How Socionics can uncover the truth of the fabric of reality

[Pallas]

Well I don't know too much about what this means, but the point of empiricism is that we derive all knowledge from our sensory experiences, and that includes the sounds that we hear.

So an empiricist says, "If we can't sense it, then it's not true, or we don't care". Which is nonsense, that turned to things like Behaviorism that ignores what goes on inside of the human brain.

So, what's your alternative to empiricism and induction? You seem to hate seeing, hearing, touching, and otherwise perceiving the environment in any way, and inferring the Sun will rise tomorrow instead of setting up a carefully-controlled experiment to test if it will before you go to bed each night. Why?

Also, just read about what I mean, even if you disagree.

[Singu]

So, what's your alternative to empiricism and induction? You seem to hate seeing, hearing, touching, and otherwise perceiving the environment in any way, and inferring the Sun will rise tomorrow instead of setting up a carefully-controlled experiment to test if it will before you go to bed each night. Why?

Also, just read about what I mean, even if you disagree.

Well I already told you, the answer is deduction. We come up with guesses or conjectures about how the world might work, and then we concoct an experiment to see if it works the way we think it does. And if it doesn't work, then we scrap the hypothesis, or try to revise it.

I mean this is nothing new, this was basically the Karl Popper's answer to "the problem of induction" introduced by Hume, and scientists since Galileo were pretty much already doing this independently.

And the sun goes up, why? Because of the tilting of the Earth and the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. If we try to understand this inductively, then how would we know that it will continue forever? This was the "problem of induction" proposed by Hume, that "the future doesn't resemble the past". We could also add: "The unseen doesn't resemble the seen", and "The distant doesn't resemble the near".

[Pallas]

Well I already told you, the answer is deduction. We come up with guesses or conjectures about how the world might work, and then we concoct an experiment to see if it works the way we think it does. And if it doesn't work, then we scrap the hypothesis, or try to revise it.

I mean this is nothing new, this was basically the Karl Popper's answer to "the problem of induction" introduced by Hume, and scientists since Galileo were pretty much already doing this independently.

And the sun goes up, why? Because of the tilting of the Earth and the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. If we try to understand this inductively, then how would we know that it will continue forever? This was the "problem of induction" proposed by Hume, that "the future doesn't resemble the past". We could also add: "The unseen doesn't resemble the seen", and "The distant doesn't resemble the near".

Yes, but something we've never seen or thought about could just come by and blow up the Sun, scientifically-speaking. Yet, you have some sort of faith that won't happen. Why?

The future resembles the past. The unseen resembles the seen. The distance resembles the near. The higher resembles the lower. The internal resembles the external. One is defined in terms of the other so it's like a mirror image, and what is seen in a mirror is the same. How do you make sense of the world.

If you really want us to live our day-to-day lives by the scientific method sometime in the future, or you do now, I'd actually love to hear about it. But so far you aren't explaining much.

[Singu]

Yes, but something we've never seen or thought about could just come by and blow up the Sun, scientifically-speaking. Yet, you have some sort of faith that won't happen. Why?

Well I didn't say that those things can't happen, but inductivism has an even WORSE answer than this, since it thinks that the current pattern will just repeat indefinitely into the future. And yet we know that the sun is expanding in a billion years or so due to the fact that it has used up its hydrogen fuels at its core, which is something that we can't even see.

If you really want us to live our day-to-day lives by the scientific method sometime in the future, or you do now, I'd actually love to hear about it. But so far you aren't explaining much.

Well probably no one actually live their day-to-day lives by the scientific method, but when they're doing science, then they do.