Scientific method is outdated
And the exact reason why were running out of things to discover. Science as a tool to conceptualize reality is also an outdated idea that should not be overlooked, and I think well find as instantaneous data is given, so will a new process of disclipline that will lead to much more viable results when studying what is. It is fluidity, contrast to static nature of classical science.
Are you ... Russian? What is your first language?
Socionics -
the16types.info
WTF man? fragment!Originally Posted by Transkar
Are you Yarroslav What is this language? It does not sound English. Do you consider you cannot mistake? All your base are belong to us."all your base ...
Socionics -
the16types.info
English lol, why do you think my language is Russian?
So what do you propose as an alternative?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Last edited by Capitalist Pig; 04-10-2014 at 04:26 PM.
Don't you mean "so it begins, the erosion of knowledge and intellect in the crumbling American empire"?
The alternative to the scientific method is no method and faith in your own experiences, which most people default to anyway.
I didn't understand the op.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Haha, it is language used in the United States Government and military lingo.
No one laughed
And your point is?
My point is no one laughed. Do I need to say it in Spanish?
Mi punto es que nadie se rió.
My point is that I'm not concerned whether anyone laughed.
As to whether or not the Scientific Method is outdated, I would say that, "No, it's not." If anything, the Scientific Method has yet to become widely accepted enough to make an impact in the furthest reaches of the world, darkened by ignorance and superstitious belief. Probably one of the best things that the Scientific Method can teach a person is that sometimes, what we think is so, really isn't. It's really very simple: you have something you think might be true, and you try to perform a test to see if it is. If it isn't, you try a new hypothesis. If your test seems to confirm that it is true, you repeat this test to see if your test wasn't biased and that it continues to validate your hypothesis. And you have other people do the same thing. How is this in the least bit static or outdated? How can such a simple thing of "test what you think is true" ever be outdated? In many practical research situations, you can find the Scientific Method misappropriated, but that isn't the Method itself. That's bureaucracy and selfish personal interest (or possibly even self-delusion) getting in the way of the process.
Also, what the hell do you mean by "instantaneous data"? Fluidity? Why are you being so vague and ambiguous? Could it be that, in actuality, you have nothing concrete and gainful to say? I almost think you're a troll.
Maybe the farthest corners of the world are better off without the scientific method.My point is that I'm not concerned whether anyone laughed.
As to whether or not the Scientific Method is outdated, I would say that, "No, it's not." If anything, the Scientific Method has yet to become widely accepted enough to make an impact in the furthest reaches of the world, darkened by ignorance and superstitious belief. Probably one of the best things that the Scientific Method can teach a person is that sometimes, what we think is so, really isn't. It's really very simple: you have something you think might be true, and you try to perform a test to see if it is. If it isn't, you try a new hypothesis. If your test seems to confirm that it is true, you repeat this test to see if your test wasn't biased and that it continues to validate your hypothesis. And you have other people do the same thing. How is this in the least bit static or outdated? How can such a simple thing of "test what you think is true" ever be outdated? In many practical research situations, you can find the Scientific Method misappropriated, but that isn't the Method itself. That's bureaucracy and selfish personal interest (or possibly even self-delusion) getting in the way of the process.
Also, what the hell do you mean by "instantaneous data"? Fluidity? Why are you being so vague and ambiguous? Could it be that, in actuality, you have nothing concrete and gainful to say? I almost think you're a troll.
Why do you think that?
[QUOTE=Eldanen;1011409]Why do you think that?[/QUOTE
You do not believe you are ignorant and those who live a less technologically filled lifestyle are less than you? That is an egotistical assumption. What has science done for us that you hold so high regard? It has let us do things on a much more massive scale, to include killing, giving life, rise of depression, rise of happiness, discovery of the physical realm while abusing our spirituality. Try to observe the world in an unbias manner, not what society teaches you. Youll come to find that happiness doesnt have to be found within the confines of modernity and science. The same basic pillars of humanity dont change with age.
Yes, like the rain forests... I am sure there are millions of things to discover in them if we only find a way to do it that will not destroy in the process.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
[QUOTE=Transkar;1011421]I didn't say that those who live in a less technological environment were any less than me. Science has given us quite a few tools for changing our planet. Some results have been good, and some have been bad. I think the ultimate goal should be to find another rock to live on before this one burns out, which will eventually happen. I think you're being a bit of an idealist here. Some pain is necessary to move on to the next step in the growth of humanity. The idea of some anti-technological luddite utopia is one of folly. "Let's go back to the stone ages," is basically what you're saying. I wonder if there's not some personal motivation for this claim. Modern life is hard, yes, but that doesn't mean the past was any better necessarily.
In prehistoric times, a common method of aborting unwanted children, or children the tribe couldn't take care of, was to have the baby and dump the infant off a cliff. Not very nice, is it?
I hate it when people pursue some age of glory and wholeness in the past. It didn't exist. Life has always been painful and will always be. This idea is very common in gnostic thought and Christianity. Some eden that we've all fallen from and must return to. It's all usually from people who can't handle life as it is.
[QUOTE=Eldanen;1011451]Id make mince meat out of you in real life and eat you for breakfast, so that thought is a fallacy. It would help you more if you were right, but unfortunate for yourself you cannot hold any dual viewpoints, which makes your views not only intellectually dishonest, but weak as well. Look, your viewpoint is actually the personal one lmao "I hate it when people", did someone hurt your feelings?is life difficult for you that you took the time to give actual personal investment into this conversation? Do certain individuals make you angry? Lol. You even stereotype Christians and Gnostics as inferior to your viewpoint when youre viewpoints are even more of a fart in the wind because you seem to have a personal thing against them. What are you trying to escape here on Earth? Suffering? Extinction? You must believe something is out there then to discover, something that quantifies the meaning of your and the human race's existence. Maybe youre the gnostic my friend.
Last edited by Ron Mexico; 04-11-2014 at 01:42 PM.
Let's go back to living in caves bro.
What has science done for us, rite?
Everything has diminishing returns, it doesn't means those returns are not worthwhile nor that the original return wasn't extremely worthwhile.
The scientific method is alive and well. Is there another method that I don't know about that allows us to determine objective reality? There are nearly an infinite number of processes that can be studied in the universe, which could give us more insight into the origin of life or how to make our energy economy more efficient, or insights to help us cure diseases. To close the door on the scientific method is to reopen the door toward ignorance.
[QUOTE=Transkar;1011466]Dis nigga is cray as hell.
[QUOTE=Eldanen;1011472]Bitch ass whiteboy.
Assuming science is of any value to us at all.
Been there done that...
This is crazy talk! How am I going to wear 6 inch heels in a friggin' cave?
Seriously though, I appreciate science but I wish it would adhere to..."Primum non nocere"
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Extremely carefully.
Interestingly, high heels originated in the Rennaisance and were wore by men to make them taller and to have more stability during duels (but they were more like platforms and not that high).
Women then started wearing high heels to match at some point. A bit like how French male aristocrat dandies started wearing makeup but now women wear makeup instead.
Percy Lavon Julian
"The pill", a modern marvel.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
