Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[Singu]

Yes, and you even need an explanation to interpret a certain data, to make sure that you got it right and correct. So basically everything starts with a problem, and attempting to solve that problem by coming up with hypotheses.

So what ajsindri is attempting to do, and basically what Socionics is doing, is to say "Just look at how mathematically accurate and statistically correct the observation of an apple falling is, it's so accurate that no one could ever dispute the fact that the apple fell. And if we were to observe other apples, then we would see that they all fall in the exact same way at the exact same rate!".

It's not really wrong and getting the data correct is important of course, but this can't even begin to calculate how and at what rate would an apple fall on say, Mars or the Moon. It took Newton with a simple explanation that said "The apple must fall because objects are attracted to each other" to be able to calculate the gravity of Mars and at which rate the apple would fall there. It was an objective explanation because it could explain more than what it was purported to explain, it went beyond just explaining an apple falling on Earth. And this never even required someone to actually drop the apple on Mars to correctly predict it.

So I think Socionics is like that.

[sbbds]

So what ajsindri is attempting to do, and basically what Socionics is doing, is to say "Just look at how mathematically accurate and statistically correct the observation of an apple falling is, it's so accurate that no one could ever dispute the fact that the apple fell. And if we were to observe other apples, then we would see that they all fall in the exact same way at the exact same rate!".

He’s not even doing this because he’s only rearranging information mathematically, which hasn’t systematically demonstratively been connected to anything concrete yet in a way that institutionalized science would accept.

@ajsindri It’s much better than nothing, don’t get me wrong, but at the same time your findings will be blown away into the dust lacking an anchor of a more mainstream scientific or social science-type name and methodology. I guess it just depends on how big you want to go here with this.