Philosophy of Science
@Singu @mu4 please lecture us about philosophy of science. I'm serious. I know about philosophy and I know about science, but I know nearly nothing about philosophy of science, so tell me everything about Popper and what have you please. Oh, and if you get bored between your philosophy of science classes, put Noam Chomsky's face on a target and throw knives at it.
I'm half-joking about throwing knives at a picture of Chomsky for being a psuedoscientist (though I would still recommend it since it doesn't hurt anyone except maybe Chomsky the pseudoscientist if you believe in voodoo) but I'm not joking at all about wanting to be lectured at length on philosophy of science. If I don't like what you have to say after you start... I can ignore you! However, I think I'll like it and people here who want to see people's real lives will like it too.
Um, well you can just read Popper. His entire books are lectures.
So, you lecture us on Popper when we don't want it, but when asked, you refuse. Got it.Originally Posted by Singu
Well to be honest, it would take too long to explain the whole thing, it would take a while for people to understand it, and most people probably wouldn't understand what I'm saying, or even believe it, as it also took me a while to fully get it.
Anyway, what I'm saying is nothing new, it's everything just Popper have already said.
Why correlation, statistics and "AI" still isn't science:
@sbbds: "WOW THIS FANCY PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY IS SO RIGHT AND SINGU IS SO STUPID, even though they're both saying the exact same thing".
I don't think you're missing much, Coeruleum. I remember Singu being pretty weak on Introverted Thinking and his arguments are pretty much reciting a conventional source.
IRLOL
Anyone who seriously identifies him/herself as a "T type" is an insane idiot, because there's no way to be magically logical and objective for the sheer merit of being born a "T type".
Things are determined to be logical and objective from rational arguments, not by the merit of who said what.
The irony is that T types "feel" logical and objective, which is a feeling which is different from what's actually true or logical.
Ur right theres no T or F dichotomy every person is the same person with the same personality with the same strengths and weaknesses with no differences in between. Bruh get ur Ne polr checked <- inb4 ur just gonna reply to the Ne polr thing cuz u got no retort
People have different personalities, therefore Jungian type theory. Sound logic.
I like Jungian type theories, but this is still the equivalent to a fallacy jumping up on stage and flashing the audience in terms of subtlety.
Ah, the irony of using a Socionics model to determine whether someone is "logical" and "objective"... which itself is neither logical nor objective.
This is why Socionists can't be reasoned with, because if they disagree with you, then they'll just call you an F type with T PoLR or whatever, rather than making any kind of rational arguments.
Irony, irony, irony...
Anyone who types F thinking they are a good person is an idiot too. All @Singu does is lash out at people who have been nothing but nice to him and giving him resources, and entertaining idiotic conversation with him. I think the only person who is left on here on good terms with him is Maritsa, lmao.
Maritsa being on good terms with anyone sounds like an oxymoron.
Before getting into "philosophy of science", it's probably the best to first get the terminologies right.
These are listed in a chronological order and historical appearances:
18th century.
EMPIRICISM (Bacon): The doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience, and that we're a "blank slate" to be filled in by nature.
This doctrine freed us from the authority of traditional knowledge, such as the Bible, kings and myths. It transferred knowledge to the level of individuals, and it caused a scientific/democratic revolution that sparked the Enlightenment.
RATIONALISM (Descartes, Kant): The doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the intellect and rationality. We project a model of reality onto the real world, not the other way around.
Again freed us from the authority of tradition, but there was disagreement over which is more true: Is knowledge derived from the intellect, or sensory experience?
INDUCTIVISM (Bacon): A method of obtaining knowledge by generalizing similar and related observations.
DEDUCTIVISM (Descartes, Kant): A method of obtaining knowledge by deducing outcomes from a model.
HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVISM: A scientific method that first proposes a hypothesis, which its deduced outcomes (predictions) are then tested by an observational experiment.
19th century.
INSTRUMENTALISM (Dewey, Peirce, James): The doctrine that scientific theories are to be merely used as an "instrument" to predict outcomes. Its contents are merely a psychological trick, a matter of convenience or a "useful fiction", but they don't have any consequences as a matter of actually describing reality in a literal way.
This doctrine is part of "Scientific Anti-realism", which states that trying to understand the world is meaningless or not possible.
SCIENTIFIC REALISM: The doctrine that scientific theories are literal, although imperfect, descriptions of reality and should be believed as such.
SCIENTIFIC ANTI-REALISM: The doctrine that we're unable to understand or describe reality in a meaningful way, and that we can't fundamentally understand reality and it's pointless to attempt it. This makes all scientific theories NOT a literal description of reality, but rather just a prop or a "useful fiction".
20th century.
LOGICAL POSITIVISM (Russell, Wittgenstein): The doctrine that anything that can't be verified by sensory experience or logical proofs is meaningless.
(NOTE: This doctrine itself can't be verified by sensory experience or logical proofs, and therefore it becomes self-refuting and itself meaningless!)
VERIFICATIONISM: The doctrine that anything that can't be verified and proven to be true in some ways, is meaningless.
FALSIFICATIONISM (Popper): The doctrine that we can never really prove anything to be true in a fundamental way; we can only prove something to be false. We ought to try and prove scientific theories to be false, not true.
(NOTE: this is closely related to "Hypothetico-Deductivism")
CRITICAL RATIONALISM (Popper): The doctrine that we ought to use our rationality to criticize something, rather than to support or prove something in a fundamental way.
PARADIGM SHIFT/SUDDEN CHANGE (Kuhn): The doctrine that science progresses by sudden change or "paradigm shifts", in which each generational changes (different "paradigms") can't be comprehended by another.
GRADUALISM: The doctrine that science is an accumulation of gradual changes and improvements, and that there's a clear logical progression to all scientific progress, and superseded theories still include parts of replaced theories.
POST-MODERNISM: The doctrine that there's no such thing as objective knowledge, and that there are only relative and many different kinds of "truths", such as cultural truths.
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Science is a special kind of knowledge about the physical world. It's "objective" because it's referring to something that actually happens in the physical world.
WHAT IS NOT SCIENCE?
Any knowledge about the non-physical is not science.
NOTE that this does not mean that "We can't see it, therefore it's not science", because physical things that are not visible to our eyes may still exist.
DOES THIS MEAN THAT PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICS, ETC, ARE NOT SCIENCE?
Not really, since things like psychological states or mathematics can be expressed in physical terms, such as how neurons inside of a brain or atoms inside of a CPU behave, which makes the expressions of those psychology or mathematics possible.
Last edited by Singu; 10-17-2019 at 05:14 AM.
feyerabend
Logical Positivism, Analytic Philosophy, and Phenomenology with Liam Bright
I haven't listened to this yet, but once I finish my translations for the day I'll do it. I'll admit I kind of hope someone else listens first since logical positivism is not my thing, though I know a moderate amount about phenomenology. I know @Theoria likes analytic philosophy at least kind of but I have no idea where he is now. Does anyone else here have even a passing interest in analytic philosophy?
Last edited by Metamorph; 10-18-2019 at 05:41 AM.
That oppai guy hated it so I automatically like it.
You are failing to realize the fundamental connection between the two. Philosophy is the "Proto-Science", it was/is the soup of amino acid precursors and the like that eventually gave rise to said acids and then life itself. "Natural Philosophy" is what they called it before it became "Science" as we know it today. It preceded it, it came/flowed from it. Science, Philosophy, Theology, they are all inexorably tied together. Only in modern times, where it has become "accepted knowledge" that those are all separate things that all oppose one another has it all began to really and truly go to shit (e.g. The "reproducibility crisis", look it up).
Those things all aspire to a single thing in the end, and that thing is "the truth" no matter what it may be. If only that was the thing we all sought at the end of the day in earnest...
While half of me doesn't want to dignify this with a real reply, you know I first learned socionics because of its connection to phenomenology and gestalt psychology to begin with rather than for relationship issues like most people seem to have, right? I have Kant, Schelling, and Husserl books and have to explain to people what this has to do with science. Now, you read a book next please!
I learned this stuff on a lark because it was related to the work of C.G. Jung and seemed interesting in itself. Also, the "German Idealists" (Kant, Schelling, etc.) were a bunch of hacks whose psuedo-intellectual BS can be at least partially blamed for a lot of our modern problems in philosophy and science. How about this one, you tell me the title of a book you want me to read. I will read it in exchange for you reading the "Summa Theologica" by Thomas Aquinas. Methinks you need to try and take that man on. After all, it seems you think that the things you're reading/have read will blow my mind. Let us test that theory.
I learned this stuff on a lark because it was related to the work of C.G. Jung and seemed interesting in itself. Also, the "German Idealists" (Kant, Schelling, etc.) were a bunch of hacks whose psuedo-intellectual BS can be at least partially blamed for a lot of our modern problems in philosophy and science. How about this one, you tell me the title of a book you want me to read. I will read it in exchange for you reading the "Summa Theologica" by Thomas Aquinas. Methinks you need to try and take that man on. After all, it seems you think that the things you're reading/have read will blow my mind. Let us test that theory
I think maybe instead of being an internet Marxist and blaming everyone for being oppressed, you should study and be the Catholic scientist of your dreams. I've created things while you've only sat back and criticized other people. Criticizing people is the easy thing.
Did you know 100% of people who get in car accidents were driving or riding in cars? I think we need to go back to walking since our modern collisions can be blamed on them.
Just goes to show how avant-garde these philosophies still are. They're Achilles's heel for Marxists too. Of course Marx was a guy who wanted to be a bad parody of Goethe because he was lazy so it makes sense the theory of opposites that we now use in quantum physics would be a problem for him.
Is anyone here actually studying or just fantasizing? Anyone who isn't just fantasizing, add me on social media. I've read 60% of the Critique of Pure Reason, and it's not even the kind of book you read. What have you done?
I know Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Buber, Christopher Langan, George Herbert Mead, and enough Cognitive Neuroscience to know they basically covered all the main functions of the human brain. The places where they haven't I know which brain region they were self-consciously philosophizing about and who can serve as a substitute. Also, since the brain serves as a very general platform for human thought I can catch common blindspots people are missing.
So, for instance, as far as the brain is concerned the terminus of thought is the Frontal Eye Fields. Singu thinks you start with terminology to learn a new field when what actually matters are the visuo-spatial attention mapsthat tell your brain where to move your eyes and contribute to the spatial rotation that allows object-recognition to see the same object from unfamiliar angles or perspectives. Knowing that the grammar of language comprehension is rooted in branching derivation trees amenable to graph-theoretic spatial reasoning means you can maintain a coherent thought process over multiple fields of study simultaneously and catch redundancies where language-dominant learners have unknowingly created separate representations or concepts for the same thing.
This is why the current state of "neuroscience" is abysmal. All they're doing is correlating certain behavior with certain regions of the brain.So, for instance, as far as the brain is concerned the terminus of thought is the Frontal Eye Fields. Singu thinks you start with terminology to learn a new field when what actually matters are the visuo-spatial attention maps
So a "neuroscientist" will typically tell you something like "Well your complex thought is done in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain". But that's as useful as running a computer software and then saying "Well there is some activity in this area of the CPU". But that tells us nothing whatsoever of how the software actually works, which must be understood by understanding how it's programmed, which must be understood by coming up with theories of programming.
So physics, chemistry, biology... have figured out the "programming" of nature to a certain extent. They have begun to understand how it actually works, rather than just making some correlations or observing and making notes of things.
The reason why "social sciences" is so behind is because it's still stuck in just making statistical correlations and observations.
And of course we can blame the "bad philosophy" for this misguidance... The bad philosophy of Empiricism, Inductivism, Logical Positivism...
It's easy to integrate over philosophers in space and time when you have a consistent model of Neuroanatomy that applies to any thinker throughout human history that happens to also have a brain. While it's rarely the case that reading multiple philosophers results in a stable understanding that threads together the different schools of thought by satisfying each set of requirements.
^ Neuroscience is presently at the same level as physiology was when physiologists were debating the circulation of blood.
Neuroscience is hard because there are more neurons in a human brain than stars in our galaxy and there are a huge number of ways to connect them. Plus, it is ethically very difficult to reverse engineer the brain while it is running.
Would it be unethical to grow a brain in a vat and control its sensory input. Then pick it apart to study it at the same time. Would it even have any idea of what it was? Kind of like the Bobiverse, except organic, rather than software.
How would a brain, having never had a body, be able to perceive sensory input?
You could run a computer simulation of the brain and get more information than growing one devoid of sensory perception having never experienced it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
@Aylen
So basically, in the Bobiverse (lol), they can scan the brain of a person, effectively destroying their brain, but transcoding their brain into procedural software. This software can be run without inputs and given various inputs, controls, and modifications. All the while the subject is aware, while its going on. But they know how the brain functions in order to do this.
So blind people can paint objects with perspective, despite never having seen anything with their eyes. So the understanding of perspective was already encoded into the brain. And the brain has a unique structure all on its own, independent from input. Think of it as being in a sensory deprivation tank, but you raise someone up from birth like that, metaphorically speaking, in order to study its structure. And they don't really know what's going on and wouldn't feel pain because the brain has no pain receptors. I mean wouldn't it still be aware though? And wouldn't a software version of that also be just as aware? Is there a difference? Is one somehow more ethical than the other? Are we just meatbags when it's all said and done?
Well, I believe in an animating force. I am not willing to say that an animating force would reside within a lab grown brain so yeah it is probably ethical on some level. It is still gross and unnecessary since I believe that we are past that kind of "science". It would be like a step backwards or something.
Blind people who produce art are fascinating but they still have access to some senses that apparently are stronger due to the brain rewiring to make up for their blindness. You don't need eyes to "see".
I am not familiar with the Bobiverse, sorry.This groundbreaking work explores how children and adults who have been blind since birth can both perceive and draw pictures. John M. Kennedy, a perception psychologist, relates how pictures in raised form can be understood by the blind, and how untrained blind people can make recognizable sketches of objects, situations, and events using new methods for raised-line drawing. According to Kennedy, the ability to draw develops in blind people as it does in the sighted. His book gives detailed descriptions of his work with the blind, includes many pictures by blind children and adults, and provides a new theory of visual and tactile perception--applicable to both the blind and the sighted--to account for his startling findings. Kennedy argues that spatial perception is possible through touch as well as through sight, and that aspects of perspective are found in pictures by the blind. He shows that blind people recognize when pictures of objects are drawn incorrectly. According to Kennedy, the incorrect features are often deliberate attempts to represent properties of objects that cannot be shown in a picture. These metaphors, as Kennedy describes them, can be interpreted by the blind and the sighted in the same way. Kennedy's findings are vitally important for studies in perceptual and cognitive psychology, the philosophy of representation, and education. His conclusions have practical significance as well, offering inspiration and guidelines for those who seek to engineer ways to allow blind and visually impaired people to gain access to information only available in graphs, figures, and pictures.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/1021
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I'm sure that it's very difficult. If an iPhone were transported back 300 years ago, then how would the people then figure out how it works? I'm sure that saying that heat is being released from a certain place is a start. But to say that you can't speculate any further because speculation is bad, or because it has not been "proven" or "verified" or something like that, would stagnate the whole development. Which is something that's actually happening, right now, in some fields.
Eventually, they will have to figure out how to create a computer from scratch, just as present day people did. Thankfully, Alan Turing did manage to find the mathematical principle for creating a computer, which was an inordinately simple idea, which turned more complex over time.
One thing I will say: the reason that physics, chemistry, etc. the harder sciences, are more successful and precise is because they deal with the dumbest, simplest parts of the universe. The lowest hanging fruit. Chemistry is more complex than physics. Biology more complex than chemistry. Psychology/sociology more complex than biology.
Newton knew this. He said he can calculate the motions of the heavens but not the minds of people.
That being said, nearly all experts, in the west anyway, would not take Socionics seriously. Same thing with creationism and other pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with Ti or Te or any of that shit. It is totally unfouded and an example of the psychologists fallacy.
The psychologist's fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when an observer assumes that his or her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event. The fallacy was named by William James in the 19th century:
The great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making his report. I shall hereafter call this the ‘psychologist's fallacy’ par excellence. … The psychologist … stands outside of the mental state he speaks of. Both itself and its object are objects for him. Now when it is a cognitive state (percept, thought, concept, etc.), he ordinarily has no other way of naming it than as the thought, percept, etc., of that object. He himself meanwhile, knowing the self-same object in his way, gets easily led to suppose that the thought which is of it, knows it in the same way in which he knows it, although this is often very far from being the case.
This creates "fictitious puzzles" as James called them, like enneagram and socionics.
"The most fictitious puzzles have been introduced into our science by this means...and it is a snare into which no psychologist has kept himself at all times from falling, and which forms almost the entire stock-in-trade of certain schools. We cannot be too watchful against its subtly corrupting influence”
“Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.” -William James
Jung, and socionics people, think they have a meta view and are 6 people. They are just telling stories and have no authority.
Somebody posted a good thread with a guy reading Hegel explaining why Typology is not knowledge, only formalism. Exactly.
"Such predicates can be multiplied to infinity, since in this way each determination or form can again be used as a form or moment in the case of another, and each can gratefully perform the same service for an other. In this sort of circle of reciprocity one never learns what the thing itself is, nor what the one or the other is." -Hegel
for·mal·ismˈ
1.excessive adherence to prescribed forms."academic dryness and formalism"
2.a description of something in formal mathematical or logical terms.: marked attention to arrangement, style, or artistic means (as in art or literature) usually with corresponding de-emphasis of content
Last edited by Tearsofaclown; 10-19-2019 at 04:44 PM.
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."
I don't necessarily think that one is more complex than the other. But I think that physics and chemistry were mostly dealing with unobservable things, so they had to come up with abstract laws, rules and regularities of the universe. Which means that they had to rely on their creativity and imagination more to come up with abstract ideas. Things that you can't merely observe.
While observable things like people are well... observable. So they thought that they could just rely on things like statistics and simply note their observations, without bothering to come up with any abstract theories dealing with abstract ideas. Well they were wrong.
Saying that you can't speculate because it's not "real" is like saying you can't figure out how the iPhone works, you can only observe.
Wow, I'm glad @End is here to remind me most people in mental institutions have Internet access. I doubt they're even bringing him communion wafers in his padded cell. I actually helped a Catholic food pantry yesterday. I'm sure End was just babbing about the invasion of degenerate races in his cell.
Anyways, last I checked, refusing to commit blasphemy against a religion that's really abused by society is not a sin in that religion. Poor End tormented by witches in his padded cell. I can't even do the anonymous Internet anymore.
Still proving my point there @coeruleum (especially with the insults, textbook response material) but I will pray for your soul regardless. Paul killed people like me with joy in his heart until that incident on his way to Damascus after all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
