> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > From: Fool On > > > > > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 didn't write that, Nick did. I think mixing up Nick's post and mine will > inevitably result is a combination with internal contradictions, because > Nick and I differ on some points.
Those comments _were_ directed toward Nick. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > Nick wrote the text you are responding to here, also. As I think you could > tell from reading my post, I don't separate scientific thinking and > intuitive thinking. Again I _was_ addressing nick here. > With all due respect, I don't think you have a feel for the scientific > process. That's pretty common. Textbooks usually organize things after > they've already been worked out. They rarely give a feel for the actual > process. > > >And also based much more around hardwired instinctual responces that may > >not be very good. > > If they aren't good....then it's hard to be creative. Some people don't > have very good intuitions...and their guesses are often wrong. Others do > have good intuitions. It's also a matter of being able to see patterns and > pick up clues. > You are mixing up inteligence and creativity. Don't even try to pretend you understand how the brain works, because you dont: Nodding Yes Increases Your Confidence In Your Own Opinions: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001505.html>> Children Of Bipolar Parents are More Creative: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003110.html#003110>> Love Deactivates Brain Areas For Fear, Planning, Critical Social Assessment: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002183.html#002183>> Human Impulsiveness Selected For By Foraging Lifestyle?: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002509.html#002509>> Stimulaton Of Primate Brains Show Many Complex Behaviors Are Innate: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002676.html#002676>> Gory Pictures Improve Memory Retention: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000581.html#000581>> Scantily Clad Women Make High Testosterone Men Drive Lousy Bargains: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003385.html#003385>> Twins Study Finds Adult Religiosity Heritable: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002666.html#002666>> Serotonin Receptor Concentration Varies Inversely With Spirituality: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001869.html#001869>> Pre-Schoolers Think Like Scientists: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003341.html#003341>> Word Memory Shifts From Sound To Meaning As We Age: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002422.html#002422>> Neurons Identified That Assign Relative Ratings To Goods: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003396.html#003396>> Monkeys Prefer Gambling Risk To Sure Reward: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002961.html#002961>> More Attractive Children Protected Better By Parents: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002711.html#002711>> Humans Get Personality Altering Infections From Cats: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001675.html#001675>> While heterosexual males are chiefly aroused by females heterosexual females are aroused by males AND females: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001393.html#001393>> And I could dig through slashdot and a few other sites for more interesting studies I remember, but I think you get the picture. The brain does a whole lot of things, that are absolutely nonsensical. It also does a whole lot of things in the background that the conscious mind isn't aware of. Perhaps some of those things can leak through the filtering some times, or not, but it is of dubious quality and quantity and isn't going to show up on some BS MTBI test. > > > 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. > > I thought intuition itself was being discussed. > Whatever is being discussed in other branches of this thead: Don't care. Didn't read it, and insofar as it doesn't relate to Jung's psuedo-science, I don't care, that is for other discussions in other threads. > >What's being discussed is Jung's psuedo-scientific model of 'intuition' > >(on which the MBTI bullsh!t is based around). > > Since human thought is in the gray area, I don't see the problem with using > non-scientific means of understanding. We have a scientific understanding There actually plenty of science to look at. I provided some links above. Their is no reason to invoke religion to understand anything, ever, period, in any curcumstance, ever. Why do you *_Always_* return to religion?: <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002666.html#002666>> <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001869.html#001869>> > of the charm found in some quarks. We do not have a scientific > understanding of the natural charm of certain people. We have explanations, > and we tend to categorize as part of our explanations. So, talking about > introverts and extroverts, for example, is not meaningless...even though it > is not as precise a scale as, say, electromagnetic potential. Those 'clasifications' are fundamentally no different from _the four temperaments_ discussed earlier, but cut for some reason. And just as scientific. > > > > > > > You've merely trained your brain to do work that you used to do > > consciously to being done sub consciously. > > How do you know what I do so much better than I do? How are you sure that > when I leap from A to J, that I am actually, subconsciously doing steps B, > C, D...etc? If that's what I was doing, wouldn't it be much easier to do > the steps. I do not believe that Special Relativity leaped fully formed from the head of albert einstein, in a single flash of insight. I do not believe it is possible to skip nessesary steps and go directly to an answer. P != NP, and quantum computing doesn't change that fact (it's only really parallel computing). > The process of coming up with a creative solution is not linear. I realize > that contradicts a mechanistic understanding of human thought, but that > understanding isn't science...it is metaphysics. You can't prove that it Isn't linear. > > > 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. > > Again, how do you know my mind so well? See above. Unless it is skipping unnessesary steps or simplyfying, I don't think what you describe is possible. P != NP. > > Calculus wouldn't work if the underling arthimetic and algebra didn't > > also work. > > Calculus wasn't formally proven long after it was shown to fit experimental > data quite well. Neither Newton nor Leibniz had a rigorous proof of the > validity of calculus. Calculus only works as a shortcut for doing the math the long way. Every calculus problem can be solved without using calculus. The same is true for the relationship between multiplication and addition. > > > 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. > > Right, like it is moral to rape the women after conquest because it is > evolutionarily favored...or it is moral to let people with genetic defects > die because they are just a burden on the gene pool. > What you describe had obvious selective advantages in history. However I think those things are being selected against now by other selective pressures. Men Feel More Pleasure Than Women Watching Punishment <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003229.html#003229>> Altruistic Punishment Seen As Explanation For Mass Political Behaviors <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002770.html>> Twins Study Shows About Half Of Altruism Is Genetic <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002565.html>> FuturePundit: Emotions Overrule Logic To Cause Us To Punish <<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001381.html>> > > You just want to argue religion again tho. > > There is a decent consensus among scientists as to the purpose and nature of > science. I'll give two examples from this list. Rich and I have > significantly different metaphysical viewpoints, but we have very strong > agreement on the nature and the purpose of science. Second, in this very > thread, Charlie has noted his agreement with me. Charlie and I differ on a > number of topics, as he noted, but we are in fairly good agreement here. > I would offer this as evidence that this viewpoint is not dependant on one > being religious, since it is held by non-theists on this list. Again, and again, and again, and again, you return to valueless and worthless and disproven religious theories. That is because religion is a parasitic disease using you as a host spread itself. And so you will keep returning to your worthless religious theories. > > > No Empirical basis would be more correct. > > There aren't differences along these lines between people? Of course their are. But Jung, and the MTBI people aren't so big on doing actual science, and doing actual studies, and getting actual empirical data. Which is why it is complete pseudo-science. I provided some interesting links above, that, gosh, has actual scientists actually do actual reseach, to get actual empirical data. > > > 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. > > Getting people to laugh at them when they are wrong? ?? > > 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. > > Ah, that's not how those tests work when I've taken them. We had them > administered and read for free....I took the results with a grain of salt, > thinking that the best value in them was in asking those sorts of questions > about oneself. Getting people to ask questions about what they like to do > is not inherently selling snake oil. I've seen these tests first hand. Every single question you answer is a false dichotomy. > > 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. > > It would be interesting to see a real study, but I'd guess that there would Yes it would. But it probably wont be done by the MBTI people. And I think it would be visiously attacked by the MTBI people. after all charlotanism is big money these days. > be correlations between the results for friends filling in the test about > someone and someone filling in their own blanks. I know that I took a > spiritual gifts inventory, and there was extremely strong correlation > between the results from my part of the test and that of my friends. This > was fairly common in the group. Out of, say, 15 different categories, the > friend's score may be ordered C, F, A.... and the self score might be > ordered F, C, A, but the correlation was not random. And again with the religion. You always find a way to insert it into every discussion, just like JDG and abortion. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
