Demonstrative and Mobilizing functions are Accepting NOT Producing.

[Singu]

He actually did, it is his extremely odd epistemological foundation that observations DO NOT lead to knowledge. Given that the core axiom is that don't go looking for stuff, it makes the process of figuring socionics impossible because the observations we make are not knowledge nor can they amount to knowledge.

And you're obviously unfamiliar with the problem of induction. This is a rather famous epistemological problem.

How can observations alone lead to any new knowledge? Unfortunately, the myths and the misconceptions of inductivism and empiricism are so strong in our culture, that people think that's the way people actually create new knowledge.

[Soupman]

And you're obviously unfamiliar with the problem of induction. This is a rather famous epistemological problem.

How can observations alone lead to any new knowledge? Unfortunately, the myths and the misconceptions of inductivism and empiricism are so strong in our culture, that people think that's the way people actually create new knowledge.

Dude we PM'd these past two days, I got to understand your worldview - your perspective; it has these key axioms I've summarized lucidly put as "knowledge can't be generated from observations". You oddly interpret the ideas you use to justify your worldview relative to that axiom under the assumption that your interpretation of those ideas is the only logical one - questioning that axiom is just people not getting it. You believe there's only one interpretation against induction - which is that it's always wrong.

The anecdotal point of Newton's observation of an apple falling from a tree, and how that lead to the theory of gravity - is in your worldview proof that observations and knowledge generated lack causal a relationship. To you knowledge is some mysterious attribute impossible to derive from observation - and you reiterate this by referencing esoteric conclusions from complex scientific theories - such as that gravity is objects being attracted to each other.

Once people accept that axiom, then the subsequent rationalizations make sense.

[Singu]

Dude we PM'd these past two days, I got to understand your worldview - your perspective; it has these key axioms I've summarized lucidly put as "knowledge can't be generated from observations". You oddly interpret the ideas you use to justify your worldview relative to that axiom under the assumption that your interpretation of those ideas is the only logical one - questioning that axiom is just people not getting it. You believe there's only one interpretation against induction - which is that it's always wrong.

Once people accept that axiom, then the subsequent rationalizations make sense.

It's not an axiom... it's about the only way to create any new knowledge. I would like to know how you think you could come up with a theory on your own, by observations alone.

So please, try to come up with any kind of a theory by observing the things around you.

The anecdotal point of Newton's observation of an apple falling from a tree, and how that lead to the theory of gravity - is in your worldview proof that observations and knowledge generated lack causal a relationship. To you knowledge is some mysterious attribute impossible to derive from observation - and you reiterate this by referencing esoteric conclusions from complex scientific theories - such as that gravity is objects being attracted to each other.

You're still making an assumption about how Newton came about creating that theory, without actually knowing how he did it.

[Soupman]

It's not an axiom... it's about the only way to create any new knowledge. I would like to know how you think you could come up with a theory on your own, by observations alone.

So please, try to come up with any kind of a theory by observing the things around you.



You're still making an assumption about how Newton came about creating that theory, without actually knowing how he did it.

You might want to Google what axioms are as well as tautology.

The assumption about Newton comes from the premise that modern science, stemming from the enlightenment period, is based on empiricism and rationalisation. It's the main reason, Europe triggered this rapid advancement in science present today.

No longer is it appropriate for claims to be made and simply believed. Naturalism instead, or the empirical basis, is the foundation for claiming and falsifying everything. That's the contactenated view - yes knowledge can be derived from speculation and guesswork, nevertheless as much or this as possible must be routed in empiricism. Epistemology is a complex and fascinating subject.

If you want an example of a scientific theory derived from observations, well I can create one. The earth looks and appears to be flat ad infinitum - hence from these observations it makes sense to scientifically conclude the earth is flat. Refutations to this scientific theory can arise with the introduction of more complex observations thus subsequently complex rationale.

(I'm not a flat earther, nevertheless I don't care about exploring the proof either way mainstream science concludes in peer reviewed journals)

[Singu]

You might want to Google what axioms are as well as tautology.

The assumption about Newton comes from the premise that modern science, stemming from the enlightenment period, is based on empiricism and rationalisation. It's the main reason, Europe triggered this rapid advancement in science present today.

No longer is it appropriate for claims to be made and simply believed. Naturalism instead, or the empirical basis, is the foundation for claiming and falsifying everything. That's the contactenated view - yes knowledge can be derived from speculation and guesswork, nevertheless as much or this as possible must be routed in empiricism. Epistemology is a complex and fascinating subject.

If you want an example of a scientific theory derived from observations, well I can create one. The earth looks and appears to be flat ad infinitum - hence from these observations it makes sense to scientifically conclude the earth is flat. Refutations to this scientific theory can arise with the introduction of more complex observations thus subsequently complex rationale.

(I'm not a flat earther, nevertheless I don't care about exploring the proof either way mainstream science concludes in peer reviewed journals)

Falsification is not empiricism. You are still assuming many things about how Newton came up with his theory. You are jumping to conclusions because you have assumptions that science is about "empiricism". Yes, empiricism and inductivism were once useful in rejecting the authority of religion, etc, but Bacon was also wrong and Hume correctly pointed out that inductivism was an impossibility.

The point is that you do not... "derive" anything from observations. If you derive something from observations, then what?

I'm not saying that this is an easy thing to understand. It took me a lot of thinking to finally understand what this all means, and why inductivism is simply logically impossible. Science is after all, supremely counter-intuitive, and defies common-sense view.

The assumption about Newton comes from the premise that modern science, stemming from the enlightenment period, is based on empiricism and rationalisation. It's the main reason, Europe triggered this rapid advancement in science present today.

I'd assume you meant "rationalism" and not "rationalisation". Rationalism is the opposite of empiricism. You appear to be confused and lacking in understanding of this topic.

Bertrand is out of question, of course. lol.