Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[sbbds]

expecting the present to continue into the future.

I haven’t paid attention to your narrative about this in detail but what exactly do you think doesn’t fall under this category?

[Singu]

I haven’t paid attention to your narrative about this in detail but what exactly do you think doesn’t fall under this category?

Do you mean to say that EVERYTHING is just an expectation of the present continuing into the future?

Well let's go back to the example, of why would the conclusion made by Jung in 1914, and the conclusion made by Jung in 2018, be different? Well for one, it's because we have newer theories about the human cognition today, which would update the various theories that were previously held by Jung, in his mind. Or we have newer philosophical theories that would debunk the previous theories and make us look at the world in a whole new way. So in short, things have changed, and therefore so would Jung's general outlook have also changed.

So we cannot say that Jung's observation is a REGULARITY, because Jung himself changes over time. And hence, we cannot say that the summarization of his observation made in 1914 is a regularity, either, because that also must change over time. And hence, "types" are not a regularity.

So we must make a distinction between what is a regularity, and what is not. So how DO we find a regularity? How do we know that one has stumbled upon a regularity?

In short, we can't ever "know" in principle, because we can't exactly predict the future in a true sense. Some things may always suddenly change in an unexpected way. But again, science is about explanations, not observations. We claim to have stumbled upon a regularity, if it makes sense in the light of explaining a phenomena. For instance, it makes sense if we say that the reason why objects move around in a certain way, is because there is a certain regularity in nature (which are the laws of physics), that would make the objects move around in a certain way. Again, we're explaining how and why the objects move around in a certain way, not just that we're observing the objects moving around in a certain way. And of course, we can keep predicting how the objects would move around according to how it is dictated by the laws of physics.

So I would think that knowing when one has stumbled upon a regularity, must be understood in relation to a certain context. And also in terms of explaining something. We're not just going to say, "Ah, I have discovered a certain regularity", as in we have discovered it by merely continuously observing the same thing.

[sbbds]

Do you mean to say that EVERYTHING is just an expectation of the present continuing into the future?

Well let's go back to the example, of why would the conclusion made by Jung in 1914, and the conclusion made by Jung in 2018, be different? Well for one, it's because we have newer theories about the human cognition today, which would update the various theories that were previously held by Jung, in his mind. Or we have newer philosophical theories that would debunk the previous theories and make us look at the world in a whole new way. So in short, things have changed, and therefore so would Jung's general outlook have also changed.

So we cannot say that Jung's observation is a REGULARITY, because Jung himself changes over time. And hence, we cannot say that the summarization of his observation made in 1914 is a regularity, either, because that also must change over time. And hence, "types" are not a regularity.

So we must make a distinction between what is a regularity, and what is not. So how DO we find a regularity? How do we know that one has stumbled upon a regularity?

In short, we can't ever "know" in principle, because we can't exactly predict the future in a true sense. Some things may always suddenly change in an unexpected way. But again, science is about explanations, not observations. We claim to have stumbled upon a regularity, if it makes sense in the light of explaining a phenomena. For instance, it makes sense if we say that the reason why objects move around in a certain way, is because there is a certain regularity in nature (which are the laws of physics), that would make the objects move around in a certain way. Again, we're explaining how and why the objects move around in a certain way, not just that we're observing the objects moving around in a certain way. And of course, we can keep predicting how the objects would move around according to how it is dictated by the laws of physics.

So I would think that knowing when one has stumbled upon a regularity, must be understood in relation to a certain context. And also in terms of explaining something. We're not just going to say, "Ah, I have discovered a certain regularity", as in we have discovered it by merely continuously observing the same thing.

...

And Socionics doesn’t make sense to you. Idk, congratulations I guess.