Is science "boring"? (Methodology & epistemology)

[Pallas]

Explain to me how one of those people pissing in bottles instead of using the bathroom at an Amazon warehouse just so they can meet required productivity goals and thus avoid getting fired, can make their job fun?

They can put the bottle in their boss's desk, then get fired

[Singu]

I can't stress this point enough:

Science is about seeking explanations.

All knowledge is created through conjectures and refutations.

You don't "see" laws of physics. You don't "see" laws of biology. They exist, because somebody had conjectured them before. And all current scientific knowledge, are the only remaining conjectures that had survived the most stringent tests and criticisms, that is, experimentations. They're the sole survivors in the fiercest competition of theories and ideas.

[Singu]

You sound upset when you really get into claiming how everyone here is delusional, it's really overemotional exclamations.

Well yes, I do get exasperated at some idiocy around here sometimes.

Defector??? lol what an emotional view of things again. "A defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state in exchange for allegiance to another, in a way which is considered illegitimate by the first state. More broadly, it involves abandoning a person, cause, or doctrine to which one is bound by some tie, as of allegiance or duty."

Who cares about all that crap. Allegiance and duties to Socionics? Seriously? I prefer objectivity instead.

Well that's exactly how people in this community treated the "defectors" of Socionics, like Capitalist Pig, Rick the (ex-)Socionist, idontgiveaf, etc. It's like they take personal offense when they no longer subscribe to the doctrine of Socionics, and start to criticize it. They all say the exact same "Socionics ad hominems", like "Oh you're just criticizing it because you're an ILI! Socionics predicts your behavior!" "You're just saying that because of your Ti PoLR and don't understand the theory!". Nevermind that Rick (commonly typed IEE) was far more rational and logical than any of them.

It's just that people around here don't accept any criticisms of Socionics, and that's why the "theory" remains static and there's no progress.

That's actually cool if trying to understand Socionics led you to science of psychology. I'd like that to happen more often to people here Because it allows you to gain a better overall understanding than if you stay stuck inside the rabbitholey nuances of obscure speculations by Gulenko and the likes of him lol

Well the good thing about science is that you don't depend on things like certain "interpretations" or "camps" of thinking, at least not usually. You can't simply dismiss other scientific theories as mere disagreements in opinions or interpretations. ALL scientific theories are coherent in that they're all inter-connected.

For instance, somebody may be studying physiology and the study of hormones or something. And if they say that the anger is due to the increase in testosterone or something, or at least it's affected by it, then I can't simply dismiss that and say that the ONLY explanation is due to purely a psychological explanation. I can't say that I don't care about physiology or hormones. I'd have to consider everything else in the light of new evidence and explanations.

No, it's not necessary to assume things any more with Socionics than with any other ideas or theories. You can observe and test instead of assuming, in Socionics too.

The assumptions must be logically-consistent, and must make logical sense. And it would also have to predict its logical consequences, as that would be the only way to test a theory. It would also be good if they are backed by the other scientific knowledge.

Too much truth in his statements?

Jk.

Well no, I think we can all agree that @Bertrand's thoughts are simply bizarre and unrelateable to the most of us. I think he's possibly a genuine sociopath in that he seems to lack genuine human emotions.

And if you cite sources and start calling that "outsourcing", when that's the whole point of a "source" in the first place (to outsource things outside of your own domain), then that's just sophistry on a whole new level. You'll see that the majority of Bertrand's thoughts are exactly that kind of sophism, without any substance.

[Bertrand]

that's like saying ******'s followers were merely "citing sources" when doing whatever he said. you can of course outsource whatever you want--the point is you're essentially gambling on the other person being right. if your only criterion is how much power its accumulated henceforth you're just a member of a mob and not an individual. in any case one criterion for there to be a right or wrong is that there was the ability to do otherwise--you constantly make the argument to the opposite effect, that because you're doing it it can't be wrong, otherwise it would not be allowed. this is essentially Fe morality acting from within the bosom of a Ti understanding of the world--no limits except what is either a physical or political law backed by force of death or imprisonment. this is hardly any ethic at all, its simple buffoonery. it validates ******'s and all other tyrants actions as morally permissible for as long as they managed to keep it up. Had ****** won you'd be like clearly he was correct. This is precisely the mindset of people who follow dictators, and people act like its some mystery how Nazi Germany could have happened and what quadra was behind it

[Singu]

that's like saying ******'s followers were merely "citing sources" when doing whatever he said. you can of course outsource whatever you want--the point is you're essentially gambling on the other person being right. if your only criterion is how much power its accumulated henceforth you're just a member of a mob and not an individual

lol it's like your sophistry-ception never ends. If the source is wrong, then simply point that out, dumbass. Obviously I would retract the information if the source is wrong.

Are people experts in outside of their own fields? DUMBASS!!!

****** is a source now? WTF??? DUMBASS!!! LOL. Why would following ******'s order be like citing a source?!?!?? I mean this is a new kind of low for even you, Bertrand. You really are truly a dumbass on a whole new level.

[Grendel]

EAT DA POOPOO

[ooo]

Explain to me how one of those Amazon warehouse workers who piss in bottles during work instead of using the bathroom just so they can meet required productivity goals can make their job fun?

like if you're into golden showers that could turn out fun

[Singu]

@Nebula Have you ever looked into Karl Popper or the problem of induction? Do you think that there are methodological or epistemological problems to Socionics?

I would suspect that the problem is that Socionics is asking the entirely wrong questions.

The question that Socionics is asking (the problem that it's trying to solve) is:

"Why do people act or behave the way they do?"
"How can we understand human relationships?"

We could start with answering those questions. How could Socionics, or anything for that matter, answer those questions?

[Skepsis]

@Nebula Have you ever looked into Karl Popper or the problem of induction? Do you think that there are methodological or epistemological problems to Socionics?

I would suspect that the problem is that Socionics is asking the entirely wrong questions.

The question that Socionics is asking (the problem that it's trying to solve) is:

"Why do people act or behave the way they do?"
"How can we understand human relationships?"

We could start with answering those questions. How could Socionics, or anything for that matter, answer those questions?

I am familiar with Popper. Socionics has both methodological and epistemological problems. I will have to work on a response.

[Bertrand]

Singu likes to launder his worldview through Popper, but it always ends up being "would karl popper approve of socionics?" not "is socionics useful?" the thing is its the exact same critique he levels at socionics could be leveled at popper's reasoning, which is to say at bottom its just a scheme imposed without absolute justification we're supposed to adopt for no transcendent reason, but for whatever reason he's thrown in with popper, perhaps because the reasoning has more social acceptance or is more easily understood i.e.: it appeals to a simpler mind. the expectation is we're supposed to accept popper in criticizing socionics, when its like you could accept socionics and criticize popper, but in the final analysis even that is wrongheaded, because its all anchored in Singu's assumption, which is invalid, that the two are incompatible or otherwise at odds. in the end he's pitted them against eachother and expected us to work it out for him, which is kind of corny because it carries with it the tone of authority, but its actually comes from a position of incompetence, because its fundamentally a request couched in terms of a demand to resolve his own confusion, which he has been unable to do for himself. and not a confusion that inheres in the material itself but in his own inability to comprehend

[Singu]

Singu likes to launder his worldview through Popper, but it always ends up being "would karl popper approve of socionics?" not "is socionics useful?"

I don't think I particularly care what Popper said or didn't say. However, I think it is simply a matter of convenience to think in terms of Popperian ways, as I think that is the correct way to create knowledge. If you understand Popper, then we "speak in the same language".

I suggest you read Popper as well, Bertrand, then you'll understand what I'm talking about.

In the meantime, please sharpen your logical skills, as your words are mere equivocation and foggy mental babbles.