just an unscientific opinion based on broken logic. Just because someone is right (edit) most of the time, doesn't mean they can't commit a logical falacy.

    Second answer is it still doesn't qualify as a religion. "A particular system of faith and worship." >>> I prefer this definition. We're not worshipping anyone, so no. It's not even the main one, that's more strict. ("the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.") >>> Nothing supernatural about having the same thought patterns as someone else, although it might seem supernatural and spooky, perception and reality are not the same thing.

    The last one, which it would qualify, I consider informal, kind of like calling the Beatles a religion.

    "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
    "consumerism is the new religion" >> Obviously consumerism isn't a religion.

    So yeah, I know I came to this late, but uh... Hope that clarifies what religion is.
    If I stop responding or posting, I've probably taken a break from posting stuff. This really taxes me for whatever reason. Said break could last anywhere from a month to a year. I will likely be back, as socionics is one of my interests. If I'm not on here, you can contact me on steam.

    I got a new computer, so I'll not type on mobile as much any more.

  4. #124

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,065
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ugh, Myst can't even do basic reading comprehension. Typical emotionality of F type with weak logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Nah, it's nonsensical to try and create a hypothesis and an experiment to test it based on your idea of "x happened now so it will happen again".

    That is just so terribly shallow and completely devoid of any deductive logic or systematic understanding.

    You really terribly and disgustingly oversimplified my way of thinking and the scientific thinking as well.
    Which I keep saying was the *wrong* approach, and you said science is "evidence-based". That's what evidence-based *is*: "X happened so X will happen again". How else could you logically conclude an "evidence-based" premise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    1. Sensory perception is not the same kind of conjecture as a myth. The aim of sensory perception is to line up the perception with actual things in the tangible world, even with errors in this process it largely lines up to the point of organisms being able to survive in the environment rather well. A myth is simply imagination running free beyond a point where it's no longer trying to ground the idea with the information conveyed by the senses from the tangible.

    So your idea that sensory perception is as theory-laden as random imagining, is really false and was derived from pure wordplay ignoring any real anchor in anything specific and concrete. This is why I say I can't respect your intelligence anymore at all.
    It's really amazing how you can't read that I just wrote "error-correcting mechanisms" after it. Indeed myths and random imaginations are wrong, but you *correct the errors* of such myths and random imaginations. Biological organisms throw out these random hypotheses via random mutations of the DNA, and those errors get corrected via natural selection. It works the same way with scientific hypotheses.

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Ugh, Myst can't even do basic reading comprehension. Typical emotionality of F type with weak logic.
    Lovely and of course ridiculously mistaken passive-aggressiveness. I at least type you correctly

    (Please, do get upset over this lolol)


    Which I keep saying was the *wrong* approach, and you said science is "evidence-based". That's what evidence-based *is*: "X happened so X will happen again". How else could you logically conclude an "evidence-based" premise?
    I'm not going to get into arguments on semantics. Which is what most arguments with you are. Because you cannot see beyond your peculiar word usage and look at the actual logical meaning of what's being said. Evidence-based generally doesn't mean what you claim it to mean. As for what I specifically meant by it, I already said what I meant by it in the very same post, so go back and figure it out, I'm not going to help you anymore.


    It's really amazing how you can't read that I just wrote "error-correcting mechanisms" after it. Indeed myths and random imaginations are wrong, but you *correct the errors* of such myths and random imaginations. Biological organisms throw out these random hypotheses via random mutations of the DNA, and those errors get corrected via natural selection. It works the same way with scientific hypotheses.
    No, my point was that scientific thinking is not to be reduced to be equated to just being error-correcting mechanisms. It is an important part of the most refined way of objective thinking possible for humans, but it's far more than about correcting errors and hypotheses are NEVER *random* imaginations. Imagination maybe, but not random.


    BTW the argument on infinite regression and question-begging is wrong. The original premises the rest of our thinking is based on come from how this world is. With some errors that get rectified over time. The point is, there is no need for infinite regression and the initial premises are valid, the way the world is where the chain of reasoning stops eventually.

    (This is why I wanted to come back here and post, not because I want to argue with you any further lol, I just remembered that this is the problem with that argument and that I didn't explicitly note this yet.)

  6. #126

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,065
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Myst: "Science is this and that" - but can never actually manage to explain what "that" is.

    Science can't be anything other than an error-correcting mechanism. Its theories and hypotheses that are creations of pure human imagination and creativity can never be proven or justified. Nor is it "based" on evidence. Tested by evidence, yes, but not based.

    *Knowledge* exists as information encoded in the DNA, and yet they're not based on any kind of sensory perception - they're randomly generated by random mutations of the DNA, and then the errors get corrected over time via natural selection.

    It works the same way in science. It's not random and unguided like the process of evolution via natural selection, because it has the purpose of being guided by the rationality of human beings.

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Myst: "Science is this and that" - but can never actually manage to explain what "that" is.

    Science can't be anything other than an error-correcting mechanism. Its theories and hypotheses that are creations of pure human imagination and creativity can never be proven or justified. Nor is it "based" on evidence. Tested by evidence, yes, but not based.

    *Knowledge* exists as information encoded in the DNA, and yet they're not based on any kind of sensory perception - they're randomly generated by random mutations of the DNA, and then the errors get corrected over time via natural selection.

    It works the same way in science. It's not random and unguided like the process of evolution via natural selection, because it has the purpose of being guided by the rationality of human beings.
    It's not the same in science, this sounds like a cute parallel but nothing more than that. If you can falsify stuff, that means there is such a thing as "true" and "false" at any given point in science. True or false under a finite number of defined conditions, specifically.

  8. #128

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,065
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    It's not the same in science, this sounds like a cute parallel but nothing more than that. If you can falsify stuff, that means there is such a thing as "true" and "false" at any given point in science. True or false under a finite number of defined conditions, specifically.
    Falsification is proving something to be false, not true. Nothing can ever be proven true, because there's no guarantee that something will stay true forever. Today's theory may be proven wrong tomorrow. If an attempt at falsification has failed, then it just means that the theory is tentatively held until a better theory comes along. It doesn't prove the theory to be true.

    And hence why Augusta's claim of making Socionics "irrefutable" is a red flag.

  9. #129
    Evolution's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,267
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Falsification is proving something to be false, not true. Nothing can ever be proven true, because there's no guarantee that something will stay true forever. Today's theory may be proven wrong tomorrow. If an attempt at falsification has failed, then it just means that the theory is tentatively held until a better theory comes along. It doesn't prove the theory to be true.

    And hence why Augusta's claim of making Socionics "irrefutable" is a red flag.
    This is true, in that Augusta's claim in pseuodoscientific. It is a red flag because it leads to dogmatism that may restrict the use of imagination and alternative theories of natural phenomenon, especially ones that fit more closely with the facts. I am similar in Popper's belief that unscientific claims, when dogmatic, become a problem when people in positions of power assert these questionable "truths" on the populace. Popper's standards for truth is related to who is claiming the truth and the kind of power the person has over others. This is because of his personal political positions and opinions. Science is used as a way to repel dogmatism, and hence, authoritarianism. This was relevant to the era he lived through. His view on science is very political.

    Not all truths are scientific, many are not. Many of the "truths" we take for granted everyday aren't scientifically true, nor do we wait for a scientific consensus before making the countless decisions we have to make each day and throughout our life. Scientific truths are always historical and cumulative. They don't exist in the present, but in hindsight. Human creativity, imagination, ingenuity is at the forefront of scientific discovery. They come before knowledge is ever created.

  10. #130

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,065
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evolution View Post
    I am similar in Popper's belief that unscientific claims, when dogmatic, become a problem when people in positions of power assert these questionable "truths" on the populace. Popper's standards for truth is related to who is claiming the truth and the kind of power the person has over others. This is because of his personal political positions and opinions. Science is used as a way to repel dogmatism, and hence, authoritarianism. This was relevant to the era he lived through. His view on science is very political.
    Well this is actually more Postmodernism or perhaps Kuhnian "Paradigm Shift" view of science, but it's not Popperian. He was against Postmodernism, and the Kuhnian view is not compatible with the Popperian view that science builds up on previous theories and progresses and expands over time. While Kuhn says that science is basically just a struggle of power between the establishment scientists who want to hold onto their power (which he called "normal science"), and the more rebellious, "revolutionary" scientists that want to challenge their status quo and shake things up and to eventually take them over as the new establishment (which he called "revolutionary science"). And then the revolutionaries turn into the new establishment that want to hold onto power, and the cycle is repeated.



    While the Kuhnian view may seem plausible at first, it's not how science actually works, because there's clearly a logical progression in each of the scientific theories that preceded it. It's not as if the previous theories have been completely refuted, but rather they still contained grains of truth that get carried on to the new theory. Or it's not as if the scientists are so biased that they won't accept any alternative views from outside of their narrow group. When quantum physics was first devised, many scientists were quick to adopt to this new field of physics, even though it radically differed from their previous field of physics.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

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