> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > > On 5/5/06, The Fool wrote:
On 5/5/06, A person not named The Fool wrote: > > > > I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science can minimize > > self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified. > > There > > is no logical problem with arguing that science serves these purposes, but > > to argue that only science can do so is just arguing from its own > > conclusion. Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process. You're just arguing religion again. > > > > There's nothing particularly scientific about many of the means I > > personally > > use to minimize self-deception. Of course, I could just be kidding myself > > about that. Why do I get the feeling most of those 'means' are related to religion? > > > > I think the mistake is to *compare* the value of intuition and scientific > > thinking, rather than holding up some sort of Spock-like detachment and > > objectivity as an ideal. Spock is fiction. The claim I'll make about intuition is that sometimes a portion of the large amount of background processing that your brain does might slip through the filter your mind uses, but it is hardly a rational, reasoned, and scientific process. And also based much more around hardwired instinctual responces that may not be very good. > I've followed this thread for a bit, and I find that I organize things ub a > manner that is significantly different from what I see here. In particular, > I think the discussion of intuitive vs. scientific thinking misses how > science actually works. > > Intuition is an important part of science. Great scientists, such as > Feynman, had overwhelming intuitive ability. Feynman is legendary for his > rough guesses being validated by experiments 10-20 years later. But Feynmans intuition isn't being discussed here. What's being discussed is Jung's psuedo-scientific model of 'intuition' (on which the MBTI bullsh!t is based around). According to Jung: "You can increase the number of principles, but I found the most simple way is the way I told you, the division by four, the simple and natural division of a circle. I didn't know the symbolism then of this particular classification. Only when I studied the archetypes did I become aware that this is a very important archetypal pattern that plays an enormous role." Is *total* nonsense. Right, dividing people up four is good symbolism. as for the 'archtypes' he's talking about, I think he was likely reffering to one of the classical systems of classifying people: <<http://skepdic.com/essays/myersbriggscode.html>> Remember the four temperaments? Each of us, at one time, would have been considered to be either melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic, or choleric. These classifications go back at least as far as the ancient physician Hippocrates in the middle of the fifth century B.C.E. He explained the four temperaments in terms of dominant "humors" in the body. The melancholic is dominated by yellow "bile" in the kidneys; the sanguine by humors in the blood; the phlegmatic by phlegm; and the choleric by the black bile of the liver. Hippocrates was simply adding to the ancient Greek insight that all things reduce to earth, air, water, and fire. Each of the four elements had its dualities: hot/cold and dry/moist. A person's physical, psychological, and moral qualities could be easily understood by his temperament, his dominant 'humors,' the four basic elements, or whether he was hot and wet or cold and dry, etc. This ancient personality type-indicator "worked" for over one thousand years. Of course, cynics might attribute this success to confirmation bias. It also "put a heavy brake on physiological research since there were few phenomena for which the humors could not be made to yield some sort of easy explanation." > But, of course, he also had misses. I didn't get to talk with him, but > Shelly Glashow (a theorist who won the Nobel Prize for his role in > developing what is now called the Standard Theory said that he tended to > have several intuitive ideas a day. Most of them he could dismiss himself. > The rest, he brought up to colleagues, who usually found fatal flaws with > them. About once a month, they were worth publishing. > > In my own case, I have worked very hard developing my own intuition. I have > a "feel" for the transport of gammas and neutrons. My rough arm waving > arguments usually get me in the ball park of the right answer. > You've merely trained your brain to do work that you used to do consciously to being done sub consciously. > > But, I know that my intuition is not _that_ good. When I check with more > rigorous techniques, I find that my intuitive feel isn't always right. The > data can still surprise me. When surprised, I work to recalibrate my > intuitive feel to better match what is seen. > > IMHO, intuition works best when combined with rigor. In science at least, > one can make an intuitive leap to get to the idea, but one is responsible > for going back and connecting the dots to make sure one's intuition is > correct. > > The distinction that I see is between linear thinking and disjunctive > thinking. The former goes is a systematic fashion from A to B to C. The > latter tends to jump from A to J, without stopping at B, C, or D. No, you only think it is skipping B, C and D. Calculus wouldn't work if the underling arthimetic and algebra didn't also work. > I am a disjunctive thinker, so I do this a lot. But, I always consider it > my responsibility to be able to go back and show that the jump was valid. I > may merge D & E together, I may use a proof that's on a totally different > line, but I accept the responsibility to go back and validate my conclusion. > > Indeed, I'd argue that rigor is the best friend of true creativity. I had > some interesting discussions with grad. students and professors in > philosophy concerning our respective professions. There was consensus that > it was far easier to BS in philosophy than in physics, but that it was also > much harder to come up with something new and worthwhile. When I get > stumped thinking about physics/engineering, I can always take some more data > to help the process along. Philosophers can't. Testing my intuitive leaps > against data significantly simplifies the process of separating the wheat > from the chaff....and allows me to start seeing the patterns that are there. > > Going back to Feynman, his most famous quote on this subject is "science is > the best way we have to not fool ourselves." By insisting that we accept as > valid the model which best matches objective observations, we have an > extremely strong antidote to fooling ourselves. For example, creationism is > a bad model for biology. Standard biology provides a much better fit to > observations. > > The real problem with using science ubiquitously is tied up with its virtue: > it deliberately limits the questions it addresses. Science models > observations, it does not form a basis for ethics, ontology, or > epistemology. For example, there is no scientific basis for the argument > that it is immoral to torture children for one's own pleasure. Even though > we all agree on that, we cannot prove it scientifically. I accutually would argue that is completely false. Altuistic punishment was selected for in humans for a reason. Pretty much everything people claim as 'moral' is based around the selection of some attribute. You just want to argue religion again tho. > Finally, this leads us to the area of human thought and behavior. That is > in a gray area where empirical observations can provide some understanding, > but not full understanding. We don't know if someone isn't trying enough or > if they just cannot do it...because we cannot get "inside" another person. > Yet, we can see what techniques seem to work better than others. My wife > knows she has ADHD, and has developed a number of coping mechanisms for it. > Bags of tricks, like these, can be learned. > > But, when we use techniques, like this one or Myers-Briggs, we need to do it > with the understanding that the validity of these techniques has some > empirical basis, but is not really proven. No Empirical basis would be more correct. > For example, when I took it, it > seemed right on several divisions, but it had me down as feeling on > feeling/thinking. My family thought that was a hoot. That's exactly how charlatanism works. The charlatan tells you some vague things that sound good to the person being sold snake-oil. The charlatan knows about the forer effect and confirmation bias, and subjective validation. The MBTI Types are actually a _very slick_ form Cold Reading: <<http://skepdic.com/coldread.html>> Cold reading refers to a set of techniques used by professional manipulators to get a subject to behave in a certain way or to think that the cold reader has some sort of special ability that allows him to "mysteriously" know things about the subject. Cold reading goes beyond the usual tools of manipulation: suggestion and flattery. In cold reading, salespersons, hypnotists, pros, faith healers, con men, and some therapists bank on their subject's inclination to find more meaning in a situation than there actually is. The manipulator knows that his mark will be inclined to try to make sense out of whatever he is told, no matter how farfetched or improbable. He also knows that for every several claims he makes about you that you reject as being inaccurate, he will make one that meets with your approval; and he knows that you are likely to remember the hits he makes and forget the misses. --- With this in mind take a careful look at the MBTI Types: They are filled with all the flattery and deception that a John Edwards (TV Show) uses when he fools people. The fact of the matter is you can take any of the descriptions of the 16 'types' and change them around and still get the person taking the test to believe that description 'matches' them. The only real difrence between the MBTI and ennegrams is, that MBTI tries to put on a facade of science in front of the gibberish. > So, I take evaluations, like this one, with a grain of salt. It can serve > as a tool for starting a conversation, it can give one an "ah-ha" moment. > But, a Meyer-Briggs score is not the same as a blood pressure > measurement....it's predictions are not models that have been rigorously > tested against objectively measured data. They are worse than useless, they are foolish. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
