0 – “life is deterministic but advanced life is not”.
1 – “We’re first or among the first”
2 – “We are most likely too far apart to matter”.
3 – “We’re too ignorant of the possibilities of space time
4 – “And we may never have the capacity to know”
5 – “Communication, cooperation, and trade require marginal indifference in technology and ability, good planets are profoundly rare, and warfare (conquest) is the most likely result of identity.”
All,
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology fail the test of repeatability.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology depend on self reporting.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include susceptibility to suggestion.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology make use of small populations of students or patients.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include value judgements.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology assume a normative ideal. (this is what I object to)
If instead our findings are repeatable;
If instead we are measuring by context-free measurements;
If instead our tests eliminate all chances of suggestion.
If instead our population consists of more than 1000, and preferably 10k people;
if Instead our categories of measurement contain no assertions of value to a trait (other than evolutionary or physical necessity – such as ‘neural economy’);
if instead our categories of measurement contain *evolutionary specializations rather than uniform ideal*(authoritarianism);
Then there is a fair chance we are conducting science, rather than projection.
So if your paper passes these tests it’s got a chance of not being false.
|| Sample size > Reporting > Motivations / Value judgements > Specialization > Repeatability.
Psychoanalysis and that argumentative technique making use of the categories of psychoanalysis (a uniform standard or ideal) that we call psychologism are pseudoscience.
The problem for psychology is that the categories and terminology are pseudoscientific. That does not mean they are not meaningful. It means they are fictions.
*As a general rule, the specification of an organism is determined by its limits not it’s median.*
May 26, 2018 6:25am
All,
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology fail the test of repeatability.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology depend on self reporting.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include susceptibility to suggestion.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology make use of small populations of students or patients.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include value judgements.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology assume a normative ideal. (this is what I object to)
If instead our findings are repeatable;
If instead we are measuring by context-free measurements;
If instead our tests eliminate all chances of suggestion.
If instead our population consists of more than 1000, and preferably 10k people;
if Instead our categories of measurement contain no assertions of value to a trait (other than evolutionary or physical necessity – such as ‘neural economy’);
if instead our categories of measurement contain *evolutionary specializations rather than uniform ideal*(authoritarianism);
Then there is a fair chance we are conducting science, rather than projection.
So if your paper passes these tests it’s got a chance of not being false.
|| Sample size > Reporting > Motivations / Value judgements > Specialization > Repeatability.
Psychoanalysis and that argumentative technique making use of the categories of psychoanalysis (a uniform standard or ideal) that we call psychologism are pseudoscience.
The problem for psychology is that the categories and terminology are pseudoscientific. That does not mean they are not meaningful. It means they are fictions.
*As a general rule, the specification of an organism is determined by its limits not it’s median.*
May 26, 2018 6:25am
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/33678440_10156381604887264_1532375139289661440_n_10156381604882264.jpg THIS ILLUSTRATION IS IMPRECISE
(a) a “square” describes the shadow truthfully.
(b) a “circle” describes the shadow truthfully.
The question is whether one is testifying to the shadow or to the three dimensional object that casts it.
One CANNOT testify to the shape of the three dimensional object that casts the shadow, one can only testify to the shape of the shadow.
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF TESTIMONY (Truth).
“DO NOT MAKE SHIT UP by INFERENCE.”Philip SaundersI love a good meme prosecutionMay 26, 2018 1:05pmGearóid Walshvery goodMay 26, 2018 1:07pmTrevor BrightmanI have appropriated this meme and description…May 26, 2018 1:37pmChris LavanI’ve always liked the GEB cover…the two objects are objectively different, but depending on how you look at them they look the sameMay 26, 2018 1:41pmGregg MyersMay 26, 2018 1:46pmCurt DoolittleI saw a mother and child (nativity).
Then I did an image search and … omg… damn. lolMay 26, 2018 1:50pmEdgar BraintreeThat meme is perfect for people with no grasp of rudimentary logic .May 26, 2018 1:57pmCrystal TompkinsMay 26, 2018 2:18pmGregg MyersMay 26, 2018 2:19pmCrystal TompkinsLet’s make it even more abstract hereMay 26, 2018 2:20pmJoao Tiago AlmeidaHa! Said the same about this a few years back on my fb wall :)May 26, 2018 2:38pmChris CantrellInteresting except that in many human interactions a person claims to describe the object based on the shadow. In many cases the person is not aware that what they think they saw was just the shadow and not the actual object. I think you are over logic’ing people’s illogical behavior. From my view the illustration is precise. If deception is added to the equation it gets even more interesting. One can make a true statement while being deceptive.May 26, 2018 3:08pmDann Hopkins@[1071411546:2048:Niall Collins]May 26, 2018 3:24pmGabriel YbarraAngry wing of the Triumvirate assemble!May 26, 2018 4:11pmNoah J RevoyThe problem is that we all should have learned not to assume in kindergarten.May 26, 2018 4:48pmFortis VeroIf you don’t see a simple piece of bread you may have some underlying issues that need to be addressed.May 26, 2018 7:40pmHoward Van Der KlauwSo framing is important.
Also the image should simply describe all three things as true. None are exclusively truth.May 26, 2018 8:31pmCurt Doolittle(speech is true or false, things are not. This is the problem with our language (the verb to-be). we don’t distinquish between “i state” and “exist as”May 26, 2018 8:32pmCrystal TompkinsI have issues then because I see Jesus in this toastMay 26, 2018 8:32pmHoward Van Der Klauw@[741197263:2048:Curt] true. To restate.
All three inferred statements of description would be true.
None precludes the other which is the error of the picture.
No wonder you banned memes. They waste so much time.May 26, 2018 8:34pmCrystal TompkinsIt was just a jokeMay 26, 2018 9:43pmCrystal TompkinsWEW thank god, I didn’t wanna get into that lolMay 26, 2018 9:45pmCrystal TompkinsShould’ve known since you’re also a Doolittle fan you’re not hugely into abrahamic religionsMay 26, 2018 9:46pmChris CantrellMaybe I am being simple, but I think the image refers to conversation about events, not statements about items. So while the image isnt a solid analogy, it serves the purpose.May 26, 2018 10:16pmDean GeeObjective truth vs subjective truthMay 27, 2018 11:08amCurt DoolittleTruth is true. There is no such thing as subjective truth. Becasue true = decidable.May 27, 2018 11:30amDean GeeWell, there are foundations for logic. Some are based in fact and some are based on the valencies of the individual. Humans need air, objective truth; humans should be treated well, subjective truth.May 27, 2018 3:08pmDean GeeI guess it is the difference between opinion and fact, however both opinion and fact are true, just fact is universally true, and opinion is true to some.May 27, 2018 3:09pmMichael AndradeWhat’s fascinating about this image is that it is unconsciously self-referential; its “shadow” – the lesson readers walk away with – is antithetical to the actual truth we ought to be learning from it.May 28, 2018 1:09amTHIS ILLUSTRATION IS IMPRECISE
(a) a “square” describes the shadow truthfully.
(b) a “circle” describes the shadow truthfully.
The question is whether one is testifying to the shadow or to the three dimensional object that casts it.
One CANNOT testify to the shape of the three dimensional object that casts the shadow, one can only testify to the shape of the shadow.
THE TEST OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY
All,
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology fail the test of repeatability.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology depend on self reporting.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include susceptibility to suggestion.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology make use of small populations of students or patients.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include value judgements.
Almost all papers in psychology and sociology assume a normative ideal. (this is what I object to)
If instead our findings are repeatable;
If instead we are measuring by context-free measurements;
If instead our tests eliminate all chances of suggestion.
If instead our population consists of more than 1000, and preferably 10k people;
if Instead our categories of measurement contain no assertions of value to a trait (other than evolutionary or physical necessity – such as ‘neural economy’);
if instead our categories of measurement contain *evolutionary specializations rather than uniform ideal*(authoritarianism);
Then there is a fair chance we are conducting science, rather than projection.
So if your paper passes these tests it’s got a chance of not being false.
Psychoanalysis and that argumentative technique making use of the categories of psychoanalysis (a uniform standard or ideal) that we call psychologism are pseudoscience.
The problem for psychology is that the categories and terminology are pseudoscientific. That does not mean they are not meaningful. It means they are fictions.
*As a general rule, the specification of an organism is determined by its limits not it’s median.*
—“A lecturer at my university said that you cannot unify the sciences/integrate them because different disciplines require different tools to understand and apply them. There is no universally applicable set of tools, he argued. Do you have a response to that?”—Reece Edward Haynes
Well, there are many devices necessary for measurement at the various scales, and that since the different scales exist because of different available operations at each scale (that is what demarcates scale), and as such a logic (set of operations and laws) at each scale that differ (subatomic physics, vs physics, vs chemistry, vs biochemistry, vs biology vs sentience vs ecology etc.)
I would say that operational language in the sciences has already falsified his statement, and that dependence upon operational language the same in every discipline and that operations are commensurable (human actions) across disciplines. And that the scientific method(as I’ve defined it) is the same (dimensional warranty of due diligence) in every discipline. I would say that the disciplines could be best treated as grammars, each with instruments, categories, and names necessary for the scale of their inquiry (operations available at that scale). But that those grammars are commensurable in operational prose. Some disciplines are entirely pseudoscientific and some are the opposite. However, most contain idealism, and most violate the method somehow. But that these are problems of language, ignorance, and honesty(deceit) more so than function.
So i think from the evidence and the logic he’s wrong.
—“A lecturer at my university said that you cannot unify the sciences/integrate them because different disciplines require different tools to understand and apply them. There is no universally applicable set of tools, he argued. Do you have a response to that?”—Reece Edward Haynes
Well, there are many devices necessary for measurement at the various scales, and that since the different scales exist because of different available operations at each scale (that is what demarcates scale), and as such a logic (set of operations and laws) at each scale that differ (subatomic physics, vs physics, vs chemistry, vs biochemistry, vs biology vs sentience vs ecology etc.)
I would say that operational language in the sciences has already falsified his statement, and that dependence upon operational language the same in every discipline and that operations are commensurable (human actions) across disciplines. And that the scientific method(as I’ve defined it) is the same (dimensional warranty of due diligence) in every discipline. I would say that the disciplines could be best treated as grammars, each with instruments, categories, and names necessary for the scale of their inquiry (operations available at that scale). But that those grammars are commensurable in operational prose. Some disciplines are entirely pseudoscientific and some are the opposite. However, most contain idealism, and most violate the method somehow. But that these are problems of language, ignorance, and honesty(deceit) more so than function.
So i think from the evidence and the logic he’s wrong.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT STEVE IS SAYING: K CONSTRAINS DAMAGE OF R.
via Steve Pender
Hmmm 99.9% of species have gone extinct. If you’ve seen that video about the impact of wolves on Yellowstone, it seems that predators are more important in keeping r selected species suppressed, than r selected species are at filling their little niches. Suppression of r selected species seems to have a cascading eugenic effect on nature, while unrestricted r-selected reproduction can lead to plagues, famines, etc. It could be that certain r-selected species may fill valuable niches that limit the expansion of more threatening r-selected species though.
However, we do need bees (pollinators), and whatever insects decompose dead organic matter (recyclers).
