Formscapes vs. Professor Dave drama

[yetineti]

It’s silly we need to toss studies back and forth at all. This isn’t about that at all.

The lenses of ‘science is a gun. Science is a weapon. Science is dangerous’ needs to be taken on 100%. This is dangerous for someone who doesn’t already understand science. But, for those who do, it is paramount. Science is a responsibility - and most who practice it just idolize. Criticism or not. I’d find a critque or two, probably even good ones, if I didn’t think much would change and I could keep paying my bills.

But then, again, everything would change and paying the bills could get hard. How could you continue doing science- at all- at least for some time? Assuming I have anything to say here at all.

Edited February 3 by yetineti

[Leo Gura]

On 2/2/2024 at 4:02 PM, Extreme Z7 said:

A better efficient way to gas the Jews, for example, does not lead to a better world.

It does for Nazis.

"Better world" is a relative notion on which no two people agree.

[Extreme Z7]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

It does for Nazis.

"Better world" is a relative notion on which no two people agree.

Dogmatic Postmodernist Bullshit.

But in all seriousness, sure, but it's still an inhumane worldview mostly based on propaganda and falsehoods. Not all worldviews are equivalent.

Edited February 4 by Extreme Z7

[yetineti]

@Extreme Z7 

10 minutes ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Dogmatic Postmodernist Bullshit.

But in all seriousness, sure, but it's still an anti-human worldview mostly based on propaganda and falsehoods. Not all worldviews are equivalent.

It’s not anti-human; it’s anti-Jew.

It’s pro-nazi. Nazis are human.

[Extreme Z7]

34 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@Extreme Z7 

It’s not anti-human; it’s anti-Jew.

It’s pro-nazi. Nazis are human.

My mistake. I've editted it from "anti-human" to "inhumane".

[yetineti]

@Extreme Z7 Subjectively. Subjectively, inhumane. If the nazis thought it to be, they wouldn’t have stomached it.

Edited February 4 by yetineti

[yetineti]

@Extreme Z7 I wouldn’t do it. I don’t even kill spiders. I put them outside.

Edited February 4 by yetineti

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That said, in general, I will agree that psychology is probably more prone to replication issues than medicine. 

String theory has advanced so far that they no longer even need to do studies or experiments. Sorta like religion.

Edited February 4 by Leo Gura

[undeather]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

When you say "well-designed", then of course we're no longer talking about the 50% statistic, but I think a similar thing could be said for psychology and social science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

 

That said, in general, I will agree that psychology is probably more prone to replication issues than medicine. But let's not forget that it can get pretty bad in medicine too :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

The problem is that a lot of well designed psychology-studies don't replicate at all 
But yeah, I totally agree - medicine suffers from the same problems (just to a smaller degree) 

For the really interested - there are good and novel approaches of how to integrate the complex system dynamics of studying "humans" into our reserach methods: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13814

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

String theory has advanced so far that they no longer even need to do studies or experiments. Sorta like religion.

This is one huge problem with theories of everything in physics. They become mathematically abstract to the point of not being testable. The Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation of QM has the same issue. But as Max Planck said - physics advances one funeral at a time. SO I hope that some of the younger and ontologically more open scientists make the jump.

I think Markus Müller is one of those young geniuses. He was interviewed by Bernardo Kastrup some time ago:

 

[yetineti]

@undeather Why ignore me? I understand you are open to criticism. 
 

But you’ve shown zero willing to express its integration.

At one point in this conversation, physics was a ‘hard’ science to you but you’ll so cavalierly also agree how untestable and abused something like ST is? But that’s physics? Isn’t that supposed to be a hard science?

Can you clarify your position and rebut the substance I gave you, that you asked for?

[yetineti]

Would a mod or Leo like to tell me off here? I was told I was ‘fighting windmills,’ however my points were ignored as well.

If I am fighting windmills, I’ll stop and leave.

But it seems although nobody has rebutted me other than facepalming and saying bad science just needs more rigor.

[Leo Gura]

20 hours ago, yetineti said:

It’s silly we need to toss studies back and forth at all. This isn’t about that at all.

The lenses of ‘science is a gun. Science is a weapon. Science is dangerous’ needs to be taken on 100%. This is dangerous for someone who doesn’t already understand science. But, for those who do, it is paramount. Science is a responsibility - and most who practice it just idolize. Criticism or not. I’d find a critque or two, probably even good ones, if I didn’t think much would change and I could keep paying my bills.

But then, again, everything would change and paying the bills could get hard. How could you continue doing science- at all- at least for some time? Assuming I have anything to say here at all.

I don't really care about the dangers of science. I consider science in its purest form as an attempt to understand reality. And then whatever people do with that understanding is a secondary matter.

Part of understanding is understanding that understanding can be misused by unconscious actors. So of course in practice safegrauds need to be placed on stuff like AI, genetic engineering, nuclear tech, etc. The danger is not so much science but engineering paired with a lack of consciousness and development and Tier 1 politics.

Edited February 4 by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

String theory has advanced so far that they no longer even need to do studies or experiments. Sorta like religion.

😂 

[undeather]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't really care about the dangers of science. I consider science in its purest form as an attempt to understand reality. And then whatever people do with that understanding is a secondary matter.

Part of understanding is understanding that understanding can be misused by unconscious actors. So of course in practice safegrauds need to be placed on stuff like AI, genetic engineering, nuclear tech, etc. The danger is not so much science but engineering paired with a lack of consciousness and development and Tier 1 politics.

Why not say it like that from the beginning? There is so much truth in that.
 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, undeather said:

Why not say it like that from the beginning? There is so much truth in that.
 

Cause you didn't ask.

[undeather]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Cause you didn't ask.

Maybe because I was that flabbergasted by your take on scientific rigor, which isn't even in the same issue-domain than scientists being close-minded 
But yeah, fair enough!

Edited February 5 by undeather

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, undeather said:

Maybe because I was that flabbergasted by your take on scientific rigor,

And I am flabbergasted that no scientist understands that all of science is imaginary.

[undeather]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And I am flabbergasted that no scientist understands that all of science is imaginary.

Yeah. I think science as a whole would greatly improve if we incentivise the use of psychodelics & ontogological groundwork for young scientists. There is just something about getting blown wide open, comming down and integrating the experience which humiliates you like nothing else. That said, I think it needs to be balanced out with rigor and not fucking around. A point which is barely discussed in here is how bad a lot of the science released today actually is - integrity is at an all time low. 

 

Edited February 5 by undeather

[Majed]

@Leo Gura obviously because for an ant there's no science 

[Extreme Z7]

6 hours ago, Majed said:

@Leo Gura That said, I think it needs to be balanced out with rigor and not fucking around.

I think you're still missing the point that "science is imaginary" means "rigour is imaginary".

And I don't think scientists come up with bad research because they're just "fucking around". Some scientists release bad research because it actually helps their careers (at least for a while). Integrity is at an all time low because people care more about success than truth (and this isn't unique to science.)

I don't like the way you framed things as "Psychedelic experience needs to be balanced out with Rigour" which implies that psychedelic modes of thinking is the reason why scienctists supposedly are "fucking around" which I know is not what you mean to say.