The ideal and aim of science

[Creepy-]

The ideal and aim of science do not consist in giving the most exact possible description of the facts - science cannot compete as a recording instrument with the camera and the gramophone - but in establishing general laws, which are merely abbreviated expressions for many diverse processes that are yet conceived to be somehow correlated.

Whether or not you consider it to be a science, this applies to Socionics.

(Discuss)

[Angel von Himmel]

Science has to generalize on account of nothing in this world being perfect; if perfection was ever achieved, it would be the end of science.

[FDG]

It's a bit unclear what Jung is trying to convey...nowhere and never it has been stated that science aims at complete description of facts. Science builds models over observation, predicts, and then tests predictions.

[Creepy-]

I don't think Jung is actually arguing against anything already established, rather, he is reiterating this point. And no wonder why - look at the people who are expecting systems, ideas, theories to be perfect when they are not even designed to be perfect.

[Angel von Himmel]

I don't think Jung is actually arguing against anything already established, rather, he is reiterating this point. And no wonder why - look at the people who are expecting systems, ideas, theories to be perfect when they are not even designed to be perfect.

Actually, the theories are usually perfect, just the material world is not.

[FDG]

I don't think Jung is actually arguing against anything already established, rather, he is reiterating this point. And no wonder why - look at the people who are expecting systems, ideas, theories to be perfect when they are not even designed to be perfect.

Actually, the theories are usually perfect, just the material world is not.

Depends on which objective the theories are aimed at. If it's internal consistency, then they're perfect. If it's prediction AKA science, then they're not.

[Creepy-]

I don't think Jung is actually arguing against anything already established, rather, he is reiterating this point. And no wonder why - look at the people who are expecting systems, ideas, theories to be perfect when they are not even designed to be perfect.

Actually, the theories are usually perfect, just the material world is not.

Depends on which objective the theories are aimed at. If it's internal consistency, then they're perfect. If it's prediction AKA science, then they're not.

What FDG said.

Theories are perfect in themselves but when compared against the all-important reality, they don't add up perfectly.

(By the way, You could also say that the material world is perfect and theories inevitably fall short :wink: )

[emeye]

(By the way, You could also say that the material world is perfect and theories inevitably fall short :wink: )

You have to say that, if you are defining science. Science tries to build models which describe the material world--any failure to do so is a shortcoming of a model.

Perfect model/imperfect world is probably more of a domain of mysticism and thus derived religions. Regardless, it is not science.

[FDG]

Perfect model/imperfect world is probably more of a domain of mysticism and thus derived religions. Regardless, it is not science.

It's just an axiomatic system. I think that's what rmcnew was (badly) trying to convey.

[Creepy-pokeball]

It's a bit unclear what Jung is trying to convey...

An ideology.

[Angel von Himmel]

Depends on which objective the theories are aimed at. If it's internal consistency, then they're perfect. If it's prediction AKA science, then they're not.

Could be, but even internal consistency may be relative to a specific part of a greater internal consistency; for example, if you took two trees that were undenighably the same age, one from the amazon and one from the ring of the north or south poll, they would not have the same consistency in the size or even number of rings, even though it is commonly taught in school that one tree ring undenighably represents a year; they do not often tell you that it only consistently works for trees that grew in the same region or temperate climates; in other words, it is relative truth and not an absolute one. So, a decent amount of deductive reasoning is often a good way to indicate the consistent quality of objective reasoning. I wouldn't call relative truths perfect in consideration to the whole of everything else.

Now, if you can find an absolute truth in nature that explains a concept without having a greater truth that does not make it a relative truth, then I'd be surprised if some time later it turns out that it was really just a load of realitive bullcrap in light of some other discovery. There is no such thing as a model that explains everything without first sacrificing the coherency that makes it perfect.

Theories are perfect in themselves but when compared against the all-important reality, they don't add up perfectly.

That might be coherent, but now the problem here is "what is reality?" ... and that is a whole other can of worms.

[FDG]

Depends on which objective the theories are aimed at. If it's internal consistency, then they're perfect. If it's prediction AKA science, then they're not.

Could be, but even internal consistency may be relative to a specific part of a greater internal consistency; for example, if you took two trees that were undenighably the same age, one from the amazon and one from the ring of the north or south poll, they would not have the same consistency in the size or even number of rings, even though it is commonly taught in school that one tree ring undenighably represents a year; they do not often tell you that it only consistently works for trees that grew in the same region or temperate climates; in other words, it is relative truth and not an absolute one. So, a decent amount of deductive reasoning is often a good way to indicate the consistent quality of objective reasoning. I wouldn't call relative truths perfect in consideration to the whole of everything else.

Now, if you can find an absolute truth in nature that explains a concept without having a greater truth that does not make it a relative truth, then I'd be surprised if some time later it turns out that it was really just a load of realitive bullcrap in light of some other discovery. There is no such thing as a model that explains everything without first sacrificing the coherency that makes it perfect.

What the heck are you speaking about? I was speaking about axiomatic system, and you uh took the word "consistency" in a totally different way.

[Angel von Himmel]

Depends on which objective the theories are aimed at. If it's internal consistency, then they're perfect. If it's prediction AKA science, then they're not.

Could be, but even internal consistency may be relative to a specific part of a greater internal consistency; for example, if you took two trees that were undenighably the same age, one from the amazon and one from the ring of the north or south poll, they would not have the same consistency in the size or even number of rings, even though it is commonly taught in school that one tree ring undenighably represents a year; they do not often tell you that it only consistently works for trees that grew in the same region or temperate climates; in other words, it is relative truth and not an absolute one. So, a decent amount of deductive reasoning is often a good way to indicate the consistent quality of objective reasoning. I wouldn't call relative truths perfect in consideration to the whole of everything else.

Now, if you can find an absolute truth in nature that explains a concept without having a greater truth that does not make it a relative truth, then I'd be surprised if some time later it turns out that it was really just a load of realitive bullcrap in light of some other discovery. There is no such thing as a model that explains everything without first sacrificing the coherency that makes it perfect.

What the heck are you speaking about? I was speaking about axiomatic system, and you uh took the word "consistency" in a totally different way.

Yeah, you've done the same exact thing to me, so I suppose it is justified in that it may be a manifestation of a certain intertype-relationship.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Olga]

When I was looking through this topic I was thinking about my ideas and model B. I do not think there is an easy answer for all questions or one approach which will explain everything. But I rather think the truth is a whole picture wich will be build from litttle mozaics of different approaches and perspectives. The aim of socion to cooperate, to spark the ideas and stimulate the thought, not one person on his own is capable of handling Truth on his shoulders, but together step by step we progress to a better understanding. What I find amamsing when you come to certain little discoveries on your own and then how different other people has come to very similar discoveries. It is like the picture in the same colour but different shades and then you think... if our thoughts cross there surely must be something there. it may well come from collective uncounscious we all have.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I don't think Jung is actually arguing against anything already established, rather, he is reiterating this point. And no wonder why - look at the people who are expecting systems, ideas, theories to be perfect when they are not even designed to be perfect.

Actually, the theories are usually perfect, just the material world is not.

ugh. you're bass ackward there mcnew.

Whats new lol.