No, you just need to read the first one to know it's not worth your time since all the others are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Printable View
No, you just need to read the first one to know it's not worth your time since all the others are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
And you obviously don't understand it! It's fine, because I realize that it's not something that you can understand right away, it's a process, and it was a process for me to understand these steps. And I'm just giving you the finished product, you probably won't get it until I explain it step-by-step.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas Athena
I understand it. I rejected Popper ages ago because it's an awful philosophy. Popper is nihilism. It's a worldview based on tearing everything down and putting nothing in its place. If you followed Popper in every aspect of your life, you would be a paranoid lunatic. Go watch the episode of Black Mirror called Playtest. The guy gets to "test" a game that tries to make scarier and scarier things based on his neural responses. It starts out pretty tame but soon he's in his own personal Hell and it basically drags out to an infinite degree of subjective time despite taking a tiny fraction of a second in the outside world. It even uses letting him relax and think he's outside of the game as a way to prepare him for bigger scares. There's literally no way to falsify that you're not in that type of scenario, yet intuitively, you know you're not, or you should live every moment of your life being terrified of what'll come next in your own personal technological eternal damnation. This is why I think empiricism is much better than Popper. Science should be an extension of the way we normally think and act, not a bizarro contradiction of it, or we all might as well end up in Hell. And I'm pretty sure the craze about falsification is more about avoiding lawsuits than anything philosophical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
If you think Popper is nihilism, then you obviously don't understand it, because Popper is about finding errors and improving something, which is actually optimism. The other systems are looking for "Justified True Belief", which means that something will eventually be "true", which means that it will be "complete" and "Absolutely True"! And then what? What if you DID find the perfect objectivity, the perfect trueness of something? Then you won't ever be able to improve it, it would be the END of discovery. We can only improve something, because we can criticize it and find some errors within it.
Anyway this isn't even about Popper, Popper was just describing what the scientists were doing since Galileo.
You can't improve something if you're just trying to tear everything down though. That actually implies that everything starts in a state of perfection. Let's say you're trying to purify steel by putting it through a crucible. You can't make anything stronger than steel by doing that. I can think of things stronger than steel, but you have to go out and make something new to get them. The only way to get the strongest possible material through purifying an impure material is to start with the strongest possible material. And even then, you're not just trying to get a strong material. You're going to make something with it afterwards. But, if you're just removing things because it's not valid to go and make something with your material because that's not falsifiable or whatever, that's nihilistic. That's an inversion of how people normally think. I think falsification can be a good thought experiment to show how crazy people can be but it's not how anyone thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Everyone claims they're what people have always been doing.
You're not tearing things down, you're adding improvements via criticism. And if the system is "complete", then what? You can't ever improve upon it, and that's even more nihilistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas Athena
And your analogy of finding materials stronger than steel is about criticisms and improvements, because you're not satisfied with steel, so you criticized the use of steel and tried to find something better that will replace steel. And you can think the same of any theories. You're not satisfied with a certain theory, so you will criticize the theory and come up with a new theory that can replace the old theory. And this process can go on forever, because it won't ever be "complete".
And that's just the Popperian method of criticisms and consequential improvements.
The only way to be able to criticize steel though is to have an imagined, positive goal in mind for something you want to do. You can't criticize that or you're left with nothing. Popper says that you're not allowed to do anything that can't be criticized. So that's why Popper is nihilistic. Can you falsify happiness? Meaning? Love? Financial resources? Well, then it looks like what's left is... Popper's views on those things. His are obviously default, since he made his theory to protect them from Marx's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
And why would you think that there ISN'T a positive goal in criticizing steel? You criticized steel, because you wanted something better, stronger. If you were satisfied with steel, then there won't be any criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas Athena
And Popper doesn't says that you can't do anything, Popper's "Call to action" is choosing the best theory that is currently available, and the current best theory that you can offer.
And falsification is just something to demarcate between science and non-science. Whether something like happiness can be made "objective", is another matter. And is happiness a theory? If it's a theory, then it can be potentially be falsified, or it should be. But you can't falsify facts. We have theories about facts.
You only want something better because you have an idea of what's better, and you can't falsify that. Popper assumes things like anyone else. You don't have theories about facts. Theories produce the facts. Take the theory of gravity. Gravity isn't a fact. Things falling is a fact, and gravity is a theory about why things fall. But then, gravity says that things go towards the center of the Earth because it's a sphere, so actually, in Australia, things go upwards. And, as we all know, things going upwards isn't called falling. It's called rising. So the theory itself is what determines the fact. If you say "we can only have theories about facts" then you're just looking for a sly way to justify what you already believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Things falling is a fact, you want an explanation on why things fall, and the answer is gravity.
Again, do you have a theory on what makes something "better"? Then that could potentially be falsified, and it would potentially be an interesting theory.
Popper isn't a mere skeptic, he was a Critical Rationalist, so he doesn't just want some random criticisms for the sake of making criticisms, he'd want those criticisms to make sense.
But if the explanation says things don't actually fall, then it's not a fact anymore. Some people say that atomic theory means things aren't actually solid. Does it? There you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Well the point is that theories are not facts. They don't ever become "true" or "factual", they forever remain theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas Athena
And so the current best, and the deepest theory that we have right now, will be used to interpret how we view the world, and they may overturn our "common sense" view of the world that we have held until now.
They say that much of the structure of an atom is just empty space, and particles smaller than electrons pass right through objects as if they were not there, and yet we can't pass through rocks and walls, so how can that be? It must mean that the "solidness" of the force that we feel against objects is just an illusion, and it is simply because we have evolved that way, and our brain constructs and models the world in such a way. And if you think that's "crazy", then well, do you have a better theory on explaining these phenomena? These are what the current best theories that we have right now are telling us. If they're wrong, then those theories will be overturned.
That's what a "Ti Polr" would say...Quote:
Originally Posted by idontgiveaf
Prove. Site some sources that proves that is Ti Polr.Quote:
Originally Posted by strangeling
Yeah, that's also what a "Ti Polr" would say...
edit: eh, I'm not good at trolling. I'm not serious. This isn't funny or fun. :( SOWWIE
Phew. TI polr. Yeah. Cannot even explain why.. Me i say, you guys stupid. You just label people. Yeah. Yeah. GG
I have Ti polr if I'm gonna believe on whatever bs you're all saying. Because i cannot analyze which is correct or incorrect.
So basically, we choose which facts we want to be true or not. Something like matter being solid isn’t a fact even though we live every day based on it. We don’t need to make atomic theory explain why matter is solid, but we need to explain to ourselves why we’re a bunch of stupidheads who see empty space as solid. No wonder progress in science has really sucked. I mean, string theory, really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Can you actually come up with better explanations, that are logically coherent, make sense, objective, that have far-reaching consequences, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas Athena
It's a lot more difficult than you'd think.
OK: so matter isn’t solid anymore because we’re lazy. That’s a great explanation actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
...Right. And how do you think you can test that theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallas Athena
1. We live our lives based on matter being solid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
2. Scientists don't explain why matter is solid though they say they could.
3. Scientists explain a lot more complicated things like how the Sun works.
4. If someone doesn't do something they could and kind of want to, they're lazy.
5. Scientists are lazy.
Done!
Actually I think Singu have no problem with science or Socionics, he is just trolling!
I don't need to read through all the details to understand the main point your trying to make. Typology is flawed because it is relies on subjectivity/isn't based on scientific fact, I get it. The point I'm trying to make me and a lot of other people are aware and don't care. Just because there is a chance something is flawed or might not be totally correct doesn't mean there isn't anything useful or interesting to be taken from it. You only need one thread to make your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
That's actually not the point, those are just older and typical criticisms that I no longer subscribe to. So you are indeed criticizing things that you don't even understand, because you didn't even bother to understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy
The true problem is that you can't try to interpret a certain fact or a certain observation after it had already happened, because there are going to be many different theories that can interpret the fact (and hence, you can fit any theory to a fact). That was the entire point of this very thread.
Read this post, if you want to know more in detail: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1269903
I don't bother understanding things if see I no value in understanding it. The stuff you are posting is coming across as convoluted to the point of me seeing it as a waste of time to try and understand whatever it is you are trying say. Much like Bertrand but at he is amusing in ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
@Singu Well the point is that people have type, but it can not be measured. There is no thermometer for human behaviour. But when there is a meter for it, it will be measured. We still know the if the water is hot or cold.
That is Jung's lasting legacy, direct observations and anecdotal examples of human behavior generalized. His writings show the same intuition he haphazardly described as the instinctual, magical quality that everyone uses. In The Undiscovered Self, he admits that his theory of collective unconscious was his life's work, yet it was his personality concepts that clung on while mainstream psychology diverged toward primarily physiological causes of you and I and us. His pre-neurological psychoanalysis was impressive nonetheless, but somewhat static. The only measurable cognitive functions he described is the introversion-extroversion divide, which Eysenck later showed to be the brain's blood flow rates and dopamine-acetycholine hormone systems. That's not to say everything else Jung wrote can be debunked based on the advances of different sciences, maybe it proves the merit of some of his eclectic theorizing, especially his ability to piece together disparate mythologies, symbolism, and archetype in dreams. His personality cult was plain bizarre, though. A healthy dose of skepticism isn't necessarily bad :8*Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
lol, "The only measurable cognitive functions he described is the introversion-extroversion divide, which Eysenck later showed to be the brain's blood flow rates and dopamine-acetycholine hormone systems." <---why, because Eysenck claimed to measure it? if you understand Jung at all you realize how insane this statement is, because it begs the question based on simply trusting Eysenck over Jung, presumably because he appeals to the very prejudice Jung laid out. inability to see that exact prejudice means you haven't understood Jung at all, despite sounding like you're passing over it with authority sufficient to make the judgements you have. it implies a prediction about the future as if Eysenck somehow settled it for all time when he was really a third rate intellect compared to Jung, which makes trusting him a kind of stupidity in of itself. in short, no
Jung built the framework for what Eysenck later studied. Jung and Freud's era of psychosocial philosophy (now a proto-psychoanalysis) had a comparatively medieval understanding of body systems and mental health and relied on firsthand observation and conceptual interpretation of the psyche and unconscious mind through the lens of German existential thought. Turbid as that philosophy was, it was equally fascinating and I am fond of and attached to that novel eastern-western rationalization of the human condition. Given that, Jung's contribution of elaborating on the existence of introversion and extroversion in his cognitive processes theory was a boon to current psychology, neurology, sociology, medicine because it can be measured in individuals physiologically which has become the de facto method and mainstay of mental health and objective science in this era. Jungian cognitive processes (as well as the egalitarian reworking that is Socionics) lag behind life sciences (including evolutionary thought) and behaviorism, so it is a static system representative of that period in time. Jung's upbringing was sad and I agree that he was a noteworthy intellectual, but his ideas went to his head - literally a psychosis. I recommend a cautionary view of his unprovable theories. No emote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
that's like saying some randoms working at CERN are greater than Einstein. and oh, he was mentally ill, but since they have a big metal thing at their disposal that means they're not. in any case, no society is more mentally ill than the current technological one, and yet they're the first to throw out the diagnoses to discredit anything that doesn't support that mode of thinking. ironic, really
this is the same oft repeated, true by definition, self satisfied bullshit people constantly repeat in order to sound smart when, really, its the most banal and self serving hollow application of pre-digested uninspired knowledge possible. what is provable is subject to paradigm shifts in understanding precisely of the kind Jung represents. it just undercuts genius with recourse to lower levels of thinking that purports itself as higher. in short, the stale positivism Jung himself was well aware of a century ago, presented here as the greater on the very forum that owes its existence to Jung. well done on "not getting it" but being arrogant enough to comment as if you were an authority. if you wrap yourself in a few more cliches you might achieve the perception of a person of substanceQuote:
I recommend a cautionary view of his unprovable theories.
there's this idea that that which is true is only that which can be forced on the dumbest possible person, against their will if need be; im not sure if this is democratic or just aristocracy aimed at inverting the bottom, but either way its a dead end because of how it stills progress by simply defining it in terms of metrics that cannot go lower and therefore the bar can't possibly move and therefore the aim is permanently fixed. except this is contradicted by history time and time again. because this is no doubt hard for you, im saying the metrics themselves change. it simply declares the end of history not unlike how Fukuyama embarrassed himself not long ago, but yet here we are calling seers and visionaries insane once again
Jung is phenomenology for crazy people, and his archetypes are popular among not particularly crazy people. Does anyone on 16t actually care about Jung? I thought it was a fantasy dating league.