Higgs Boson Found!!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Laika
level5
level5
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:16 pm
Location: Moscow

Postby Laika » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:51 am

Why doesn't he like being beaten?

It's bad for his fragile health.

Why would he conclude that those people who beat him up are friends of the <skin colour> people?


Because they threatened him to beat again if he wouldn't cease to be hostile to skincolour people ?

Why would he consider blaming <skin colour> people for those people?


Because skincolour people were connected with and used help of those thugs ?

How do you know that any of these are even plausible trains of thought/outcomes?


Because if similiar trains could appear in my head, it could happen in somebody's else ? You claim they are not plausible, bother yourself to explain why ?

You're talking about an undefined amount of data available to the subject, an argument contrary to the subject's beliefs of undefined quality and that may contradict a undefined number of data that the subject considers fact and an experience of assumed relevance and of assumed negativity with people of undefined reputation and undefined honesty about their 'cause'.


Oh, sorry. I should've created a scenario on several thousand letters hoping that it will somehow resemble your real life where you operate with perfectly defined amount of available data of determined relevance, while being able to strictly define quality of one's beliefs and honesty.

Oh, fuck off. Intelligence has no reason to play a significant part in this.


Nah. Go away and take your Authority with you.
Last edited by Laika on Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Laika
level5
level5
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:16 pm
Location: Moscow

Postby Laika » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:53 am

Xocrates wrote:
Laika_rus wrote:Do you mean me calling it a "fake science" ? Alright, what is science accrding to wikipedia ? (You are welcome to post more accurate definition from more trustworthy source).

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

Well in case of social science I think that its explanations are considerably more vague, and predictions are much less accurate than ones in natural sciences. Or, did you mean something else ?
How does this invalidates it as a science?

If not being exact invalidates something as a science, then we conclude that science does not exist.


You are right, it doesn't. I meant that I have more trust in results provided by natural sciences, and their whole usefulness Yes, I didn't choose words very cautiously.



xander wrote:For those that are arguing that the social sciences have been the cause of major advances in society, can you please cite specific examples? From reading Feud's posts, I get the impression that he gives credit to social scientists for the entire structure of our society. This cannot possibly be what he is saying, so I would really like to see some concrete examples to see what he (or the rest of you) are actually on about.

xander


Maybe I had to be more clear about this, but I've asked it already; it seems to be the most relevant answer:

Feud wrote:If you really want names, than that's easy. Here's one: James Madison. If you don't think he's influenced a huge number of the current world population and world event int he last eighty years, you're wrong. Want another? Lord Blackstone. How about a third? Karl Marx. Four? René Descartes.


I asked for names and results.
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 am

Laika_rus wrote:I asked for names and results.
Google.

Picking the most obvious one:
If you are not aware of the import of Marx & Engel's writing upon 20th and 21st Century politics and civilization in even the slightest manner, then you are frankly an idiot.

Also; Descartes as a philosopher made it possible for scientists to act as scientists.

As a mathematician he gave us high school geometry, as aphilosopher he instigated the most radical change in the perception of the human capacity for knowledge ever. No longer servants to, children of or behest to God he formulated humans as active agents with the capacity for reason and rationality. Moreover, he located the possibility of finding truths about the world we live in within that capacity for reason (as opposed to divine word). A philosopher made scientific thought possible. That big enough a result for you?
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
Mas Tnega
level5
level5
Posts: 7898
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Mas Tnega » Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:45 am

Laika_rus wrote:
Why doesn't he like being beaten?

It's bad for his fragile health.
That makes it bad for him. Why doesn't he like it?

Why would he conclude that those people who beat him up are friends of the <skin colour> people?


Because they threatened him to beat again if he wouldn't cease to be hostile to skincolour people ?
Common leap of logic but not guaranteed to be the one he makes. Furthermore, hostility? That's new to the scenario.

Why would he consider blaming <skin colour> people for those people?


Because skincolour people were connected with and used help of those thugs ?
Don't act like I'm an idiot for not knowing that, you literally just added in that information right now. I'm not prescient.

How do you know that any of these are even plausible trains of thought/outcomes?


Because if similiar trains could appear in my head, it could happen in somebody's else ?

Firstly, could. You had the scenario play out like it necessarily must.
Secondly, you're a sample size of one. For all I know, you're a psychological freak below the 5th percentile or above the 95th, so poor a representative of typical human psychology that making predictions based on the idea that someone might think in a similar manner to you is tantamount to guessing.

You claim they are not plausible, bother yourself to explain why ?
No I didn't. I questioned your assumptions. Regardless:
Masochism is a real thing.

A possiblity is that the <skin colour> people as a whole vehemently disapprove of them and that he does at least know this.

The rational conclusion is that the <skin colour> people are not the anti-fascists and did not perform the violent act.

You're talking about an undefined amount of data available to the subject, an argument contrary to the subject's beliefs of undefined quality and that may contradict a undefined number of data that the subject considers fact and an experience of assumed relevance and of assumed negativity with people of undefined reputation and undefined honesty about their 'cause'.


Oh, sorry. I should've created a scenario on several thousand letters hoping that it will somehow resemble your real life where you operate with perfectly defined amount of available data of determined relevance, while being able to strictly define quality of one's beliefs and honesty.
You seem to work in absolutes. Whenever we say you're wrong, you will always decide, irrespective of what we actually say, that our opinion is exactly opposite.
Example:
You: "Hard" science is the only real science.
Us: No it isn't.
You: Aha! So you're saying "Hard" science isn't real! That's obviously wrong!

Honestly, I'd rather you just throw the scenario out of the window. You ended on a non-sequitur anyway.

Oh, fuck off. Intelligence has no reason to play a significant part in this.


Nah. Go away and take your Authority with you.
There's a continued bit of ignorance going on there. It's kind of funny. Regardless, put an intelligent person into that scenario and show how it doesn't play out like that. Or an idiot. Whichever one Willie wasn't supposed to be.
User avatar
BGP
level2
level2
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:01 pm
Contact:

Postby BGP » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:28 am

Break it up kids, give it a rest. This has gone on long enough. If the BGP was moderator this would never be allowed to happen. Both sides are wrong in this matter anyway.
keyID = 436060 apollo13@lavabit.com
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:30 pm

xander wrote:For those that are arguing that the social sciences have been the cause of major advances in society, can you please cite specific examples? From reading Feud's posts, I get the impression that he gives credit to social scientists for the entire structure of our society. This cannot possibly be what he is saying, so I would really like to see some concrete examples to see what he (or the rest of you) are actually on about.


I'm certainly not suggesting that everything around us is a consequence of social planning. Social science as an organized field developed well after rules and groups had formed.

As for concrete examples, an example would be Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Their sociological studies about racial biases and preferences were an important part of the effort to end systematic racism within the American legal system, and have consequently impacted untold millions of lives. They did not render the change single handily, of course, but it played an important contribution by giving the rhetoric of the emerging civil rights group scientific backing.
User avatar
BGP
level2
level2
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:01 pm
Contact:

Postby BGP » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:45 pm

Feud wrote:
xander wrote:For those that are arguing that the social sciences have been the cause of major advances in society, can you please cite specific examples? From reading Feud's posts, I get the impression that he gives credit to social scientists for the entire structure of our society. This cannot possibly be what he is saying, so I would really like to see some concrete examples to see what he (or the rest of you) are actually on about.


I'm certainly not suggesting that everything around us is a consequence of social planning. Social science as an organized field developed well after rules and groups had formed.

As for concrete examples, an example would be Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Their sociological studies about racial biases and preferences were an important part of the effort to end systematic racism within the American legal system, and have consequently impacted untold millions of lives. They did not render the change single handily, of course, but it played an important contribution by giving the rhetoric of the emerging civil rights group scientific backing.



Social is a science like romance is the study of dyadic interpersonal dynamics.
keyID = 436060 apollo13@lavabit.com
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:36 pm

Feud wrote:
xander wrote:For those that are arguing that the social sciences have been the cause of major advances in society, can you please cite specific examples? From reading Feud's posts, I get the impression that he gives credit to social scientists for the entire structure of our society. This cannot possibly be what he is saying, so I would really like to see some concrete examples to see what he (or the rest of you) are actually on about.


I'm certainly not suggesting that everything around us is a consequence of social planning. Social science as an organized field developed well after rules and groups had formed.

As for concrete examples, an example would be Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Their sociological studies about racial biases and preferences were an important part of the effort to end systematic racism within the American legal system, and have consequently impacted untold millions of lives. They did not render the change single handily, of course, but it played an important contribution by giving the rhetoric of the emerging civil rights group scientific backing.


That's about what I thought. Marx and Engels are a good example, as well, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see names like Mead, Freud, or Kinsey mentioned. I just wanted to be sure that we were on the same page, more or less.

The way I see it, "science" is very young in human history. It is only since the Enlightenment that people have been conducting studies in a systematic way that bears any resemblance to the scientific method, i.e. falsifiable hypothesis testing. The social sciences are even younger---near as I can tell, it is people like Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward Tyler, and their contemporaries in the 19th century that gave rise to the social sciences (i.e. the empirical study of humans and society, rather than the rational and philosophical musings of people such as Descartes).

BGP wrote:Social is a science like romance is the study of dyadic interpersonal dynamics.

You are clearly an idiot.

xander
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:55 pm

xander wrote:
Feud wrote:
xander wrote:The way I see it, "science" is very young in human history. It is only since the Enlightenment that people have been conducting studies in a systematic way that bears any resemblance to the scientific method, i.e. falsifiable hypothesis testing. The social sciences are even younger---near as I can tell, it is people like Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward Tyler, and their contemporaries in the 19th century that gave rise to the social sciences (i.e. the empirical study of humans and society, rather than the rational and philosophical musings of people such as Descartes).
xander

In Europe the founding names tend to be Durkheim and Weber (which, from the very start of the discipline sets up a split between positivists and qualitative apporaches that remains the most major rift in the field of study). Which makes social sciences barely 100 years old.
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:56 pm

xander wrote:That's about what I thought. Marx and Engels are a good example, as well, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see names like Mead, Freud, or Kinsey mentioned. I just wanted to be sure that we were on the same page, more or less.

The way I see it, "science" is very young in human history. It is only since the Enlightenment that people have been conducting studies in a systematic way that bears any resemblance to the scientific method, i.e. falsifiable hypothesis testing. The social sciences are even younger---near as I can tell, it is people like Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward Tyler, and their contemporaries in the 19th century that gave rise to the social sciences (i.e. the empirical study of humans and society, rather than the rational and philosophical musings of people such as Descartes).


That's about when it formalized into a proper academic field, yes. It's a bit messy though before, just as Newton is generally seen as a scientist before science really emerged as we know it today, people like James Madison, Thomas Hobbes, and many other philosophers were treading in what is now considered social science territory. But yeah, as a modern academic field of study, it was the 19th century that it really crystalized.

I made a mistake in my previous post, I said the American "legal" system, when that's not really accurate. It was more specifically applied to the educational system, and from there institutional racsim in the general public sector.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:27 pm

Cooper42 wrote:In Europe the founding names tend to be Durkheim and Weber (which, from the very start of the discipline sets up a split between positivists and qualitative apporaches that remains the most major rift in the field of study). Which makes social sciences barely 100 years old.

Indeed. I chose Morgan and Tyler in order to push the social sciences back as far as I could. Note, however, that Durheim and Weber are subsumed into the category of contemporaries of Morgan and Tyler. Still, you make my point: the social sciences are very, very young.

Feud wrote:That's about when it formalized into a proper academic field, yes. It's a bit messy though before, just as Newton is generally seen as a scientist before science really emerged as we know it today, people like James Madison, Thomas Hobbes, and many other philosophers were treading in what is now considered social science territory. But yeah, as a modern academic field of study, it was the 19th century that it really crystalized.

I would argue that the sciences (natural and social) are unified by methodology. Most branches of academic thought seek to understand the universe in which we live, but the sciences do so through the lens of inductive empiricism (i.e. observe, predict, test, refine). Early natural philosophers such as Newton and Galileo fit this model, as they made testable predictions about the universe, and tested those predictions against reality. The process was not nearly as formal as it is today, but they still behaved as modern scientists (for the most part). In contrast, I'm not willing to give you Hobbes---he wrote about something that is now studied by social scientists, but was himself not a social scientist. On the other hand, I'll give you Madison et al., if you consider the US a grand social experiment. Moreover, I might even grant you Machiavelli as an ur-social scientist (he made predictions about human behaviour, and suggested "experiments" based upon those predicitons).

Just as a point of information, I would exclude philosophy, mathematics, and most of the study of history from the sciences (philosophy and mathematics are rational, rather then empirical, endeavors, and history, for the most part, is purely descriptive and does not seek to model or predict---though that seems to be changing, and I can see a day when the study of history is subsumed into sociology).

Feud wrote:It was more specifically applied to the educational system, and from there institutional racsim in the general public sector.

In this case, I would argue that the racism (institutional and otherwise) existed first, and the sciences were used later to justify the systems already in place.

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:56 pm

xander wrote:
Feud wrote:It was more specifically applied to the educational system, and from there institutional racsim in the general public sector.

In this case, I would argue that the racism (institutional and otherwise) existed first, and the sciences were used later to justify the systems already in place.

xander


I meant that the research was used to combat racism that was then in existence in the educational and public sector, not as a justification of it.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:19 pm

xander wrote:. . .history, for the most part, is purely descriptive and does not seek to model or predict---though that seems to be changing, and I can see a day when the study of history is subsumed into sociology).

xander


I'd argue that history is already at the modelling and predicting state more than descriptive, at least at the University level. Certainly, throughout Primary School and High School history was taught to us from a descriptive point of view, but when I got to the final year of High School we got introduced to Historiography, and then in University the direction jumped from the descriptive being secondary to the essential part of history: analysis. At this point we were being expected to use primary and secondary sources to spend most of our essays describing why things happened, with some of the how, and as little of the what as we could get away with without compromising the analysis.

The way my lecturers spoke about things there was definitely an emphasis on using history to understand how the modern world works, so modeling and prediction seems to be a big thing, which reminded me quite a bit of sociology, which was really interesting!

Of course, this could be a very recent development in history education, or be unique to British/Scottish universities, or even just my own institution! I don't really know how they teach history in the US after all. :)

Also, a bit of an aside, but I think this article is relevant to the current theme of the broader discussion: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... sense.html
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:12 am

Feud wrote:I meant that the research was used to combat racism that was then in existence in the educational and public sector, not as a justification of it.

Ah. Clearly, I was confused. You are right, of course.

Xarlaxas wrote:
xander wrote:. . .history, for the most part, is purely descriptive and does not seek to model or predict---though that seems to be changing, and I can see a day when the study of history is subsumed into sociology).

Of course, this could be a very recent development in history education, or be unique to British/Scottish universities, or even just my own institution! I don't really know how they teach history in the US after all. :)

This, right here. I don't know much about the European educational system, but in most American institutions, history has historically (heh) been a part of the humanities with philosophy and the fine arts. It was primarily descriptive, not predictive. This has been slowly changing over the last 40 or 50 years (see, for instance, Howard Zinn and other social historians). As I said, I think that there will come a day that the study of history is entirely subsumed into sociology---it just hasn't gone all the way yet, and history as a science is still in its infancy (even more than the other social sciences).

xander
Waylon Sachs
level1
level1
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:59 am
Location: United States

Postby Waylon Sachs » Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:22 am


Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest