my ignorance

Laura said:
[...]

The rest of you, please note that you are mainly "filling in the gaps" and assuming what Aaron means since there is no real meaning in any sentence he has written thus far.
Click to expand...

Indeed. People with deductivist fixations also lose much of their peripheral awareness as well:

AaronAgassi said:
Thank you, Patience. I had no clue that this is what anyone was saying.
Click to expand...


I think he provided enough data to answer the question "whose reality is it anyway?" It appears to be the Pre-Determinist's, or at least the one owned by the Club of Rock Hard Popperian Science:


AaronAgassi said:
it's not my model, it's Popper's, and Epistemologically fundamental to the Scientific Method.
Click to expand...

...by which I assume he refers to this:

AaronAgassi said:
The experimental testing of an hypothesis, in order to be scientific, requires conditions of refutation, a range of explicit conceivable outcomes inconsistent with prediction from said hypothesis. I have only been asking what is hypothesis of your work together here, and the conditions of refutation. Also whatever experimental controls. I will also need to understand question said hypothesis seeks to answer the explanatory gap left by current understanding. I hope this clears things up.
Click to expand...

I like Karl Popper. He was a philosopher of science and had some interesting ideas. Popper was very concerned about what he saw as "The Problem of Induction" in science. He even wrote a paper with that same title. Though it didn't really sort it out since the problem isn't really the necessity of induction so much as a fixation on deduction-only thinking, he did come up with a valuable idea. Popper was concerned with "certainty" in that he knew new theories really can't be proven with the same simple certainty that deductionists experience when all they have to do is add numbers together.

Popper said the most useful new theories are the ones which we can disprove if they are wrong, rather than the ones we can try to prove if they are right. To Popper, proving true is impossible, proving false is possible. That's a really useful idea to have, because induction is unavoidable.

Anyway, to me, what's interesting about this is why Popperian culture gets so upset about the need for uncertain induction in the first place. Since no animal in the universe has ever been able to be absolutely certain about anything, and Popper was equipped with a mind that could cope with the reality of a universe where induction is needed, why did he feel (on behalf of his fellow humans) that the universe was a hostile place to his kind of mind, and things would be better if everything could be done deductively?

Here we can see that the problem may just be a cultural bias that values deductivism and does not appreciate inductivism. And on this thread we can see what effects deductivist fixation has on the awareness of those like Arron who get caught up in it - a tighter and tighter field of focus that screens out valuable information from the rest of the world because he prefers the comfort and safety of the inner.

I have the 'feeling' that Aaron thinks he's accomplished a laudable goal by showing to the world a lack of a suitable hypothesis. I also have the 'feeling' that if Aaron would read all the related material he would see the C's experiment from a wider view and see his posts on this thread as his personal demonstration for why this Work is needed.

Some people seem to have so little experience of direct understanding, produced by guessing, experimenting and learning over time, within a context-based awareness, that they cannot believe that anything can be achieved unless someone else spells out in exact detail how to do absolutely everything. They believe that the only alternative to total regimentation is total anarchy, not a bunch of people getting things done.

As I see it, in this experiment, a future de-ponerized/de-pathologized humanity is a big goal that needs to seed itself in this time now. Maybe threads like this are valuable for that purpose? Maybe the more brain states that encode certainty that it will happen, the easier it will happen? I don't know, but they seem like interesting questions.
 
Thanks, Bud, for elaborating on reduction versus induction. That helps me better understand why some people and institutional science in general, just can't get behind certain concepts. It makes me wonder if some people might be predisposed to one form over the other as their natural approach to reasoning.

In all honesty, I think he might be mentally ill or have had a breakdown of some sort. He could not get away from seeing the word "experiment" in it's narrowest of definitions and seemed to think that if he kept repeating himself, eventually we would finally reveal to him either the single hypothesis or, in the absence of one, that we were running junk science.

His inability to adapt his frame of reference to new realities was a little disturbing.

I had wondered how he would have responded to a scratch test. He seemed unflappable until he started getting cocky with his "asked and answered" responses. That was the first indication I saw of any emotional effect in him. Otherwise he was strictly cerebral, in a mechanical, albeit broken, way. His one-track mind reminded me of some people I've met who suffer from delusions but seem highly functional. They don't know they are delusional nor does anyone else, as their delusions aren't a significant enough departure from reality. You only suspect they are delusional after sufficient dialogue that reveals the variance between the delusion and reality.

I was concerned initially that he might misreport back to whomever it was that sent him, but I soon realized that nobody of any seriousness would send him to perform an evaluation on anything after even the briefest of exchanges with him. His fragmented thoughts we revealed in his fragmented sentences.

I actually pity the guy.

Gonzo
 
Bud said:
Here we can see that the problem may just be a cultural bias that values deductivism and does not appreciate inductivism. And on this thread we can see what effects deductivist fixation has on the awareness of those like Arron who get caught up in it - a tighter and tighter field of focus that screens out valuable information from the rest of the world because he prefers the comfort and safety of the inner.
Click to expand...

To my mind there seems to be some sort of cluster of one dimensional thinking as Herbert Marcuse once analysed (see: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man) which typifies authoritarian followers in need of exoskeletonal guidelines and rules, who always want to be 'on the safe side' with anything and everything. Once established as the norm, it gradually leads to the dominance of fundamentalism (dominionism) in all areas of societal activity, including science. That's one way in which ponerization works out to the detriment of any experiential oriented endeavor in the direction of 'uncontrolled' experimentation. The societal rigidity that results from it, makes a violent collaps or a rigorous stagnation for centuries on end all the more likely. For both developments we have historical examples aplenty and we can thank Lobaczewski for his analysis of the psychological backgrounds.

So, just ever more reasons to keep flapping those butterfly wings!
 
Thank you Ark for pointing this out and providing the links. A welcome addition to this thread. You helped me establish awareness of a gap in my knowledge. Thanks again.
 
Deduction
allows deriving b from a only where b is a formal consequence of a. In other words, deduction is the process of deriving the consequences of what is assumed. Given the truth of the assumptions, a valid deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion. For example, given that all bachelors are unmarried males, and given that this person is a bachelor, it can be deduced that this person is an unmarried male.

Induction
allows inferring b from a, where b does not follow necessarily from a. a might give us very good reason to accept b, but it does not ensure that b. For example, if all of the swans that we have observed so far are white, we may induce that the possibility that all swans are white is reasonable. We have good reason to believe the conclusion from the premise, but the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed. (Indeed, it turns out that some swans are black.)

Abduction
allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a to be abduced from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations for b. For example, after glancing up and seeing the eight ball moving towards us we may abduce that it was struck by the cue ball. The cue ball's strike would account for the eight ball's movement. It serves as a hypothesis that explains our observation. There are in fact infinitely many possible explanations for the eight ball's movement, and so our abduction does not leave us certain that the cue ball did in fact strike the eight ball, but our abduction is still useful and can serve to orient us in our surroundings. This process of abduction is an instance of the scientific method. There are infinite possible explanations for any of the physical processes we observe, but we are inclined to abduce a single explanation (or a few explanations) for them in the hopes that we can better orient ourselves in our surroundings and eliminate some of the possibilities.
 
Gonzo said:
It makes me wonder if some people might be predisposed to one form over the other as their natural approach to reasoning.
Click to expand...

Indeed people do seem to have predispositions such as this, though not necessarily from birth, OSIT. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the main idea behind the Waldorf school was to balance the education of those people who were so inclined towards the inductive (à la the Würzburg School of Imageless Thought) that the PFC's deductive capabilities would atrophy if not addressed. The students would take their natural inclinations to experience symmetry and form (for example) and apply them to the maths, sciences and linguistics and other areas in order to integrate left-brain / right-brain activity for simultaneous functioning. Essentially, children relate what they learn to their own experience and in the process, learn the 'language of form'.

I usually don't mention abduction because it seems so similar to the non-sequiter and its negative connotations. I have probably been mistakenly thinking of abduction under the heading of induction, and referring to it as "modal logics" since I feel that most dictionaries seem to mention only the "intuition" subset of inductive thought - and we can certainly have mistaken intuitions that qualify as non-sequiters - and we can certainly understand modal logics as simply knowing when we can say "necessarily" and when we can say "possibly".

At least this is the way I'm understanding things so far and I'm a WIP!
 
ark said:
Gonzo said:
Thanks, Bud, for elaborating on reduction versus induction.
Click to expand...

BTW: you may like to read also about "Abduction

Abduction and Hypothesis Withdrawal in Science

Induction, deduction, abduction, and the logics of race and kinship

Abduction, Induction, and the Logic of Scientific Knowledge Development

Very important!
Click to expand...

Can't thank you enough. I really didn't know where to start to get a decent overview of the concepts without having to fist commit myself to studying each on in-depth, as I become aware of them. Between these links and the ones suggested by Bud and Palinurus, I certainly have my reading cut out for me.

In the end, I'm hoping to have a better understanding of my own reasoning, its limitations and how to move beyond.

Much obliged to all.

Gonzo
 
Hmmm....this thread has been extremely interesting for me to read. I am currently doing a degree in Philosophy and Psychology and preparing my dissertation on the philosophy of science. I am also right now revising for an exam on Philosophy of Science, specifically Popper's model and its possible pitfalls. The posts by AaronAgassi have shown me with such force the reasons for any frustration which has arisen within me toward aspects of my degree, specifically philosophy. Thank you, Aaron Agassi, for showing me exactly what I NEVER want to become. You are the Gollum to the Frodo we should all aspire to become.

If you go into any interaction with strict preconceptions of what you want to receive from it, you automatically close yourself off to the ubiquitous possibility of receiving something unexpected which can, nonetheless, enrich your life. This is an example of your God, 'logic'; and your God is showing you your own potential lessons. However, judging from your attitude/s, it appears these will always remain exactly that, potentials, and nothing more. The amount of good will and patience (funnily enough this is even somebody's name who has been trying to help you in this thread!) which has been shown to you in this thread has both bemused and inspired me, in that order. You appeared to start the thread looking for a genuine answer to something which perplexed you, yet you have shown that all you wanted to do was show that your 'mighty philosophical views and knowledge of names for different types of argument (which, by the way, are completely unimportant)' can quash any genuine attempt at self-knowledge, or indeed any knowledge. After all, if you had cared to read anything suggested to you, you would have seen that attempts towards self-knowledge are a huge part of the motivation for the investigation which has inspired this website.

Unsurprisingly, however, this would not have been good enough for you. Your unerring search for 'examples of possible refutation' indicates your intentions here. Please, AaronAgassi, when you have successfully refuted every hypothesis which could possibly be applied to anything which does not conform to your current view, attempt to refute your current view. Then maybe you will learn something new.

You have your strict parameters set up for the search for knowledge; unfortunately for you, they will always be your master and you, their slave. Interestingly, I am almost certain that absolutely every word I am writing here is falling on deaf ears on your part, but there is always hope.

I have a question for you. Seeing as it is a word which you have used so often in this thread, what is truth? If you are not certain of its nature, how can you justify placing so many boundaries upon the search for it? :huh:


PS. Everyone who has tried to help in this thread, you are saints!
 
After reading the thread from beginning to end, I have found it to be a valuable instructional and observational lesson. Many may wonder why I would say this, so allow me to explain.

This thread was initiated by an individual who, in retrospect, was/is a machine by all objective observations. It was interesting to watch the response chronology as this individual began weaving the web of wordplay in order to obfuscate the true intent of the thread. I read how other knowledgeable members responded to his queries, but were only left with confusing responses from the OP. It did not take long for many see the true intent and manner of this individual, although others continued to attempt to explain what became clear was unexplainable to him/her.

Objectively, this thread is a great learning tool for those who do not have a good example or experience of "the machine at work." It clearly displays the nature of the machine and the tactics used by the control network. It also shows, by example, the examination process necessary through "The Work" in order to discern the true objective of such individuals and the processes they use. I must commend the members and the staff for their extraordinary ability to "see the unseen" here.

I see this progression quite a lot. I am a member of two other forums which I will not name, but many of you (especially Laura & Ark) know very well. They are both viewed as "hearts of the machine", but are diametrically opposite in beliefs and positions. I still hold membership to these places for one purpose- to learn the ways of "the machine". They use different tactics, but yet have the same goal- to cloud the truth with distortions and subjective beliefs. Every now and then, there actually is a good bit of knowledge posted in these places, but it is almost immediately removed or buried. When you tread in places such as these, software features such as "Scrapbook" for Firefox are priceless for capturing such filtered information.

Since I began my journey in January reading "The Wave" and many of the other works associated with it, I am realizing more of the nature of the mistakes I have made and continue to make in this journey. But I know they are necessary for me to learn the lessons, so instead of being discouraged, I look at them as being steps to be completed.

I learned much from all of you during the exchanges in this thread, and that knowledge is appreciated.
 
Great thread indeed!

:clap:

I just wanted to link here two articles which go deep into the subject of science, besides other very interesting subjects of course.

I know most of you must have been through them already. I though it pertinent to link them here though, for those of you who haven't read them yet.

Here they are:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/227222-The-Golden-Age-Psychopathy-and-the-Sixth-Extinction

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/240308-Dark-Ages-and-Inquisitions-Ancient-and-Modern-Or-Why-Things-are-Such-a-Mess-On-Our-Planet-and-Humanity-is-on-the-Verge-of-Extinction


Thanks a lot for the work done on these, Laura!

Best for all!
 
Either my curiosity or being a glutton for punishment kept me at this thread . I will need to double up on EE tonight to distress. I asked for it,even though being alerted by Anart at the very beginning and Laura repeatedly about the inane insanity of Agassi. Not a sentence was sane to me and as the comments flowed I wondered why so many of the obviously intelligent or knowledgeable ones kept offering advice and explanations. I am possibly a little foggy lately and certainly not amongst the articulately adept,especially when scientific ex plations are offered up on platters I don't pretend to be privy to,BUT this person or persons might as well be DID or maybe I'm stretching it.It seemed as if a consortium was speaking and throwing doubletalking highfalutin word salad with tainted lunchmeat thrown in on the table. It felt like a tactic to drive one insane,a control program. Am I making sense,or maybe it doesn't matter. It was rough and knowledgeable and I need PotS and Beatha right after I sign off.I know members probably all were aware,but I can be naive.I also felt major anger coming from myself wanting to shout out that he's a manipulating troll and don't give him any energy!I needed to find a suitable ending I guess and I did when someone called it towards the end,calling him an OP. I feel however that it is a failed OP.It doesn't matter if I'm right or not but what I've learned.Patience,detachment.Correct use of will.And if I go on I feel like i will begin to go on a strange rant. I'm very tired now :zzz: I thank all the members profusely
 
Whoa. Somebody somewhere who possessed (at that moment) industrial strength intelligence once said, "Keep it simple, stupid."
If you cannot simplify something to the lowest common denominator, then you do not fully understand it. OSIT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom