No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not.
The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult.
There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration.
As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence.
As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.
Theme: Science
-
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not.
The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult.
There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration.
As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence.
As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 08:34:00 UTC
-
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not. The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult. There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration. As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence. As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism. -
If you spent half the time reading the literature that you spend assuming that y
If you spent half the time reading the literature that you spend assuming that your opinion is worth anything whatsoever you would actually make an argument that wasn’t an appeal to authority (a fallacy). You never do. You just spout one fallacy in ignorance after another.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 16:23:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974320191655104513
Reply addressees: @leo_charlton @WebPaigee
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974319289749655553
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974319289749655553
-
It’s not a question of biology but cognitive science. And he is extremely knowle
It’s not a question of biology but cognitive science. And he is extremely knowledgeable about experimental cognitive science. (and you are not)
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 16:21:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974319635230273536
Reply addressees: @leo_charlton @WebPaigee
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974319068508454915
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974319068508454915
-
He does collect from the specialists, and he IS the specialist. I read all the s
He does collect from the specialists, and he IS the specialist. I read all the same literature. The data is the data is the data, and he’s right.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 16:20:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974319497657151488
Reply addressees: @leo_charlton @WebPaigee
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974319289749655553
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974319289749655553
-
He speaks from empirical evidence and he is one of the most published, most expe
He speaks from empirical evidence and he is one of the most published, most experience, and most knowledgable people in the field of how personality traits map to underlying biological phenomenon. You on the other hand demonstrate the authoritarian fallacy in every possible word.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 16:16:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974318435101536256
Reply addressees: @leo_charlton @WebPaigee
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974287146914807809
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974287146914807809
-
He’s just reporting on the evidence, and you are clearly not skilled enough to m
He’s just reporting on the evidence, and you are clearly not skilled enough to make such statements. Science is science is science, and it is possible for an individual to know the consolidated findings of ALL the sciences, even if it is too burdensome to know all hypotheses.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 16:14:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974317928450592770
Reply addressees: @leo_charlton @WebPaigee
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974287146914807809
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974287146914807809
-
Actually thats false. All evidence is that only indirectly produced data is free
Actually thats false. All evidence is that only indirectly produced data is free of bias. We learned that from economics, which is why it has displaced the pseudoscientific social sciences.The lab is where you produce what you project. Social science has near zero reproducibility
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 02:02:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974103466569236480
Reply addressees: @WebPaigee @leo_charlton
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974102188934008832
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974102188934008832
-
That is correct which is why we have +10,000 in maror studies, ignore self repor
That is correct which is why we have +10,000 in maror studies, ignore self reported studies, cross reference genetic, neurological, cognitive, developmental, long term, and twin studies that confirm the obvious: we are no different from other mammals except speech lets us lie.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 01:56:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974102127621693440
Reply addressees: @leo_charlton @WebPaigee
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974100890771689472
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974100890771689472