zurew

what do you mean by "deconstructing and reconfiguration of the theoretical aspects of science"? Do you mean something like focusing hardcore on empirically verifying everything(each claim separately) and toning down certain parts of science ,where you almost only use logic to reach a conclusion? Do you have any specific change in mind that could change this? Im not asking in terms of social or political stucture change; Im asking specifically how could a random scientist implement and integrate things in to their work so that the 'siloing of research' becomes a non-existent problem or at the very least becomes a lot better than it is now? Sure. As I have suggested before, imo one root problem when it comes to social sciences is that a lot of data is not reliable - mostly you have to to ask questions to people and gather information that way ( so there is a lot information reduction by them trying to introspect and them trying to narrate their 1st person pov/experience/feelings to you) Do you have any specific epistemology or any other idea that could improve the collection of and the quality of data in social sciences?

Leo(I cannot tag you) let me clear up some things,because we agree on things you might think we don't agree on (the reason for that might be that you misread somethings or might be because I phrased myself badly or might be the combination of the two). Lets start with this: every criticism that I wrote should be evaluated in the context of science and not in the context of spirituality. So things we agree on: 1) Any method could be used to generate insights: I am not opposed to this at all, my criticism was specifically targeting insights that cannot be falsified or verified from third person pov. In fact, if you or anyone can build a method that can generate a fuckload amount of insights that could be validated or falsified from third person pov - I am all for it and I would be interested to hear about it, especially if you have some fine-tuned method optimized for generating insight specifically for science . Again , we agree. My criticism was specifically targeting insights that cannot be falsified or verified from third person pov. 2) You can use verficiation and falsification as well: I didn't say that you can't/shouldn't use verification, I was making a specific critique about instances where its impossible to falsify things from third person pov . Making the criticism that 'its bad science if your epistemic method make it impossible to falsify things from third person pov' is different from saying that 'you should only do falsification'. 3) We can broaden the definition of doing science: We agree on this as well. So Im totally okay for example with calling 'snorting 5meo to generate insights that could be verified or falsified from third person pov' doing science, and of course you can replace snorting 5meo with any method , I don't really care in the sense , that Im not attached to any kind of method. The goal here is to do the method or the collection of methods/practices that are the best for generating insight for science. John Vervaeke has some good things to say on this topic. He argued in the context of wisdom, but his argument can be applied more broadly than that. He said that (im going to use your words) doing consciousness work can break the seemingly fixed structure / box that you think in and not just that, but doing consciousness work will make certain things and certain connections between things more salient that you weren't able to see before. More specificially there are practices that can help you with breaking up your salience network (things that are salient to you) and there are other practices that can help you with reorganizing your salience network so that you can actually see things and connections between things that you haven't seen before in a reorganized way. I paraphrased a lof of things about Vervaeke's work there - he has a lot better way of conveying it and explaining it and he has a specific model and that model is very good at succinctly conveying this concept. 4) Most scientist are closed minded and the current way of thinking about whats and whats not possible is too limited in the field science: If that was the main point that you wanted to demonstrate (when you argued for a different metaphysics), then sure I can agree and could see how adopting a different kind of metaphysics could potentially be helpful with opening up the scope that scientists will dare to think in and opening up the scope, that they will dare to explore. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So after clearing up what we actually meant about things , I could only think of one last thing that we disagree on: that I would separate science from spirituality and you wouldn't. I would argue that science should be uphold to a different standard than spiritual work(so the verification and falsification and demonstration of facts should be done from third person pov ), because in my view science is more about how the world works and less about what the world is. Opposite to that spiritual and philosophical work is more about exploring the nature of things and seeing the biggest picture possible. I wouldn't limit spirituality and philosophy to the same epistemic standard as what I limit science to. The reason for that is because they are aiming for different things. Now that being said, Im not suggesting at all, that there isn't any set of things that could be both attached to science and spirituality (for example both try to explore whats true) , but still main thing im suggesting here is that the separation between the two is useful. Science is more about being practical and exploring what works. Philosophy and spirituality is more about going as abstract as possible and exploring the nature and limitations of things.

Leo , I appreciate the lengthy and thoughtful response. What you are describing there with the snorting of 5meO DMT is about doing spirituality, but you are not describing doing science. Science (as I understand it) either relies on falsifying things in the relative world (third person pov) or using logic to arrive at conclusions that may or may not be empirically falsified in the future . If your claims / insights can only be falsified and grounded in a 1st person pov, then I think there will very serious epistemic problems or limitations with your way of doing your discovery. (If your claims can be falsified in the relative world [from third person pov] , or can be arrived at by logic, then you can ignore my list below ,because that criticism is not applicable in that case) 1)We cannot directly access your 1st person experience: We cannot directly access the contents of your mind. So when it comes to your discovery, I can't do anything with it and I cannot really falsify it. You would say here : nonono - you can dummy - just follow my methods. Yeah sure, but the problem is that at max I can first build some conceptual framework about your insight and then use that as a reference point for later when I gain an insight about something. But obviously, that conceptual image (that I built from your limited explanation of something complex, using limited language and because I will filter it through my biases and my limited understanding) it will be distorted as fuck. So after using your method and maybe gaining an insight; after that I might be able to convince or bullshit myself that my discovery is the exact same as yours, but I have no way of truly knowing whether your and my insights are the same thing or not. 2) Your method is actually unfalsifiable: So I don't want to come off pedantic, but the distinction between verification and falsification is really important here. My understanding is that something is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test or in other words: given your claim, Its not impossible for me to show that the opposite is the case. If there is no way of demonstrating (implying third person pov) that the opposite is the case, then your insight/hypothesis will always stay on the table as a possibly true candidate forever. If you claim thats not the case, then my question would be this: There is person A and person B. Both of them used your method but their conclusions are contradictory. Person A says that x is the case , Person B says that the negation of x is the case. How do you ground this problem in a way, where it can be reliably decided whether person A or Person B is right. 3) Your method is epistemically very unreliable: I have no way of knowing whether you or a person is lying to me or deluded about their insights or not. You could claim that you acquired an insight and then claim forever that "You should try harder" or "you are not following my methods to the tee" or "You should give it more time", but at the end of the day I couldn't not tell whether I am doing something wrong or a person just lied to me about their insight. So from the first criticism directly follows the second one and from the second one directly follows the third one. With what epistemic process can you properly differentiate between those realities? When I say proper - I am saying conceptually distinguishing the layers between those realities. Just for clarity: Conceptual distinguishing doesn't necessarily imply different metaphysics (I can use the same type of blocks to build completely different things), but its a must to make sense of things. So, the solution that you suggests here ( if I didn't misunderstand you) is essentially saying: scientist should use a different kind of reductionist metaphysics ( switching from the idea that 'everything could be reduced to some material thing' to reducing everything to consciousness). My problem with that is , that - that doesn't address the main problems in science, it only blurs the lines between things, but doesn't tell you: How to organize things, How things and in what way are things interconnected Whats the relationship between things How to properly differentiate between things (given you example above "how to differentiate between non-ordinary, non-material realities within consciousness") How to make sense of things How to measure things What things have causal power ..... So the hard scientific questions, that would provide progress are not touched/moved at all. You can only answer one thing "what things are made of or what things are?". You being able to provide an answer to that question is only a philosophical/spiritual progress ( in my view), but not a scientific one. Saying "everything is imaginary/ everything is consciousness" doesn't give you any explanatory power for any scientific problem. For what its worth you could change the word imaginary to any other word and it would make no effect on scientific progress at all. Because now that you reduced reality to that one thing, now you still have essentially the same amount of hard scientific work to do(look at my bullet point list above) as before.

Do you guys know about any high quality philosophy sources? I will list a few from my own list , feel free to provide yours. https://www.youtube.com/@Friction/videos https://www.youtube.com/@MajestyofReason https://www.youtube.com/@KaneB

Thank you ?!

That kind of argument could be used to any field of science and I am skeptical that you would use this reason in all cases. So for example, in the case of vaccines, would you be willing to say you know better which vaccine is bad or good compared to what the consensus says, just because the social gathering is not applied to you? You know this very well , because you have made a ton of different kind of videos on this topic , that your mind is subjected to a lot of distortions and biases as well and if no one holds you accountable then you won't really see whats the issue with your approach/method. Now when it comes to institutions and psychologist they at least have the training and methods to keep each other accountable and to ground their things in stats and in numbers. Now given that you probably don't have any training in psychology (how to contextualize stats and how to make sense of the research on this subject) why do you think that you have an upper hand on what the current research shows, given that you also have your own biases yourself and given that your knowledge about the subject is much more limited compared to the combination of people's knowledge in a given field? Disagree. I would be surprised if you would have the capability to use your consciousness in a way where you would make some breakthrough in a given field, that you are only studying in a layman way (outside of philosophy) . especially because you would have to ground that insight in a tangible way and you would have to connect it to our current knowledge or at the very least you would have to be able to show the path how you get to the conclusion. I would be surprised if you could ground any of your intuitions or insights about a subject anywhere near as rigorously as scientists can. Or worse - if you can't ground your insights in any way, then the next problem is that in those cases we arent talking about critical thinking anymore, we are only talking about big logical jumps or about jumping to and trusting your intuitions. Now you could claim that logic is limited , but abandoning logic means abandoning critical thinking and I don't know if we would want to abandon critical thinking when it comes to science, but if you can make a case for it , go ahead. Grounding is important ,because that is what makes it so that your claim or knowledge can be falsified. You could claim here that the very notion of falsification is limited - and thats fine - but in that case how would you know if the insight that you gathered is true or not (obviously in the context of science - so we are talking about the relative world)? They are not making any metaphysical claim, they are making claims about the 'relative world' as you would say it. How is the knowledge of you knowing that science is imaginary , would be relevant in any way making progress in the "relative world"? Can you give me an example that would demonstrate this?

Yes. Do you think what I wrote is not applicable to this thread or what is the reason for your question?

"wtf, someone is holding me accountable for the gravity of my claims, oh no". You told me that you have read about it, and used that to strengthen your original claim about the subject and now you want to make it look like im asking for too much. - don't make confident positive claims about something you haven't investigated and don't use books or research as a defense for your claim if you are not prepared to show the evidence. It kind of makes it look like you haven't done any research on the subject you just used that point to make it look like your position is more justified compared to others who haven't claimed they are educated on the subject. Ohh so you are aware that you shouldn't have commented on the reasons why Ayham has the kink he has. Kind of a bad move to psychoanalyze and then to judge people from your home with lack of knowledge about their life and with lack of training, huh? Cool you can have this position after you make a confession that your intitial claim was phrased in a way too black and white way.

You can explain most of these things by following the money. The basic idea is that the more engagement your profile get the more money you will earn and there will be more ways to earn money. Starting from that basis - what makes people to engage with your posts more? The answer is to make outrageous claims that will make people angry or simply make misleading claims so that people will have a strong urge to correct you about things. Also if I can make a profile that will cater to a very specific audience (for instance to toxic feminists) then I can create a lot of fights between redpill and feminists under my posts and that will generate a lot of money for me. One of the most effective ways right now is to become a populist (speak in the name of the oppressed people) that way you will be able to gather a large audience that will agree with you and also you will be able to create fights under your posts with the opposite side. Obviously this isn't applicable exclusively to toxic feminism this is also applicable to toxic masculinity and to radical redpill kind of takes as well or to any kind of other populist kind of stuff.

We have already had a convo about this in the past (I don't want to derail Carl's thread into making this whole thread about an epistemology debate) so I will just ask a few questions and I will let you have the last say in this and then we can potentially pick this debate up later in a different thread. 1) Do you think relying purely on your own critical thinking and experience is more reliable in general than the current research on the given subject? So for example would you be willing to take a position like your own evaluation of psychology stuff (using your limited knowledge and given all you biases that you are not aware of) will be much more reliable compared to multiple institutions evaluating the same thing and providing evidence? if your answer is yes, then my next question is how do you know that / how do you evaluate that? Just for clarity sake, notice Im not asking whether they could be corrupt or whether they could be biased or not, Im asking - whether their evaluation is less reliable than yours in general (accounting for bias, incentive and knowledge), so not talking about being wrong a few times, but being consistently more wrong about a given subject compared to you.

@StarStruck Dude its so obvious the rhetoric game that you play here - You can't provide evidence for your initial claim and you feel a strong need to pivot to a different conversation by focusing on me. First provide evidence for you claim or if you can't then tell everyone that you are relying on your intuition. After that I will answer your question, but I won't let you get sneakily out from the responsibility from actually owning a position and providing evidence. Its a redflag that you avoid providing evidence. It might be because you have some repressed trauma that you are not aware of and thats what shaping your inutition and opinion on kinks. Or it might be the case that you yourself actually have a femdom kink and by talking down on @Ayham is your way to cope with it. - see its so easy to psychoanalyze from your armchair and to play these stupid 'red flag' and 'gotcha' games.

Thats wasn't your initial position or at the very least it wasnt the implication of your first claim (where you fished for evidence to confirm your original belief about the subject and seemingly excluded all other possibilities). If your position is that it could be caused by trauma - thats different from saying it is definitely caused by trauma and also different from saying it is caused by trauma in most cases. - which one will you go with? The reason why Im coming after you right now, is because you kind of made a character attack of @Ayham (implying that there is something must be wrong with him) without knowing for sure whether your suspicion is true about him or not. - so there was literally no reason to psychoanalyze the dude and leading him into a 'gotcha'.

I know where my defensiveness comes from. It comes from reading confident and unsubstantiated claims (that are mostly ideologically driven for instance by redpill) without providing any evidence . There is literally nothing more triggering than reading about claims made by smug people who haven't done an ounce of research on the subject - they just claim they did. Maybe you did a good amount of research on this topic , so you can prove it right now. Feel free to provide a definitive evidence for your claim - or if you can't - then drop the claim or tell everyone that you are almost purely relying on your intuitions. --------------- Btw an interesting observation: you have an interesting defense mechanism going for you: If someone disagrees with you about a subject, then your first and initial thought every time is about "it must be because they are affected about the subject" and there is not much room for you to be wrong. Also all of these things can be flipped back on you: "the reason why you so desperately want this to be related to trauma, because you are affected by it and you can't stomach the fact that someone could have such a kink without being related to trauma"

'Can be' is different from saying it must have been caused by trauma. - which was you initial implication. You are really confident and smug when it comes to this issue and try to appeal to the literature, when in reality the research on kinks is very fucking bad and there is a lot more to do and discover.

Yeah its really cringe when people kink-shame people or when people have to trace back every kind of kink that they themselves wouldn't be confident with to some kind of trauma as if they would have any idea whatsoever how kink develops or works. The irony is that the same redpill people who use these talking points to shame guys who have kinks they despise or kinks they wouldn't be confident with, these very same guys will shit on feminists who tell each other that "no no no, what that guy did to you in the past wasn't okay , it was very very bad, regardless of how you lived through that experience" so they sort of trigger a trauma response in their friends and recontextualize their whole history in a way, to trigger an actual trauma response. - the very same dynamic can be seen in this case coming from insecure redpillers.

Whats your take on teaching scientists at least philosophy of science? - Because I think thats very much relevant to the development of their field.

Oh yeah I know about this guy. He is really good at explaining complex ideas in a very comprehensible and easily graspable way. Love his channel.

Sounds like you are quite confident about making positive claims about the story (that you clearly haven't done much research on), without waiting for the end details about his case, while also calling out others for not showing you evidence for their claims. Btw if you would have done research on this you would know, that there is indeed plenty of evidence against him, thats why he was charged with multiple things. Your skepticism regarding him being a pimp is really fascinating, knowing that he had a phd (pimping hoes degree) course on his own website and there are leaked logs from the war room such as: Sounds perfectly like an open invitation to become part of their webcam business right? There is no such thing that would be perfectly applicable to the definition of sex trafficking using the lover-boy method right? This is just about a regular webcam business offer where both party knows beforehand what they are getting into and there are no false premises here, right? Also how convenient that that dude talks about "get our name tattooed on her", because there are multiple women who has a tattoo with a label of "owned by Tate" which doesn't sound anything what a sex trafficking pimp would do at all.

@Bobby_2021 I think there is a slight miscommunication here.I use the term 'belief' the same way people use it in philosophy circles (attitude or stance towards a proposition). This is important because this is different from a knowledge claim. (knowledge is used here as 'justified true belief') For example taking your math example - someone can believe that 2+3 = 10 but thats different from them saying that 2+3 is actually 10. I can believe in things without any proper justification. Well, have you read about the problem of induction?

Yeah and even more specifically semantics. I want to dive into semantics, because its interesting and can be really valuable regardless of what you do. Anything that improves your ability to express yourself or to understand others and the world better is very valuable imo.

Both of those claims are false. 1) You can be agnostic about things even after you "computed" them or in other words, even after you have deeply investigated them - its just happens to be the case , that neither side were more compelling or persuasive from your pov,compared to the other. Or it happens to be the case, that you haven't yet found the answer that would be required to take a position on something - but that doesn't mean,that you are not interested in finding out that truth or answer; it just means you haven't found it yet. 2)This ties back to point 1. Just because you haven't taken a position regarding a proposition ,from that doesn't follow that you don't value finding out the truth value of that proposition.

No. You can be agnostic about things. That just means you haven't formed an opinion on the matter and it doesn't mean the negation of something. In other words it means "I don't have a belief about x". - notice , that this way you don't make any explicit or implicit positive or negative claims about the subject matter , you only make a claim about the current status of that specific belief .

In that case, I will pick your brain for some insights about neuroscience in the future . The dual n-back stuff is interesting. I have seen some claims about it having the potential to improve fluid intelligence. Is that actually true based on your research on the subject?

Thats sounds like someone who is contemplating about quitting doing psychology. Are you contemplating about changing majors? Btw, I know this is worthless to mention(because its almost obvious), but there has to be some good philosophy of science material that at least attempts to address the replication crisis and maybe more specifically the issue, that you've brought up. Thats a very interesting insight into this problem.

Is that your video? edit: nevermind. The reason why I asked is because I misread the subscriber count and thought why would you link a video from a channel that has like 500 subscribers, but now that I checked again, its clear that it has 500K+ subscribers .