Thread split: is Socionics a religion?

[Ryan]

We all now know that both Inductivism and Empiricism are completely and utterly wrong and flawed.

This is purely your opinion. I hope you realize that some day. It's a pity that you spend very little time criticising your own position. Your dismissal of any viewpoint that is different than your own is honestly comical.

Also, this is not an attack on your character, but what kind of work do you do? What is your expertise, and what kind of break through did you make to speak with an air of superiority on this subject? I'm curious because you have yet to prove that what you are saying is of any use. And please try to be objective and not attribute the achievements of science or another person to support your own views because I'm not buying any of it. Your association to science is suspect.

[Singu]

This is purely your opinion. I hope you realize that some day. It's a pity that you spend very little time criticising your own position. Your dismissal of any viewpoint that is different than your own is honestly comical.

Also, this is not an attack on your character, but what kind of work do you do? What is your expertise, and what kind of break through did you make to speak with an air of superiority on this subject? I'm curious because you have yet to prove that what you are saying is of any use. And please try to be objective and not attribute the achievements of science or another person to support your own views because I'm not buying any of it. Your association to science is suspect.

These are all words of Jung and Augusta. Are you honestly saying that there's anything rational about "generalizing empirical observations", and then simply leaving at that, as if the only logical conclusion to that is to expect the current observation to stay the same in the future? That can't be rational, because the future is different from the past.

You try to appeal to authority, but you do very little thinking of your own.

[Ryan]

These are all words of Jung and Augusta. Are you honestly saying that there's anything rational about "generalizing empirical observations", and then simply leaving at that, as if the only logical conclusion to that is to expect the current observation to stay the same in the future? That can't be rational, because the future is different from the past.

You try to appeal to authority, but you do very little thinking of your own.

I don't care about what they said. I criticised your position on Inductivism and Empiricism. Answer the questions.

[cR4z3dr4T]

I don't care about what they said. I criticised your position on Inductivism and Empiricism. Answer the questions.

Well... I don't see socionics as an especially scientifically validated theory to begin with. But empiricism automatically discounts that which you cannot observe via the senses, and this is a limitation. That doesn't mean empiricism isn't useful. But to say it's "purely an opinion" that this has its limitations is simply not correct, it has a limitation. And the scientific method... well, it's progressive and founded on skepticism, it's incomplete by definition. It's limited by definition. It's also incapable of assessing ethical claims or claims about the fundamental nature of will, cognition, or deeply metaphysical or philosophical claims (like ideas about how the universe began). And it also requires that things be reproducible which... some things simply are not reproducible. So... it's really not an opinion - science and empiricism have limitations.

Every time there's a new record of someone living longer than the previous record holder, you'd be proven wrong. It's not rational at all.

This is actually built into the scientific method though - you never arrive at a position of absolute certainty in science. I'm not really sure why you are associating science with "positivism". Empiricism in science is just considered a useful starting point for progressing knowledge. The empirical observation is not considered positive in a universal sense. The observation is treated like a positive fact within the experiment but that's just so the experiment can be conducted, there's always skepticism of the results. Everything - even your very senses - we must remain skeptical about. Even your sense awareness is subject to skepticism: what if the mechanism of perception changed or was limited? So...
I suppose I just don't see your argument as a criticism of science, more of a criticism of those pseudo-intellectuals that presume science is something that it isn't.