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
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 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.
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.
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
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 06:14 AM.
feyerabend
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.
What's the philosophy of pseudo-science? Are there many kinds as well?
Yeah well in the end its not proven so its just a theory that u believe or not. But. U ser T and F dichotomy in other areas not just in jungian typology. Like they say most women dont make sense, are emotional etc etc thats them pointing at F type, whereas for men they recide in T. Its not just in jungian typology and im not saying it that way. I just believe it becausr it coincides with reality in general for me.
...That's still Jung's type theory, since Jung is the one who made the T and F types. I think Jung's type theory makes sense but you're still begging the question.
Yes. Read a philosophical book or paper by a famous pseudoscientist such as Noam Chomsky, Rupert Sheldrake, Nazi racial theorists, etc. Astrology, alchemy, and phrenology at least were not pseudoscience before anyone tested them so I wouldn't bother with those unless you're looking for modern people considering them science. HIV/AIDS denialism I also wouldn't bother with since the tests are legit not accessible to even well-informed laypeople and sometimes even I think maybe AIDS causes HIV rather than vice versa (still not going to be careless around AIDS though.)
Its an essential part of the theory expressed by sources outside the theory....
That's what a theory is. Gravity is a theory even if things falling seems like common sense.
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 06:41 AM.
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...
That oppai guy hated it so I automatically like it.
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!
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.
yeah and thats the difference between Ti and Te with Te always needing evidence, but i think youre just trying to sound intellectual or sth
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.
I always say that to people. People always say "In the past we were so dumb and there were so many problems, but now, with modern science, we know everything and there are no problems!" I tell them we've never had a good record being right about everything so I suspect we won't now either. We do have a quite good record in some ways though. Alchemists invented gunpowder and distillation among many other things, for example, and phrenology at least taught us thoughts weren't in our hearts or stomach. The people with more primitive theories were much more right than not within bounds of what they did. Optimism as a philosophy is kind of evil. Things don't get better and better just for existing and if you let them just exist they'd get worse and worse.
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.
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.
Any "Catholic" who agrees in any way with Marx is akin to them saying that maybe Lucifer had a point. Again, I implore you, read a work or two from the likes of the "doctors" of the faith. They saved me, they will save you as well if you do not truly hate the one true God. Ya just might though, given what I've been observing of your post history. Damn near about to hard ask you to pass a Witch Test dude because I'm becoming pretty damn sure you couldn't say the words even if you were waving dueling middle fingers in my face as you stressed every sarcastic bone in your body to make sure anyone with half a brain knew you were not in any way serious about a solitary syllable of the creed.
You can, I want you to, and yet you will not. Prove me wrong dude, make me question my own worldview here and now. I have the utmost confidence in my convictions, do you?
I agree to an extent. We cannot denigrate children for ignorance as they truly had no way of knowing a thing until it was presented to them at the proper/appropriate time. However, it is not as if there is no value in the viewpoint of a "child" as it were. I have pointed out in the past that, sometimes, you need a "dumber" or "simpler" perspective. That there is value in "idiots" and their perspectives as we may see them. I mean, I have a cousin with many a cognitive disability. The things he has helped me discover. I am truly blessed even though he is not. I pray I can repay him the many favors I owe him somehow.
I refuse to believe that thinking things will get better over time is wrong though. You seem to be a soul who has given into despair. There are 7 deadly sins but I hold there's one that was missed, Despair. A most insidious sin to be sure, for to lose all hope before a final divine judgement just seems to be a thing for heathens, fools, and SJW's (but I repeat myself). For if God is real than why would one ever truly Despair? You will get what you deserve, and you will accept that judgement as it will have the ultimate backing of truth incarnate in one form or another...
Well that's not what I said, but you can believe whatever you like.
The point is that there are no fundamental differences in people's ability to be logical and rational. It doesn't matter how emotional or unemotional you are. There are also no limits in being able to be logical and rational, which means that there are also no limits in being illogical and irrational. Which is why you can have otherwise well-educated scientists believing in batshit insane stuff.
The "needing evidence" has more to do with the influence of LOGICAL POSITIVISM and VERIFICATIONISM, which has already been debunked and fallen out of fashion. Of course you can call that "Te", but it's kind of pointless to do so. What's really happening is that there are still Logical Positivists and Verificationists in disguise. And I doubt that people are born with certain belief systems, or that there are certain brain structures that make some people susceptible to those belief systems.
The fact is that evidence "confirms" Newton's theory of gravity. And yet Newton's theory has been proven wrong by Einstein. And it couldn't have ever been proven wrong without Einstein coming up with a better theory than Newton's.
So people's belief in a theory with "evidence" could still be wrong. The "certainty" of "Te types" being always right or even needing to be right and objective has been put into doubt. In fact, the entire criticism of "Te types" by Jung was that these people were relying too much on external "facts", and that they needed to have more balance instead of just lifelessly and mindlessly collecting a bunch of facts. But what Jung himself didn't realize was that he was basically creating a categorization system based on EMPIRICISM and INDUCTIVISM.
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...
^ 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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
