Results 1 to 40 of 533

Thread: Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,654
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Science is the process of finding causes and explanations for facts or observations. Socionics is the assumption that the current observation will continue into the future - for no reason. Or even that the current, local observation is a complete, objective observation. And that "no reason" part can't be scientific.

    It would like how in pre-Newton days, where they measure the speed of a feather and an iron ball falling, and conclude that lighter objects fall slower because they have "slower-falling properties" (and you can show neat data and statistics showing exactly that). But this would mean nothing unless we can explain why they fall slower. It would require a new assumption that all objects actually fall at the exact same rate. Only then, we can start introducing newer concepts like air resistance, etc.

    So what is ajsindri doing, does he just keep measuring the speed of a feather and an iron ball falling, and make a neat statistics out of it and say, "Look how objective my data is! It must be true that feathers drop slower and iron balls drop faster!"? Well that's pointless, since he can't even explain why that fact seems to keep happening.

    So if you notice that fact, then it's only a start, and not the conclusion. That was the easy part.


    (non-sarcastic)

    (legit support this well-articulated post; proud of u Dingu)

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,595
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post


    (non-sarcastic)

    (legit support this well-articulated post; proud of u Dingu)
    This "science as a mode of explanations" is surprisingly still not very well known. It also took me a while to fully get the concept. I also used to think that science was the stereotypical "empiricism objectivity blah blah blah".

    Even when you criticize Socionics from the scientific standpoint, people still go "Oh so you're an empiricist" "You're a Positivist". Well no, since both empiricism and positivism have been rejected by science a long time ago, and it was never science to begin with. Those are just the stereotypes of science. Science has always been about finding the best explanations for phenomena.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •