Thread split: is Socionics a religion?

[Singu]

It's rigorous because it's evidence based... and thus yes, you have to be definite with things instead of staying open like you are doing it in these arguments with people here.

The thing is that science is not as open to alternatives as you are, or it would not have anything specific to say at all. Like you don't.

Like I said above, science is not this open. It's more rigorous than this from you.

Read this:

The inferential, imaginative and creative nature of science

However, science isn’t simply the accumulation of observable evidence and the orderly gathering of knowledge. All observations require interpretation and inference by scientists. To do this, scientists require imagination and creativity to make inferential statements about what they see. In fact, imagination and creativity are needed in every aspect of a scientist’s work – making sense of observations, making the creative leap from data to possible explanation, coming up with new ideas, designing investigations and looking at old data in a new light.

The subjective and theory-laden nature of science

Different scientists can interpret the same datasets differently. How can this be so? Scientists do strive to be objective, but it is just not possible to make truly objective observations and interpretations without any bias. A scientist’s mind is not a blank slate. Individual scientists have their prior knowledge, theoretical beliefs, experiences, cultural background, training, expectations and biases, each of which will affect their observations and conclusions. All observation is preceded by theory and conceptual knowledge. Science tries to overcome this lack of pure objectivity through the scientific community, which scrutinises scientific work and helps balance individual scientists’ leanings.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/reso...ure-of-science

It's obvious that all this idiotic Socionics knowledge is interfering with people understanding how science actually is. They think that science is this stereotypical "Te" or "Ti" or whatever the heck they think it is. It's not.

[Myst]

Read this:

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/reso...ure-of-science

It's obvious that all this idiotic Socionics knowledge is interfering with people understanding how science actually is. They think that science is this stereotypical "Te" or "Ti" or whatever the heck they think it is. It's not.

Who said here that science is "Te" or "Ti"? You are the one mixing Socionics into things here needlessly...

[Singu]

Well what I and that article that I just posted is saying is pretty much Popperian, and only a few people here understand Popperian epistemology. If you don't understand Popper, then you're just not going to understand what I'm saying.

This also has nothing to do with types, because I didn't used to know any Popperian ideas and I didn't used to be one. In fact if you told me Popperian ideas a while ago, then I wouldn't have believed it and would have thought that you were crazy and insane. Pretty much the same reaction that some people are having now.

And it's not as if Popperian ideas are incredibly difficult or counter-intuitive, in fact Popperian ideas are incredibly common-sense and straightforward, even obvious. The reason why it's so difficult to accept is that the "default mode" of thinking in our culture, particularly the Western culture, is Empiricism and Inductivism. And that's because modern Western culture that was started during the Enlightenment period, was jump-started by Empiricism influenced by people like Locke and Berkeley. And that was good, because it freed us from knowledge from authorities like Kings or holy scriptures, and instead the source of knowledge returned to ourselves. But soon Empiricism was found to be rationally untenable, and it self-destructed many times, even after it "evolved" to Positivism and Logical Positivism. And Inductivism was not without its problems, and it was often criticized without anyone coming up with a credible solution. That was until Popper (in)famously claimed to have "solved the problem of induction" in the early 20th century.

Anyway, it's not as if Popper suddenly came up with a new idea or anything, but rather he was simply describing how science has always been done since the days of Galileo. It's almost as if Galileo had accidentally found a way to do science.

Who said here that science is "Te" or "Ti"? You are the one mixing Socionics into things here needlessly...

Read the article that I just posted. Does any of it sound like any of the stereotypical description of Te or Ti? It doesn't sound like any of the functions, mostly because they're based on things that Jung hadn't considered or Jung didn't know.

Most people here see things from within the Socionics framework. Even you. But they're inadequate whenever you need to see things from what Socionics doesn't describe, which is a whole lot of things.

[Myst]

Well what I and that article that I just posted is saying is pretty much Popperian, and only a few people here understand Popperian epistemology. If you don't understand Popper, then you're just not going to understand what I'm saying.

This also has nothing to do with types, because I didn't used to know any Popperian ideas and I didn't used to be one. In fact if you told me Popperian ideas a while ago, then I wouldn't have believed it and would have thought that you were crazy and insane. Pretty much the same reaction that some people are having now.

1. You do not understand other people's arguments here, so you find it convenient to imagine that we all are just upset when we disagree about something.
2. Even if Popper is your current God you believe in currently, you don't actually just replicate in your arguments what Popper said.

And it's not as if Popperian ideas are incredibly difficult or counter-intuitive, in fact Popperian ideas are incredibly common-sense and straightforward, even obvious. The reason why it's so difficult to accept is that the "default mode" of thinking in our culture, particularly the Western culture, is Empiricism and Inductivism. And that's because modern Western culture that was started during the Enlightenment period, was jump-started by Empiricism influenced by people like Locke and Berkeley. And that was good, because it freed us from knowledge from authorities like Kings or holy scriptures, and instead the source of knowledge returned to ourselves. But soon Empiricism was found to be rationally untenable, and it self-destructed many times, even after it "evolved" to Positivism and Logical Positivism. And Inductivism was not without its problems, and it was often criticized without anyone coming up with a credible solution. That was until Popper (in)famously claimed to have "solved the problem of induction" in the early 20th century.

Anyway, it's not as if Popper suddenly came up with a new idea or anything, but rather he was simply describing how science has always been done since the days of Galileo. It's almost as if Galileo had accidentally found a way to do science.

The scientific approach and methodology currently taught does incorporate ideas from Popper, so what's your problem? Popper is old news really.

Read the article that I just posted. Does any of it sound like any of the stereotypical description of Te or Ti? It doesn't sound like any of the functions, mostly because they're based on things that Jung hadn't considered or Jung didn't know.

Most people here see things from within the Socionics framework. Even you. But they're inadequate whenever you need to see things from what Socionics doesn't describe, which is a whole lot of things.

Lol, stop claiming things about me without any proof. It's you who tried to categorise that article as Ti or Te. I did not think of Ti or Te at all while skimming the article. I don't even know why you needed to bring up Socionics in connection with that article. Seems like a compulsion you have.

I have no need to do that, because I've put the good Socionics ideas in a larger framework more to my liking, and I did so quite a while ago. So I have no need to try and think about everything from a narrow Socionics pov.

And other people too have been telling you here that they do not see everything from Socionics's model, that it's just a model among other systems and approaches that they already utilise.

Please, by all means, feel free to just continue projecting your own issues onto other people, if that's what's most convenient to you. It's just painful to watch lol

[sbbds]

You asked once in some other thread what we liked about science. And I can't find that thread now, but I said then, and I'll say it now again, that science is the process of being curious and asking questions, and then devising ways to find the answers to those questions. And what's not to like about that?

Not all scientific inquiry is set up as formal experiments either and the questions don't have to be hypotheses to test, you could ask something like, "Is there water on Mars?" or even a much broader question, "What is the environment on Mars like?" and then you design a probe with a camera to go take a look and see what's there whether it's water you find or something completely unexpected, you're just looking for the answers to your questions, and learning more about an as-yet unfamiliar environment. Science is exploratory, seeking to learn more always.

It's all about seeking answers, and yes, being open to whatever those answers are. Especially if those answers are unexpected or crush your prior beliefs. That's when things get exciting. If a person is instead trying to prove that their ideas are correct, and is NOT open to being wrong, then it's not exactly scientific thinking they're going for - it's dogmatism.

I'm pretty sure Singu was just asking that as an insult and has little to no respect for any of the people on this forum. Treating other people properly isn't a function of Fi or Fe either, apparently @Singu . I lol that you continue to try to treat him respectfully squark instead of fighting fire with fire but it might just be because you don't realize this (i.e. what he deserves and needs). Stop asslicking the most useless and worthless people on here. I see a trend now.