zurew

Yes, you want a goal and then a norm or a set of norms attached to it (that can help you with measuring your progression or digression) and then with respect to your selected norm certain actions and perspectives will score lower than others. I am not sure though that relativists are commited to the idea that given a goal oriented norm all ideas/actions/perspectives will score the exact same. I thought they rejected the idea that there is some kind of metaphysically true norm that we should abide by independent of our goals.

Would be interesting to check who is completely unfamiliar with the model but still think and live according to tier 2 patterns (whatever that is) This would rule out mimicking with a good chance. Cause yeah, especially in this environment, where that behavior is highly rewarded by most users - it makes sense to mimick it if you want to earn social credit from certain people.

No i havent . I was going with what you provided. You were crticizing the system partly because you claimed that they provide trash results and then you claimed that your approach generated good result - By appealing to results you basically appeal to empirical evidence (information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation). So there can be a talk about what constitutes better evidence. And there can a be a seperate talk about how you can gain knowledge/evidence without experimentation , but in both cases eventually you will have to appeal to results (empirical evidence) Sure it would be convenient for you to claim that the main reason those things are not included is because of profit - they might be or they might not hit their epistemic standard or we can conjure up other reasons. But again this goes back to my example of determining mind state by counting insects - doing more shit or taking into account more shit doesn't necessarily mean that your approach is automatically better. As long as you have no clear way to weigh the things on your list , your talk will be empty, doctors have many ways to weigh things for instance evidence hierarchy. The way you show their closed mindedness is by taking their own epistemic framework and showing that some of the methods that they reject , given their standards shouldnt be rejected and they should be taken seriously. Thats how you change paradigms - you appeal to some meta norms and then given those norms you demonstrate that your stuff scores very well or you establish why the currently existing and used meta norms are trash and you intoduce new ones (but all of the things you listed seem to be compatible with the current ones and they can all be scored using the evidence hierarchy) but its very unlikely that you can pull that off, given that you dont have anything even remotely flashed out. Running your n=1 is not gonna be persuasive and if you want to argue that it should be then again we can apply that same standard to anything else where people coming up with a random causal explanation should be immediately taken seriously. First step for you would be to drop the arrogance bullshit and acknowledge that there is room for error. The very fact that you dont even consider the possibility that you could be wrong shows that you are not serious about any of this, you are just bitter because doctors couldnt solve your issue and now you are running a campaign against them. Some of your valid criticisms become invisible , because you pretend to know more than what you actually know and you make a bunch of claims about doctors that you cant substantiate when pushed on it , the only thing you can do is to appeal to your personal experience which is not nothing but its extremely limited and your biases will distort a lot.

Nope, what I am asking for is beyond science, you cant solve this level of disagreement with just an experiment - we are talking about philosophy of science (that I assumed people here gave a fuck about, especially people who wants to criticize the scientific community). What we are talking more specifically is justification and establishing different epistemic norms to judge things by. Without establishing what kind of norms are reasonable to judge things by in this context, we end up in this fucking mess where its unclear what kind of metanorms your are using to establish that your approach is better than for instance the scientific community's approach. Without clarifying this, my random norm of 'if I count 100 insects on the street that will mean yes' will have no less weight than you asking your girlfriend whether she wants to be your wife , and she says yes. What kind of metanorms can you appeal to, to showcase that you asking your girlfriend makes much more sense to gain information about her mental state than me counting insects on the street? Or should I combine the two norms to be more holistic and give some weight to the insect one? WIthout you answering that question, we can apply the same thing to hypothesis - what does it mean to have a better hypothesis? What kind of variables do you check to differentiate between multiple hypothesis? Without having a clear idea about that , you will appeal to vague words and random norms and you saying buzzwords like holistic and it will sound profound to some people here ,but it very quickly falls apart, because you havent thought about it deeply enough. And this is just one issue, the other issue is your unsubstantiated claims when you paint with a broad brush the whole scientific community based on your personal experience. Btw do you know whats one answer to the parsing question? You can narrow down the set by appealing to studies and evidence within those studies to strengthen parts of your hypothesis, but that would be an issue for you, because earlier you had a long session about doctors being memorizing and appeal to authority monkeys. You can also appeal to scientific knowledge without needing to reinvent the wheel from scratch - but again that will go against your requirement where doctors need to question everything and independently need to verify everything. Another way to narrow down the set is by repeating the same approach over and over again under different circumstances and with different time delays with different people and trying it on a lot of people (you know conducting studies that you dismissed, because thats biased) Me asking you and giving you the opportunity to map out your epistemology where you can showcase your norms and show us why your approach is actually better and explain to us unconscious normies what we are missing is unfair (after you making yourself an authority on this topic by claiming to be the best on earth) and I am asking for too much, but you demanding doctors to play 20 different roles, and to be experts in 20 different fields and to know philosophy of science and to run experiments and to also do research and to also treat patients is realistic and a fair standard.

How is that the only "real" variable in the circumstance? There are so many other possibilities there, its just that your intuition randomly came up with "air quality" as an answer and you took at as if that would be the only possibility there.

@integral Most of your problems that you listed can be explained by other things. So for example, when it comes to your phrasing of "dismissing your lived experience" - there is a difference between you reporting your experience vs you coming up with your own hypothesis and strongly insisting on that you are right. In once case, you report facts in the other you give an explanation of the facts. You have strongly insisted multiple times that you are an expert and that you have some special epistemology, but from what you wrote that doesn't seem to be the case. Anyone can use the try-fail approach in a mindless way it doesn't take any intelligence to randomly pick and tweak things - what actually does take intelligence is the ability to pick the right things and to tweak them the right amount so that the problem is solved. "But I solved my own problem" - lets grant that , but what was the justification to pick that particular thing over picking any other random thing ? It was done in a completely random way and it was based on pure luck. "I have a 100 things that I will go over" Why did you pick those 100 things though over any other thing? "Well it was just random". Also what makes you think that you solved the root issue and you didnt just treat the symptoms? You have talked about doctors lacking rigor and granularity - you want rigor ,but you cant answer basic questions like "what makes you think that your hypothesis yielded your results and not something else that you didn't track/measured?" Appealing to the try and fail approach isnt sufficient , because of many things one of which is time delay - lets say you tried 50 different things and after trying the 50th thing your sleep quality improved. How do you know that the 50th thing generated the outcome and not the 1st thing with a longer time delay? You have 0 clue, but again, you have 100% confidence that you are right on this, even though you cant provide any reasoning that would justify your confidence in choosing your hypothesis over any other. So even assuming that you were responsbile for generating the outcome and not something else that you didnt track and was outside of your control - even under that frame there is so many possibilities and so much nuance that you utterly fail to grasp and capture in your "explanation". You need more epistemic norms that can constrain the scope and help with differentiating between all the different hypothesis that are all under your fail-try possibility set. If you tried 50 different things then you have 50! (factorial) number of combinations of hypothesis that you can choose from (the first one generated the result or the second one or both the second and first or just the 50th one or all the 50 were responsible for it etc).

I asked you very clearly what I want from you. Explain what justifies your level of confidence and explain how you came up with your hypothesis .

Do you think that you can solve disagreements about the outcome of experiments and about the validity of a given medical hypothesis without appealing to and without collecting empirical data? Do you think this is philosophy where we can just sit back and argue and solve disagreements with pure argumentation without any need to track and test shit? What do you think , why do we track the outcome? Do you think thats somehow non-empirical or something? Hint: You don't need to ditch the scientific method in order come up with a new special hypothesis.

So you are the best in a field, because you allegedly solved your problem. An interesting way to earn the "best in the field" title, but even aside from that its even more interesting that you can give yourself that title, but hey you are right, who else would be more qualified to give anyone that title (if not you), who has the nickname of the most capable sleep specialist on planet earth You have an n=1, but you are 100% confident that whatever method you used, that method was responsible for solving your problem. Since you are such an advanced and careful and holistic and tier2 thinker , you can surely walk us through your reasoning that establish why you have such a high confidence that the method you used was responsible for solving your problem and you can also walk us through how you came up with your own hypothesis (what kind of things motivated your hypothesis given all the unique variables that surrounded your case and your problem)

I assume you don't have anything like this: So you have an AI generated list of things that you run through when a patient shows up? When you run the 'Small‑N “Self‑Experimentation”' on the patients, how do you do it? Do you randomly tweak things and change things until the patient gets the preferred outcome or you have a very nuanced empirically backed way to do it where you can pinpoint and explain the reasoning behind each tweak and change?

What was the process by which you concluded that you are the most capable in that field? Run us through your process - how you identify issues and how you diagnose and then tell us how that is different from how other sleep specialists do it (because surely you have a large collection of data about how they do it and you dont just assume it) and then explain why your process is better and more reliable. And given your standards, im very sure that its not just about your fancy epistemology, where you can throw around words like "holistic thinking", but your confidence is empirically backed up by a trackrecord of you solving the root issues of many many patients.

Why do you question him, when he is:

what a real doctor should look like - runs experiments, does research, treats patients, has expert level knowledge in 20 different medical fields, good at playing and occupying 20 different roles (psychologist, gym coach, nutritionist , friend etc) , reads all the literature on philosophy of science especially on philosophy of medicine, has to know everything about the occult and non-western medicine , has to validate all experiments and all medical claims alone by himself, cause cant take anything for granted like other unconscious tier 1 guys ( " a monkey could memorize whatever they're told without questioning anything"), meditate 24 hours a day, do yoga 24 hours a day, also of course being enligthened is also a prerequisite. Each doctor should also have at least 200IQ and they should score high on all these metrics (insert your random set of intelligence metrics). If you have all those things checked for you, integral might consider you to be a real doctor.

Your "justification" was to appeal to a set of things that are all fallible or to appeal to things where you just beg the question (let me give meanings to terms in a way, where my ideal conclusion will be analytically entailed and will be true by definition). You cant live up to your own epistemic standard (and even if you could in 1-2 instances), you are not living your life by it and you are obviously using other kind of reasoning methods. Even the very idea that you would appeal to your awakenings is undermined by your own epistemic standard, because how do you know that your memories are correct about it? And even if they are correct, how do you know that the content of your awakenings has anything to do with whats real? Generally speaking what you want can be accomplished by showing a contradiciton, but that has to do with logical possibility and aside from the fact that making such arguments is incredibly difficult (thats why almost no one does it), it entails that there is only one logically possible option - but what if thats not the case? What if there are multiple logically possible options ? Then you are forced to appeal to other norms in order to narrow down the possibility set (if your goal is to choose from the possiblity set) and thats when you lose the certainty that you so much care about and bite the bullet and the limitations of those other norms.

Yeah thats easy as long as you can keep words like "reality" "exists" vague so that they are all up for the reader's interpretation and you don't need to commit to anything specific. By 'here' you mean appealing to your fallible spatial sense and lense? By 'reality' you mean presupposing that there is something other than you and that something exists outside you? By 'exists' you mean having causal power and presupposing that it isn't an illusion?