Page 2 of 3 <123>
Topic Options
#44894 - 12/14/10 06:46 AM Re: deus ex machina [Re: Aklo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I think it is actually essential to study spiritual traditions of the LHP if one wishes to gain more knowledge and history regarding the subjects. The LHP did originate in a spiritual practice and the red line of traditions runs from then and into our days where some of these traditions are still alive and practiced. I’m not talking about spiritual Satanism but about Tantric Hinduism from where the concept of the LHP originates. Its old Buddhist branch is also still alive. To fully understand where the concepts come from it is indeed essential to study these things. Otherwise you won’t know your own history.

With that being said there has been produced good writings by spiritual Satanists as well as by people with similar ideas to those of the spiritual Satanist. But I don’t think we should stop there. Oftentimes I find that the best way to learn is to study things that you think is totally opposite of what you yourself might think is right. That way you expand your horizon so to speak and even if you end up agreeing with them or not you will have more knowledge to form your own philosophy in relation to it.

What I tend to have a hard time with though is people who have a head-up-their-own-asses attitude. And this goes for theists, atheists and everyone else. No branch of religion or philosophy is an exception. We have the ranting and raving LaVeyans (Satanic Bible thumpers), we have the crazy spiritual Satanists (with claims of belonging to an ancient tradition and thus being true Satanists) and everyone in between.

On the energy debate I use the word all the time in reference to modern sub-atomic science. I always try to be careful and state that I’m not sure if energy is the right word to use from a scientific point of view. I do enjoy reading some of the literature on chaos theory and other related concepts but I am not scientist or physician myself.

Top
#44908 - 12/14/10 10:21 AM Re: deus ex machina [Re: Aklo]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
If you do not take a side then you are standing in the middle of the street and will be hit by a truck.


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Morgan has a point though, but keep in mind nothing is limited with a choice of left and right, you can also jump over the proverbial truck, down, double flick-flack, slide past it or simply run away from it. People will always try and label and categorize


'Nuff said. However, since I like to be wordy, I'm going to add on to it to avoid being a copy and paste model. I'm afraid you misunderstand the point to my avoidance of adjectives here. Seems to me that not labeling myself is a problem to certain people and that's just fine. The point here is I'm against unnecessary fighting. If there's, no point. There's no point. Period.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
A debate or discussion on the internet will not ever come to a fist fight unless someone gets off their fat ass and goes over to someones house.


Weirder things have happened.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Most people here are not hippy tree hugging equality for all Satanists. "We" (in general) on this site, don't give shit about converting other people, or communicating with all the idiots that think they are Satanists. Most people who think they are Satanists are not Satanists. If you have to work so hard at convincing people of who and what you are, you are not and you failed.


I'm not that friendly with the woods myself and I DO bring a fight to something I deem worthy of fighting for. And I agree with your last statement of trying to convince people. Luckily for me, that's not what this post was actually about. \:\)

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
I find it kinda offensive for you to be posting MCOS bullshit here. I and mean most people here don't go there and post copies of 600club threads there.


Actually, this is not a thread from MCoS. However, how is it offensive for me to post something from MCoS here? Especially if it's only to get different spin of others opinions of that thread? What is accepted somewhere else is not always accepted here. That was something I respected about this site.

Another thing, MCoS members from 600 DO post their recycled posts from 600 club. No one is paying attention to anything! What a mad, mad world. For example, The Fire. Which if you search for here, you'll find written by Dan_Dread. Which he has posted here, MCoS AND SatanicInternationalNetwork. All receiving different replies or the same depending on the crowd of people.


 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Oh, and by the way in regards to helping newbies. I do help some on occasion. Hell the book I wrote is even on your recommend reading list at the MCOS. I guess you just don;t pay much attention anywhere.


I never stated that you didn't. In fact, I believe it was Alko that dug up the quote of yours from the "Selling Your Soul" thread where you bashed the hell out of that "newbie". I asked what you would do but you didn't actually answer until now. And you're right, I don't pay a lot of attention to MCoS. Especially recently, since I resigned from MCoS a month or two ago. \:\)


 Originally Posted By: Aklo
The word spiritualist already means "idiot easily fooled by things like table-tapping; believer in ectoplasm and other pseudo-science; person who consistently uses the word 'energy' to mean something other than 'the capacity to do work'; ghost-worshipper; member of a category which Houdini, Crowley, Randi et al have long-since codified methods for exposing as crooks and / or deluded dupes".


 Originally Posted By: Alko
You see, words have meaning. They don't just mean whatever we want


I must apologize because here I thought "spiritualist" was a person whom...

 Quote:
World English Dictionary
spiritualism (ˈspɪrɪtjʊəˌlɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. the belief that the disembodied spirits of the dead, surviving in another world, can communicate with the living in this world, esp through mediums
2. the doctrines and practices associated with this belief
3. philosophy the belief that because reality is to some extent immaterial it is therefore spiritual
4. any doctrine (in philosophy, religion, etc) that prefers the spiritual to the material
5. the condition or quality of being spiritual


My bad. Words DO have meaning.

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
May I suggest "pantheist"?


Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep that in mind. \:\)

 Originally Posted By: Aklo
And that means, it isn't really science. It's just psychology. Once we reach this conclusion for ourselves about particular methods, it's actually very liberating.


Psychology = Social Sciences? I don't know, that's what my teacher told me. Should I re-look that up? Nahhh.. I took Social Sciences in college. \:\)

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
What I tend to have a hard time with though is people who have a head-up-their-own-asses attitude. And this goes for theists, atheists and everyone else.


Ditto.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#44912 - 12/14/10 01:39 PM Re: deus ex machina [Re: OrgasmicKarmatic]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Quote:
I took Social Sciences in college.

Which helps explain why you don't know what "science" is. The soft studies don't follow the scientific method, which requires verifiable observations, falsifiable hypotheses, logical predictions, actual experiments, and replicable results. If you think I'm wrong, show your work.

 Quote:
Should I re-look that up? Nahhh..

Whereas if you had taken either a real arts OR a real science degree, you would at least be able to express yourself clearly in writing, eschewing this weird dressed-up vocabulary for example. Part of the reason I posted your netradio adventure is so that people could see that you don't sound so freakishly quasi-literate in person.

 Quote:
Psychology = Social Sciences? I don't know, that's what my teacher told me.

Your teacher lied. She's an academic, that's her job, to grease the material and slide it into your head by any means necessary. Karl Popper has demonstrated quite conclusively that psychology (as opposed to psychiatry and psychopharmacology) is a pseudoscience.

If you can't answer, or don't know, Popper's work, then you seriously aren't qualified to speak with any authority on science OR philosophy OR the soft studies in between.

 Quote:
World English Dictionary

They are just being polite, ma'am. Let's walk through this gently:

 Quote:
1. the belief that the disembodied spirits of the dead, surviving in another world, can communicate with the living in this world, esp through mediums

equals

 Quote:
idiot easily fooled by things like table-tapping;

and

 Quote:
2. the doctrines and practices associated with this belief

equals

 Quote:
believer in ectoplasm and other pseudo-science;

and

 Quote:
3. philosophy the belief that because reality is to some extent immaterial it is therefore spiritual

equals

 Quote:
person who consistently uses the word 'energy' to mean something other than 'the capacity to do work';

and

 Quote:
4. any doctrine (in philosophy, religion, etc) that prefers the spiritual to the material

equals

 Quote:
ghost-worshipper;

and

 Quote:
5. the condition or quality of being spiritual

equals

 Quote:
member of a category which Houdini, Crowley, Randi et al have long-since codified methods for exposing as crooks and / or deluded dupes.

But no one can show it to you, if you don't want to see it; so it may be that all I am accomplishing is showing you to it. I'm content with that.

 Quote:
The point here is I'm against unnecessary fighting. If there's, no point. There's no point. Period.

What's "unecessary" about it? If you were paying attention you will have noticed that in my Enochian thread, Dmitri is being argumentative and prickly without even reading what he responds to, with hardly any useful content per se. On the other hand, he has served as a vehicle to promote discussion of several important factors in the question, such as the magic of Freddy "just another monkey" Nietzche and the skepticism of Don "I disbelieve this so hard I will produce the foremost literalist reference in the field" Laycock.

So, I greatly value his contributions to the thread. Somebody may have mentioned to you already, that "this place is what you make of it."

 Quote:
I'm afraid you misunderstand the point to my avoidance of adjectives here. Seems to me that not labeling myself is a problem to certain people and that's just fine.

I actually favor one of those labels myself, one I don't see you paying any attention to: autotheist. But I don't see it as an adjective, it's a synonym. And that's why I don't think there really are different "types", and why I quote Lady Mal.

But that doesn't mean that people of the various "belief" systems aren't worth reading or talking to, far from it. Just because they don't get it, doesn't mean it can't get them.

 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
I by and large don't like theistic satanists but I put this down to there 11 yr old reading level

I laughed so hard

 Quote:
and the ability of articulation equivalent of a retarded chipmunk.

that my drink came out my nose.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#44919 - 12/14/10 03:18 PM Re: deus ex machina [Re: Aklo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Aklo
 Quote:
I took Social Sciences in college.

Which helps explain why you don't know what "science" is. The soft studies don't follow the scientific method, which requires verifiable observations, falsifiable hypotheses, logical predictions, actual experiments, and replicable results. If you think I'm wrong, show your work.


I think many of the social sciences do build the scientific method. Can you please show us examples of where you think it doesnt?

Top
#44921 - 12/14/10 04:25 PM prove yourself wrong [Re: TheInsane]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
You will forgive me if I don't work that hard, there isn't really that much controversy in what I am saying.

 Originally Posted By: Jim Manzi, City Journal, "What Social Science Does -- and Doesn't -- Know"
But the situation was even worse: it was clear that we wouldn’t know which economists were right even after the fact. Suppose that on February 1, 2009, Famous Economist X had predicted: “In two years, unemployment will be about 8 percent if we pass the stimulus bill, but about 10 percent if we don’t.” What do you think would happen when 2011 rolled around and unemployment was still at 10 percent, despite the passage of the bill? It’s a safe bet that Professor X would say something like: “Yes, but other conditions deteriorated faster than anticipated, so if we hadn’t passed the stimulus bill, unemployment would have been more like 12 percent. So I was right: the bill reduced unemployment by about 2 percent.”

The problem, as Popper has pointed out so well, is that the soft studies haven't arrived at a depth of knowledge that will allow for falsifiability.

Here he is on psychology, the real target here, though he could just as easily be talking about the different "spiritual" models for magic:

 Originally Posted By: Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and in Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact — that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed — which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.

I could be wrong though; I try to learn something new every day. Please introduce a "social science" that you feel has had sufficient range of experiment to falsify itself, and thoroughly failed to do so.
_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#44924 - 12/14/10 07:26 PM Re: deus ex machina [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2572
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
[to Aklo] I think many of the social sciences do build the scientific method. Can you please show us examples of where you think it doesn't?

This is a funfoodfight to just observe from a safe distance, but I will contribute ...

When it was time for me to do my dissertation, I decided that I wanted to attempt a political forecast of Germany (then still E&W). Armed with all of my academic-level membership tools of the World Future Society, I embarked. Got partway through my first draft when my committee chairman took me behind the woodshed and said, "You can't do a forecast, because politics are discrete - a function of human free will - and thus cannot be predicted in the same way that natural scientific principles can be."

"So why is our discipline called 'Political Science'?"

"Because we use analytical frameworks to examine and explain historical political events. Strictly speaking, we should be called the 'Political History Department'."

"But I think I have enough tools (trend-extrapolation, cross-matrixes, eco/environmental constraints, etc.) to produce a valid political forecast." *

"No, you don't and you can't. Your dissertation violates the boundaries of this discipline, which is acceptably limited to the historical. It, and you, will be burned at the stake by the faculty. Do a proper historical analysis and get your Ph.D. absent the Inquisition. Why don't you do the neutron bomb?"

So I did.

The point here is actually the same one that is at the heart of Setian philosophy: that the isolate self consciousness is entirely distinct from and alien to nature (what we call the "Objective Universe"), and that the entire system of "natural law" (predictability, consistency, replicability, etc.) is limited to OU phenomena. Thus the OU cannot help doing what it does, and has no option to do otherwise. The ba/psyche, on the other hand, always confronts its absolute freedom of will, and the impossibility of its inclusion in or absorption by the OU. [Hence the various conventional religions which all promote & promise such an illusion, and materialist "OUisms" which try to deconstruct consciousness into mere bodily stimulus/response.]

At this metalevel of inquiry, theorists like Karl Popper are shown to be merely strawman-erectors, who predesign/limit their jigsaw-puzzles and then put on a great show of logically/reasonably assembling them.

As previously discussed, each incarnate consciousness exists in a state of confusion, because whilst it may be essentially distinct from the OU, it is temporarily integrated with an OU host - the physical body - through which it interacts with the rest of the OU and gains preliminary awareness of its own existence as "that which is not 'all otherness'". And most noninitiates stop right there, if indeed they have ventured to be even this introspective.

So coming back to the central focus of this thread, "science" is a term for discovering and codifying "natural law" pertinent to the OU.

"Psychology" is not really a "pseudoscience". It focuses on the stimulus/response aspect of the incarnated psyche, to identify and quantify how particular stimuli & combinations thereof tend to elicit patterns of response. So it is, and is limited to the study of the psyche's "enslavement" to its OU surroundings.

Indeed if anything is to be exposed as "pseudoscience", it is psychiatry - except within the strict study of mind-processing disfunctions caused by physical bodily damage, disease, or other OU impairment. Limiting itself to OU scientific technology and "natural law", psychiatry can not even apprehend, much less draw any valid conclusions concerning the psyche itself. Psychiatry seeks to discover and impose "natural law" on a phenomenon that is neither part of it nor subject to it.

* I was going through an intense Albert Somit phase at the time. I finally got to do my Germany-forecast in 1987 at the National Defense University, and it worked. \:\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44926 - 12/14/10 07:58 PM Re: deus ex machina [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
LOL! I used to have people argue with me about the "hard sciences" vs the "soft sciences," and one of the major "proofs" of the hard science advocates was that "NUMBERS DON'T LIE."

Well... having handled numbers for years in a corporate setting, preparing budgets, analyzing expenditures, and predicting growth vs loss, I can tell you that numbers not only LIE, but a skillful handler can make them roll over and whistle Dixie.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#44927 - 12/14/10 08:03 PM Re: deus ex machina [Re: Jake999]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Jake999

Well... having handled numbers for years in a corporate setting, preparing budgets, analyzing expenditures, and predicting growth vs loss, I can tell you that numbers not only LIE, but a skillful handler can make them roll over and whistle Dixie.


Right there with ya, Jake - I'm doing a lot of "creative presentation" now

obNoOneLiners:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics...92374894&sr=1-1
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#44928 - 12/14/10 08:04 PM Re: deus ex machina [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
Mostly agreed, but

 Quote:
except within the strict study of mind-processing disfunctions caused by physical bodily damage, disease, or other OU impairment.

That is psychiatry in its qualification as a science! Freud was a working psychiatrist, but whenever he talks out his ass, we call it psychology.

This is the whole point of making the distinction. When it prescribes drugs, methods, or other exercises to improve the function of damaged minds, it can be tested and falsified and continually improved. When it speculates on well minds outside its personal control, it becomes a social "science".
_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#44933 - 12/14/10 09:09 PM Re: deus ex machina [Re: Aklo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2572
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Aklo
Freud was a working psychiatrist, but whenever he talks out his ass, we call it psychology.

Well, I wouldn't. I would just call it anutriloquism.

Anton LaVey was an enthusiast of Thomas Szasz where the proper practice & ethics of psychiatry are concerned, and I'm in the same camp.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44946 - 12/15/10 04:52 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Aklo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Well, I didn’t want to get into a big debate on the subject since I do not have enough knowledge in the area to make a great argument. However as I see it there will always be a problem in researching human actions since we all are humans already. The observer is the observed. And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

I think in a lot of ways psychiatry may be as effective as any hard science though. They can develop theories and methods that work. We may not know why and the very idea behind it may be wrong but it does work in execution. You can actually make the same argument with physics although physicists notoriously think they have the answers if their tests come out positive but the truth is that its still only theories and they change all the time. The method for calculating something may work but the main idea may still be wrong. Compare modern physics to that of 25 years ago and then compared to 50, 75 and 100 years ago. In some cases they could predict things pretty accurately 100 years ago even if the theory behind it, by todays standards, were actually wrong.

As I read up on falsifiability I came across this interesting notion regarding Karl Popper. He said that for a theory to be scientific it has to be (1) falsifiable and (2) be confirmed by some kind of observation. The critique is however that this in itself is not something that can be falsifiable. \:\)

As I said I don’t have enough knowledge in the subject at hand so I won’t go in for a big debate on it. Still its an interesting subject to give some though.

Top
#44949 - 12/15/10 07:47 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
The difference between hard science and soft science is not so much the applying of the scientific method. I would even say Aklo missed the ball quite badly when he said the likes of psychology do not apply the method.

The difference between hard and soft science would be the observational part. In hard science like physics and chemistry things can be perceived, i.e. you can see electricity jumping from an anode to a kathode, you can mix 2 colorless compounts and see the mixture change color or explode or..
In soft sciences like psychology not everything is that outlined or very observeable. There needs a very thorough looking at certain traits/behavior, the combination of certain traits/behaviors and an analytical study for each case, whereas in hard science one simple observation is almost sufficient to make conclusions.

Both fields apply the scientific method, it is a universal procedure which is (..or should be..if only people would do it) applied in ANY field. But what makes the hard sciences "hard" and the soft sciences "soft"?
Fields like chemistry and physics have observations which need very thorough explanations and require a lot more data and background information then a simple psychologist will ever need in his entire life. It is true that fields like psychology need very thorough examinations of the subject, but once a certain syndrom or pattern is found it simply is "pulling up labels and trying to solve it without much problems". This (where psychology stops, i.e. the recognition of patterns) is were the fields of mathematics, physicists, chemists, biologists,.. simply start.

But science is science, some find it fruitfull to distinguish between hard and soft, I prefer to have the knowledge keep sipping in without any set borders. At one point or another, the 2 will eventually overlap.


Edited by Dimitri (12/15/10 08:04 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#44951 - 12/15/10 08:37 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Cool. I enjoyed reading that reply \:\)

As you said in some hard science it is easier because you can observe something happening. Allthough this is not always true either. Modern physics do create theories not because they can see the action but only because they can see the reaction, and sometimes not even the first reaction. It is an interesting subject for sure.

However, the two sciences do overlap and has to do so if we share the belief that we are all essentially part of the natural world (of course Dr. Aquino would not agree on that).

Top
#44954 - 12/15/10 10:12 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2572
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And I don’t think the problem lies in what Dr. Aquino calls the ultimate free will of human beings since I deny the existence of such a thing.

One must then wonder exactly who has chosen to make such a denial, if not yourself.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#44956 - 12/15/10 10:21 AM Re: prove yourself wrong [Re: Dimitri]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Originally Posted By: Dmitri
The difference between hard and soft science would be the observational part. In hard science like physics and chemistry things can be perceived, i.e. you can see electricity jumping from an anode to a kathode, you can mix 2 colorless compounts and see the mixture change color or explode or..

In soft sciences like psychology not everything is that outlined or very observeable. There needs a very thorough looking at certain traits/behavior, the combination of certain traits/behaviors and an analytical study for each case, whereas in hard science one simple observation is almost sufficient to make conclusions.

Tomayto, tomahto. The lack of depth knowledge attributed here to observation is certainly what is preventing the successful use of falsifiability among the honest. But I apologize if my comments have led anyone to believe that I don't think any of the soft studies are trying to follow the scientific method.

Here's a nice example from the text I'm cribbing of criminology trying hard:

 Originally Posted By: Manzi
In 1981 and 1982, Lawrence Sherman, a respected criminology professor at the University of Cambridge, randomly assigned one of three responses to Minneapolis cops responding to misdemeanor domestic-violence incidents: they were required to arrest the assailant, to provide advice to both parties, or to send the assailant away for eight hours. The experiment showed a statistically significant lower rate of repeat calls for domestic violence for the mandatory-arrest group. The media and many politicians seized upon what seemed like a triumph for scientific knowledge, and mandatory arrest for domestic violence rapidly became a widespread practice in many large jurisdictions in the United States.

But sophisticated experimentalists understood that because of the issue’s high causal density, there would be hidden conditionals to the simple rule that “mandatory-arrest policies will reduce domestic violence.” The only way to unearth these conditionals was to conduct replications of the original experiment under a variety of conditions. Indeed, Sherman’s own analysis of the Minnesota study called for such replications. So researchers replicated the RFT six times in cities across the country. In three of those studies, the test groups exposed to the mandatory-arrest policy again experienced a lower rate of rearrest than the control groups did. But in the other three, the test groups had a higher rearrest rate.

Why? In 1992, Sherman surveyed the replications and concluded that in stable communities with high rates of employment, arrest shamed the perpetrators, who then became less likely to reoffend; in less stable communities with low rates of employment, arrest tended to anger the perpetrators, who would therefore be likely to become more violent. The problem with this kind of conclusion, though, is that because it is not itself the outcome of an experiment, it is subject to the same uncertainty that Aristotle’s observations were.

They just aren't succeeding yet.

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
As I read up on falsifiability I came across this interesting notion regarding Karl Popper. He said that for a theory to be scientific it has to be (1) falsifiable and (2) be confirmed by some kind of observation. The critique is however that this in itself is not something that can be falsifiable.

This is an important insight, I don't mean to dismiss it. But we must keep in mind that Popper is doing philosophy, not science. A parallel may be seen in the relationship between mathematics and physics.

There is a lot of abstract math that is completely useless so far and even demonstrably wrong. On the other hand, some of what seems value-free at first, ends up being terribly useful to the physicists. There were plenty of abstract conceptions of possible spaces around when Einstein sat down, but the only ones left when he went off to get a drink were Hilbert Space and the Lorentz Equations.

Popper's criterion of falsifiability has proven to be terribly useful in real science. It puts us in the position of working to disprove theories rather than prove them, which is good on multiple levels. Not only is logically impossible to "prove" a positive, but attempting to do so would cause us to focus on rhetorical skills and other forms of advanced lying, rather than experimentation and similar methods of finding the truth.

This is what has happened to the great psychologists, they know enough about how our mind works to effectively convince us that their models have some objective reality, when in fact they do not. As we have understood more and more about our actual brains and nervous systems, we talk less about abstract crap like the Id or the Anima, and more about the frontal lobes and corpus callosum, or endorphins and ephedrine.

...

Let's keep in mind where this started too. When something is presented as physics or chemistry, like auras and ectoplasm, but turns out to be primarily buzzwords for manipulating the mark, I say the psychology involved is what makes the magic being done a clear example of pseudoscience. Does anyone really disagree? If so, show your work.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
Page 2 of 3 <123>


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.