A Systems View Of Science and Rationality

[Rilles]

The system has a sensor that quickly senses when something is wrong, the system calls the wrong pseudo-science.

When the system adheres to rationality it is in homeostasis, it is intact and healthy.

There are agents within the system, we could call them hardcore followers of science, alot of them become debunkers.

This is how the system keeps out irrationality.

 

How the system keeps itself alive.

Rational -> That which confirms rational bias/schemata -> keeps homeostasis -> an irrational intruder (pseudo-science) -> doesnt conform bias/schemata -> the system goes to attack or makes itself distinct (We are not that) -> The system is kept intact

The system is also strengthened by distinguishing itself. 

 

Its an adaptive system.

To keep itself alive it needs to keep being science and rationality.

If it changes too fast and too much it loses its core identity.

 

The only way for the system to evolve is to add new components by exploring non-science and so it slowly but very subtly does 

otherwise its quickly a dodo bird. And heres the dilemma:

Ultra-rational and closed = extinction

Rational but a little open = continued evolution

Balance is delicately held.

 

 

 

Sorry if its a bit messy or wrong lol, Im very new to systems thinking. 

[Raphael]

3 minutes ago, Rilles said:

And heres the dilemma:

Ultra-rational and closed = extinction

Rational but a little open = continued evolution

Balance is delicately held.

Thanks, this is awesome ?

[Rilles]

37 minutes ago, Raphael said:

Thanks, this is awesome ?

Cheers!

[Preety_India]

You do understand that pseudoscience is pseudoscience though and what you're saying is another bunch of pseudoscience. 

 

[Rilles]

8 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

You do understand that pseudoscience is pseudoscience though and what you're saying is another bunch of pseudoscience. 

 

I never claimed this is scientific? This is just a quick contemplation. Neither have I claimed science is bad for doing this, Its just what it does, any scientist would agree that they are defenders of rationality. Try to see more meta.

 

Unless youre making a meta-joke.

[Preety_India]

Just now, Rilles said:

Try to see more meta.

It's you who is stuck outside of Meta. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

 

2 hours ago, Preety_India said:

You do understand that pseudoscience is pseudoscience though and what you're saying is another bunch of pseudoscience. 

Say hello to my little friend: Paul Feyerabend (and his "epistemological anarchism"). He is a legendary philosopher of science who makes convincing arguments for why there is no such thing as pseudoscience:

Quote

To support his position that methodological rules generally do not contribute to scientific success, Feyerabend provides counterexamples to the claim that (good) science operates according to a certain fixed method. He took some examples of episodes in science that are generally regarded as indisputable instances of progress (e.g. the Copernican revolution), and argued that these episodes violated all common prescriptive rules of science. Moreover, he claimed that applying such rules in these historical situations would actually have prevented scientific revolution.[6]

Quote

According to Feyerabend, new theories came to be accepted not because of their accord with scientific method, but because their supporters made use of any trick – rational, rhetorical or ribald – in order to advance their cause. Without a fixed ideology, or the introduction of religious tendencies, the only approach which does not inhibit progress (using whichever definition one sees fit) is "anything goes": "'anything goes' is not a 'principle' I hold... but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history." (Feyerabend, 1975).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

Edited April 18, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Preety_India]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Say hello to my little friend: Paul Feyerabend (and his "epistemological anarchism"). He is a legendary philosopher of science who makes convincing arguments for why there is no such thing as pseudoscience:

Pseudoscience exists and is bogus and is used to manipulate people. It's hogwash. 

 

[Rilles]

24 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Pseudoscience exists and is bogus and is used to manipulate people. It's hogwash. 

 

What do you consider pseudoscience?

[Preety_India]

12 minutes ago, Rilles said:

What do you consider pseudoscience?

And what do you consider as pseudoscience? 

 

[Rilles]

Just now, Preety_India said:

And what do you consider as pseudoscience? 

 

If youre gonna play games I'm out. 

[Roy]

Great post @Rilles! Understanding systems is a great skill to have. It brings conversation and solutions to the next level without getting lost in semantic details.

Ignore preety she's being a little odd.

1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

Pseudoscience exists and is bogus and is used to manipulate people. It's hogwash. 

No, people manipulate other people by using pseudoscience, not the other way around. The pseudoscience isn't sitting there like a malicious entity. It depends how it's interpreted and used.

Plenty of pseudoscience is very useful (a lot of it can be garbage too of course). It's only "pseudoscience" up until the time the cultural zeitgeist of science considers it tolerable, and begins exploring and developing it until the point it becomes considered "real" science. If it's truly bogus it gets discarded.

Much of personal development, spirituality techniques, psychology, and psychedelics are considered pseudoscience right now. However we're starting to see a shift in our modern culture where you're no longer consider a wacko for practicing or advertising it.

Galileo was killed by the church for brining up the possibility that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe but in fact revolved around the Sun like other planets. What he was saying was considered "pseudoscience" and he died for it. Eventually it turned out he was right.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Roy

[Preety_India]

4 minutes ago, Roy said:

Much of personal development, spirituality techniques, psychology, and psychedelics are considered pseudoscience right now

Umm. That's not pseudoscience in my mind. 

I was talking about the garbage pseudoscience. 

For example - if someone said that rocks can breathe. That type of pseudoscience. 

Why should spirituality be considered pseudoscience? That would be the stupidest thing. 

Who does that? I'm not sure if it is that way 

 

[Preety_India]

@Rilles OK sorry. Sorry for misunderstanding your post. I completely misread your post, If you see my post above, you will know why. 

When I was made to understand what was considered pseudoscience, your post made sense. 

Well my definition of pseudoscience is on the extreme level. Like far out there. 

I made a similar post in my journal a while ago. 

Here there is a paradox and a dichotomy that one needs to pay attention to.. 

You cannot be overly emotional because it will impact your health and this is certain. At the same time, you cannot be un-emotional because emotions are important markers for understanding deeper meaning and deeper things in life. They help us explore. So you have to gamble a bit here. 

Being objective and scientific is great but comes at the cost of diverting from emotions. 

Here there is a dichotomy between a poet and a scientist. 

You cannot be either completely and avoid the other. 

You have to be a scientist and understand things objectively and use objectivity for your basic survival (1st layer of the pyramid) yet you also have to be a poet to override survival and make sense of everything for a better survival (2nd layer of the pyramid dealing more with meaning of life than survival) 

Steps are in this order (as Leo says) 

^ survive (physical survival) 

^ transcend survival.... Scientific 

^ understand life purpose /meaning. Solve chaos. Bring order. Poetic 

^ incorporate and integrate both survival and meaning/purpose. (intuitive survival - survival plus direction ). Poetic + scientific.. Going back to basics after going higher. 

 

[Roy]

7 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Why should spirituality be considered pseudoscience? That would be the stupidest thing. 

Anything that makes claims about reality automatically subjugates itself to scientific scrutiny, that's the aim of science to figure out reality (in it's way). While spirituality is ridiculously broad and decentralized there are definitely a lot of crazy claims from people within it practicing their own versions.

Astral projection, superhuman abilities, rocks being able to breathe lmao 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Roy

[Preety_India]

5 minutes ago, Roy said:

superhuman abilities

People do have superhuman abilities though. Leo talks about that. 

For example I've psychic abilities. (I know light bulb immediately goes to laughter emoji ) 

Now the question of rocks being able to breathe. That's definitely pseudoscience. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Now the question of rocks being able to breathe. That's definitely pseudoscience. 

Seems like you're just using as a derogatory term.

[Preety_India]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Seems like you're just using as a derogatory term.

In a way yes 

 

[Carl-Richard]

48 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

In a way yes 

There is a formal definition of pseudoscience according to philosophy of science. You have something called "the demarcation criterion" which is used to define what science is and what it isn't (pseudoscience). The term pseudoscience is primarily used to refer to subjects that fall outside the demarcation criterion and that somehow competes with or challenges something that falls inside that criterion. Feyerabend's point was that the demarcation criterion is meaningless because 1. it has always been subject to change and 2. no scientists actually follow the criterion, especially not the revolutionary ones (like mentioned earlier about the Copernican revolution).

For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the neopositivist movement in Vienna established the verificationist doctrine as their demarcation criterion. Karl Popper (Feyerabend's academic advisor) criticized the limits of verificationism and established falsificationism as the new criterion, which is where most scientists are at currently. Feyerabend then criticized falsificationism and discarded the demarcation criterion entirely, and people like Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram, who can be considered modern revolutionary theorists within physics, have expressed an affinity for this view.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Epikur]

2 hours ago, Roy said:

Great post @Rilles! Understanding systems is a great skill to have. It brings conversation and solutions to the next level without getting lost in semantic details.

Ignore preety she's being a little odd.

No, people manipulate other people by using pseudoscience, not the other way around. The pseudoscience isn't sitting there like a malicious entity. It depends how it's interpreted and used.

Plenty of pseudoscience is very useful (a lot of it can be garbage too of course). It's only "pseudoscience" up until the time the cultural zeitgeist of science considers it tolerable, and begins exploring and developing it until the point it becomes considered "real" science. If it's truly bogus it gets discarded.

Much of personal development, spirituality techniques, psychology, and psychedelics are considered pseudoscience right now. However we're starting to see a shift in our modern culture where you're no longer consider a wacko for practicing or advertising it.

Galileo was killed by the church for brining up the possibility that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe but in fact revolved around the Sun like other planets. What he was saying was considered "pseudoscience" and he died for it. Eventually it turned out he was right.

Giordano Bruno was killed not Galileo.