Typology Random Thoughts

[Enters Laughing]

subreddit	Community size	MBTI type	%
https://www.reddit.com/r/INFP	234,000	INFP	19.2%
https://www.reddit.com/r/INTP	199,000	INTP	16.4%
https://www.reddit.com/r/INFJ	190,000	INFJ	15.6%
https://www.reddit.com/r/INTJ	181,000	INTJ	14.9%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ENFP	106,000	ENFP	8.7%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ENTP	81,000	ENTP	6.7%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ENTJ	40,000	ENTJ	3.3%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ISTP	40,000	ISTP	3.3%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ENFJ	37,000	ENFJ	3.0%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ISFP	28,000	ISFP	2.3%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ISTJ	23,000	ISTJ	1.9%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ISFJ	22,000	ISFJ	1.8%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ESTP	11,000	ESTP	0.9%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ESFP	9,900	ESFP	0.8%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ESFJ	8,300	ESFJ	0.7%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ESTJ	6,100	ESTJ	0.5%

[Enters Laughing]

From Steven Dutch, professor emeritus of geology at University of Wisconsin-Green Bay:

Reading more fully what he actually said, he actually seems to think a theory must be based on observations.

A theory can be an inaccurate explanation of observations, but it must be based on observations in order to be a theory. At least, a scientific one, which is the only meaningful sense.

It's a hypothesis that doesn't "need" to be demonstrated, but it would remain unproven if so. A hypothesis still must be a explanation of observations. I don't regard Socionics as even a hypothesis because it lacks precise definition of alleged observations.

[SacredKnowing]

Reading more fully what he actually said, he actually seems to think a theory must be based on observations.

A theory can be an inaccurate explanation of observations, but it must be based on observations in order to be a theory. At least, a scientific one, which is the only meaningful sense.

It's a hypothesis that doesn't "need" to be demonstrated, but it would remain unproven if so. A hypothesis still must be a explanation of observations. I don't regard Socionics as even a hypothesis because it lacks precise definition of alleged observations.

What about music theory? Number theory? Computational complexity theory? All of the cool theories are not based on observations.

[Enters Laughing]

What about music theory? Number theory? Computational complexity theory? All of the cool theories are not based on observations.

They could be, if based on observation. I think a good argument could be made for the mathematical universe being a dimension of reality, although I don't currently lean towards such a view.

[SacredKnowing]

They could be, if based on observation. I think a good argument could be made for the mathematical universe being a dimension of reality, although I don't currently lean towards such a view.

Maybe a model is a theory that's not based on observation, and a theory is a model that's based on observation. What do you think about that?

[Enters Laughing]

Maybe a model is a theory that's not based on observation, and a theory is a model that's based on observation. What do you think about that?

Maybe I'm too hardline about how words are actually used and too prone to insisting on my usage.

A model to be me sounds like it's a set of ideas or notions whether or not they have evidence to it, but a theory could just be one idea or statement that explains an observation.

Basically, people have speculations, conjectures, intuitions etc. which may or may not be based on observations.

Then there is the hypothesis, which is a plausible (possible by current understanding) explanation of observations, which can be tested to be established to be true or false to a level of confidence.

Then there is the (scientific) theory which is an explanation substantiated with evidence (observations) to a certain level of confidence.

Then there are scientific laws, which are categorically true explanations of reality for specific conditions: which have been demonstrated to be true in all such cases. The laws of gravity are true in classical physics for example, and are generally useful to be regarded as such, but at the quantum level, our understanding needs to be supplemented. As I understand, gravity doesn't actually exist as a distinct entity.

In the time of Euclid, it was held to be true that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but this was based on an incomplete understanding of reality, and an incomplete definition. If Euclid had said this applies to planar geometry, he would have been correct. Unless somehow our understanding is still incomplete.

[SacredKnowing]

In the time of Euclid, it was held to be true that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but this was based on an incomplete understanding of reality, and an incomplete definition. If Euclid had said this applies to planar geometry, he would have been correct. Unless somehow our understanding is still incomplete.

By the definition of a straight line, it is the shortest distance between two points. Therefore this is true for any geometry that has an object named "line" (which is to say, all of them). What Euclid presumed was that given a straight line and a point not on that line, the geometer could construct only one line that is parallel, and that it was logically impossible for there to be a second parallel line that could be constructed through the same point (Why? Who knew how ancient people thought?). Other geometries, such as hyperbolic, allow the geometer to construct more than one parallel line (again, given a fixed point and line beforehand).