—“Science is no longer a methodology, it’s a criteria which many different methodologies can meet. The criteria unites the sciences.”—Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-25 00:41:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999812626027831302
—“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.
—“Science is no longer a methodology, it’s a criteria which many different methodologies can meet. The criterion unites the sciences.”—Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 20:41:00 UTC
—“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.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 09:23:00 UTC
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).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 08:40:00 UTC
—“You said Psychology is not a science. Can you explain this argument as you have done with Marxism? Thanks”—Jamie Watson PSEUDOSCIENCE (AND RELIGION – THE FEMININE) (a) based entirely upon projection – with no empirical content (meaning ‘no system of measurement’), (b) framed as authoritarian (monopoly) demand for homogeneity as its system of measurement (c) framed as deviation from a non-existent but feminine norm: (d) framed as guilt for deviation from the authoritarian, feminine, norm. (e) The scary one: Freud (using oppression into baseline) was trying to reverse Nietzsche (using freedom to exit baseline). Freud was just creating a pseudoscientific counter-revolution for the female mind(collectivism) against the restoration of the male mind(individualism) by Nietzsche. (Just as Marx and Boaz were creating a counter-revolution against Darwin. Just as Rousseau and Kant a counter-revolution against Locke/Smith/Hume/Newton.) SCIENCE (AND LAW – THE MASCULINE ) (a) all behavior is in pursuit of acquisitions (“man is acquisitive”) of every possible utility – “discounts on risk and calories”. (b) all emotions are reactions to changes in state of past, present, and future acquisitions – nothing more. Rewards for training a brain that can learn to acquire. (c) all emotions, personality traits, all cognition, and therefore all behavior are biased by the different reproductive strategies of males and females. (wolves(M-eugenic) vs deer(F-dysgenic)) (d) all acquisition-seeking is biased by class (familial, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value) to others – in other words, the classes demonstrate biases that reflect the needs of their classes in competition-and-cooperation with the other classes. (e) We have a limited number of biological reward systems, and those reward systems appear to map to stages of the prey drive (our operational lifecycle) intersecting with our reproductive drives. We describe these variations in reward systems as personality factors and traits. (f) ….. (more in an hour…. need to play chauffeur for my niece – my favorite munchkin.)….
—“You said Psychology is not a science. Can you explain this argument as you have done with Marxism? Thanks”—Jamie Watson PSEUDOSCIENCE (AND RELIGION – THE FEMININE) (a) based entirely upon projection – with no empirical content (meaning ‘no system of measurement’), (b) framed as authoritarian (monopoly) demand for homogeneity as its system of measurement (c) framed as deviation from a non-existent but feminine norm: (d) framed as guilt for deviation from the authoritarian, feminine, norm. (e) The scary one: Freud (using oppression into baseline) was trying to reverse Nietzsche (using freedom to exit baseline). Freud was just creating a pseudoscientific counter-revolution for the female mind(collectivism) against the restoration of the male mind(individualism) by Nietzsche. (Just as Marx and Boaz were creating a counter-revolution against Darwin. Just as Rousseau and Kant a counter-revolution against Locke/Smith/Hume/Newton.) SCIENCE (AND LAW – THE MASCULINE ) (a) all behavior is in pursuit of acquisitions (“man is acquisitive”) of every possible utility – “discounts on risk and calories”. (b) all emotions are reactions to changes in state of past, present, and future acquisitions – nothing more. Rewards for training a brain that can learn to acquire. (c) all emotions, personality traits, all cognition, and therefore all behavior are biased by the different reproductive strategies of males and females. (wolves(M-eugenic) vs deer(F-dysgenic)) (d) all acquisition-seeking is biased by class (familial, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value) to others – in other words, the classes demonstrate biases that reflect the needs of their classes in competition-and-cooperation with the other classes. (e) We have a limited number of biological reward systems, and those reward systems appear to map to stages of the prey drive (our operational lifecycle) intersecting with our reproductive drives. We describe these variations in reward systems as personality factors and traits. (f) ….. (more in an hour…. need to play chauffeur for my niece – my favorite munchkin.)….
(only if it is demarcated from therapy) —“Do you think there can be any valid or empirical discipline called “psychology”?”—-Gearóid Walsh Great Question. At present I undrestand psychology (as a science) as the study of cognitive biases and limits, in the perception and cognition of information. At present I understand it is possible to integrate what we call psychology into the rest of the sciences using Acquisitionism which removes the authoritarian, monopoly, conformist, and feminine bias of pseudoscientific psychology from the discipline, producing a value neutral language of self interest. (Just as I see Propertarianism replacing social science and therefore integrating it fully into the rest of the sciences.) Acquisitionism is far more explanatory and fruitful than ‘conformity’ to an arbitrary norm. I do not see psychology holding only dominion over therapy (counseling, self help). I see that as the responsibility of stoicism (self authoring). And that such a field will make use of ‘reformed’ psychology.
(only if it is demarcated from therapy) —“Do you think there can be any valid or empirical discipline called “psychology”?”—-Gearóid Walsh Great Question. At present I undrestand psychology (as a science) as the study of cognitive biases and limits, in the perception and cognition of information. At present I understand it is possible to integrate what we call psychology into the rest of the sciences using Acquisitionism which removes the authoritarian, monopoly, conformist, and feminine bias of pseudoscientific psychology from the discipline, producing a value neutral language of self interest. (Just as I see Propertarianism replacing social science and therefore integrating it fully into the rest of the sciences.) Acquisitionism is far more explanatory and fruitful than ‘conformity’ to an arbitrary norm. I do not see psychology holding only dominion over therapy (counseling, self help). I see that as the responsibility of stoicism (self authoring). And that such a field will make use of ‘reformed’ psychology.