12 Jul 12
5 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
There is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure. It is not a tool for self-analysis and thereby invalidates itself
I think science needs to evolve. Sonhouse sent me a link on machines reaching a singularity where they are able to develop tools to self-improve themselves and then ultra-intelligence g ...[text shortened]... o evolve first in such-a-way that it is able to self-analyse, beginning with language structure.
There is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure
“language structure “ of what?
My suggestion is that science needs to evolve first in such-a-way that it is able to self-analyse,
why does it 'need' to do that?
beginning with language structure.
“language structure” of what? What kind of language are you talking about here? Can you give me a sample of this language?
It is not a tool for self-analysis and thereby invalidates itself.
your conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logically follow from your premise that “It is not a tool for self-analysis”.
A maths exam is not a tool for self-analysis; so “thereby” invalidates itself?
Why should you think that scientific method must ITSELF come from scientific method to be valid? -it doesn't. ( I assume this is where you are going wrong in your thinking? )
There is no logical need for it to be circular and it isn't circular.
12 Jul 12
7 edits
Originally posted by humyOriginally posted by humyThere is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure
“language structure “ of what?
It is not a tool for self-analysis and thereby invalidates itself.
your conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logically follow from your premise that “I ...[text shortened]... be valid? -it doesn't.
There is no logical need for it to be circular and it isn't circular.
There is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure
“language structure “ of what?
It is not a tool for self-analysis and thereby invalidates itself.
your conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logically follow from your premise that “It is not a tool for self-analysis”.
Within the context of a technological 'ultra-intelligence' explosion that is expected to happen in the next couple of decades it makes sense.
A maths exam is not a tool for self-analysis; so “thereby” invalidates itself?
A Math's exam is a great tool for self-analysis. I remember when I took one and the final question was 'please ignore all of the above and go play'. I got that question wrong but learnt from it!
Why should you think that scientific method must ITSELF come from scientific method to be valid? -it doesn't.
There is no logical need for it to be circular and it isn't circular.
Surely it HAS to be circular. That way it would make sense?
Don't come to me with a problem. I already got enough. I want an honest scientific explanation of the 'Cause' of existence. I've provided a scientifically based theory for temporal loops. I believe this should be our leading theory and we should attempt to disprove it. That's my stance.
We shouldn't 'I' shouldn't give Christians a hard time for trying to figure out what we've not even attempted.
12 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Originally posted by humyThere is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure
“language structure “ of what?
It is not a tool for self-analysis and thereby invalidates itself.
your conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logi ...[text shortened]... should be our leading theory and we should attempt to disprove it. That's my stance.
your conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logically follow from your premise that “It is not a tool for self-analysis”. (my quote)
Within the context of a technological 'ultra-intelligence' explosion that is expected to happen in the next couple of decades it makes sense. (your quote)
how so? What has the fact that your conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logically follow from your premise that “It is not a tool for self-analysis” got to do with a “'ultra-intelligence' explosion” ?
A Math's exam is a great tool for self-analysis.
I think you have taken the wrong meaning: A maths exam is not a tool for analysing ITSELF. When you said that science invalidates itself because it isn't a tool for self-analyse, you meant self-analyse of ITSELF -yes? i.e. scientific method analysing scientific method -right? If not, what did you mean? If so, you should see I must be referring to a maths exam not being a tool for analysing ITSELF else what I said wouldn't make much sense.
OK, then what is sciences leading theory on existence?
what has that got to do with “Why should you think that scientific method must ITSELF come from scientific method to be valid? -it doesn't.
There is no logical need for it to be circular and it isn't circular. (my quote) . “?
And the "leading theory on existence" of what?
12 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by humyOriginally posted by humyyour conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logically follow from your premise that “It is not a tool for self-analysis”. (my quote)
Within the context of a technological 'ultra-intelligence' explosion that is expected to happen in the next couple of decades it makes sense. (your quote)
how so? What has the it isn't circular. (my quote) . “?
And the "leading theory on existence" of what?
There is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure
“language structure “ of what?
It is not a tool for self-analysis and thereby invalidates itself.
your conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logically follow from your premise that “It is not a tool for self-analysis”.
My point is that it is based on a language structure and thereby unable to analyse itself. My point is that language structure should be proportionate and it's not.
Within the context of a technological 'ultra-intelligence' explosion that is expected to happen in the next couple of decades it makes sense.
A maths exam is not a tool for self-analysis; so “thereby” invalidates itself?
A Math's exam is a great tool for self-analysis. I remember when I took one and the final question was 'please ignore all of the above and go play'. I got that question wrong but learnt from it!
Why should you think that scientific method must ITSELF come from scientific method to be valid? -it doesn't.
There is no logical need for it to be circular and it isn't circular.[/b]
I don't know. I really wish I did. I just think that science should have a theory on it.
12 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Originally posted by humyThere is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure
“language structure “ of what?
It is not a tool for self-analysis and thereby invalidates itself.
your conclusion that it “invalidates itself” is not only false but does not logi don't know. I really wish I did. I just think that science should have a theory on it.
Originally posted by humy
[quote]There is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure
[/quote]
I did not post this; you did.
My point is that it is based on a language structure and thereby unable to analyse itself.
what “ language structure” are you referring to here? Give me a specific example/sample of this “ language structure” so I know what you are talking about because I currently don't.
And, regardless of whether science is actually “unable to analyse itself”, how would science being based on a “language structure” ( whatever that is supposed to mean ) mean that it is “unable to analyse itself”?
I don't know. I really wish I did. I just think that science should have a theory on it.
so does that mean you now agree that science does not “invalidate itself”?
12 Jul 12
16 edits
Originally posted by humyIn Bohr's words, "We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down"1.Originally posted by humy
[quote]There is absolutely no indication that science is willing to deal with the basics of language structure
[/quote]
I did not post this; you did.
My point is that it is based on a language structure and thereby unable to analyse itself.
what “ language structure” are you referring to on it. [/quote]
so does that mean you now agree that science does not “invalidate itself”?
"A traditional view of language in science is that it plays a passive role, that it is simply the vehicle whereby meaning and information are conveyed from one speaker to another."
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/lang.htm
The Einstein/Bohr debate was so intricate and intriguing that they missed their train stop a number of times whilst wrestling with these concepts and went backwards and forwards for many journeys before they became aware of their position. Amazing stuff!!
I think that science invalidates itself as it is not 'aware' of and subsequently doesn't care for it's environment.
Moreover I put forward a notion that psychiatry is actually an enactment of pressures put upon science for this very failing.
What makes this so appalling is that the people affected by this disorder are usually incapable of representing themselves. It's tantamount to torture.
I have a friend who spent 12 months in a psychiatric institute and they didn't recognize he was autistic. Why? Because there was no pressure to do so. I don't think science has enough cogency to ensue it's own rigmarole. That's my stance.
12 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIn case you haven't already noticed, many of your statements in that post are at least partly gobbledygook and indecipherable.
In Bohr's words, "We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down"1.
"A traditional view of language in science is that it plays a passive role, that it is simply the vehicle whereby meaning and information are conveyed from one speaker to another."
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/lang.htm
The 't think science has enough cogency to ensue it's own rigmarole. That's my stance.
As for for the case of your autistic friend, you should take that up with the incompetent/uncaring psychiatrists and NOT with science in general which has nothing to do with peoples incompetence or peoples lack of care. Was he finally diagnosed with autism by a psychiatrist/somebody with understanding of autism thanks to science studying this mental condition?
Real science is never to blame for peoples incompetence or lack of compassion.
12 Jul 12
@TheQu1ck
Why the hell do you keep personifying science? It's not a friggin being. Science is a method thats it and thats all. Substitute saying "science" with "scientists" or "scientific community" and you have an argument but science isn't capable of any of the things you are ascribing it.
12 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232I don't think I could have said that much better myself although I would replace “...and you have an argument ...” with “...and you might have an argument ...”
@TheQu1ck
Why the hell do you keep personifying science? It's not a friggin being. Science is a method thats it and thats all. Substitute saying "science" with "scientists" or "scientific community" and you have an argument but science isn't capable of any of the things you are ascribing it.
12 Jul 12
Originally posted by humyOK, my attack on science isn't going to go very far. Even an idiot like me knows that. So I would like, instead, to switch to linguistics. I'm not changing tack, just supplementing it a little....
In case you haven't already noticed, many of your statements in that post are at least partly gobbledygook and indecipherable.
As for for the case of your autistic friend, you should take that up with the incompetent/uncaring psychiatrists and NOT with science in general which has nothing to do with peoples incompetence or peoples lack of care. Was he final ...[text shortened]... ntal condition?
Real science is never to blame for peoples incompetence or lack of compassion.
12 Jul 12
18 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232Darn it! No, that's 'wrong'. It's not enough. Eventually the use of a method without a self-interest will prove to be catastrophically inane. What is wrong with personifying science?
@TheQu1ck
Why the hell do you keep personifying science? It's not a friggin being. Science is a method thats it and thats all. Substitute saying "science" with "scientists" or "scientific community" and you have an argument but science isn't capable of any of the things you are ascribing it.
12 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckBasically, you are saying change the scientific method so that it is inherently good? But that isn't possible. The scientific method isn't something that you can change, it just is. It is an ideaology that wasn't really created, it evolved over time because it is the most logical method for discovering facts. Maybe it was first in use in the Greeks or maybe in the nation of Islam, who cares? The scientific method is just the evolution of the thought process behind discovering facts and evaluating hypotheses.
Darn it! No, that's 'wrong'. It's not enough. Eventually the use of a method without a self-interest will prove to be catastrophically inane. What is wrong with personifying science?
12 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Darn it! No, that's 'wrong'. It's not enough. Eventually the use of a method without a self-interest will prove to be catastrophically inane. What is wrong with personifying science?
Eventually the use of a method without a self-interest will prove to be catastrophically inane.
what do you mean by “use of a method without a self-interest”? Are you saying the “method” is without a self-interest or its “use” is without a self-interest? Can you give a specific example of what you would mean by a “use of a method WITH a self-interest” and how that “self-interest” would prevent it from being proved “to be catastrophically inane”?
What is wrong with personifying science?
What is wrong with personifying science is that it is logically flawed to do so because science is not a person nor a thing with human/animal characteristics nor something conscious but is just a method.
13 Jul 12
Originally posted by tomtom232No, I'm saying that the scientific method needs to incorporate 'reprehensibility'.
Basically, you are saying change the scientific method so that it is inherently good? But that isn't possible. The scientific method isn't something that you can change, it just is. It is an ideaology that wasn't really created, it evolved over time because it is the most logical method for discovering facts. Maybe it was first in use in the Greeks or mayb ...[text shortened]... just the evolution of the thought process behind discovering facts and evaluating hypotheses.
13 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIndeed, however psychiatry is experimental, but then so is conceptual art. Is it a
No, I'm saying that the scientific method needs to incorporate 'reprehensibility'.
science, i would say its more jiggery-pokery, for the idea is, at its very basic level,
that mental illness, is caused by aberration at some point in the mind, through
chemical imbalance and thus what the psychiatrist tries to do with the use of therapies,
is to redress the balance. In many instances it simply cannot cure the patient, merely
to arrest the symptoms. Is it a science, I would say, like chess, its neither a strict
science nor purely an art form, but relies upon both observation and interpretation. The
problem is that the mind is so incredibly complex and what works for one person may
have little effect on another.