> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of The Fool > Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 9:20 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs > > > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > > > > On 5/5/06, The Fool wrote: > > On 5/5/06, A person not named The Fool wrote: > > > > > > > I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science can > minimize > > > self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be > falsified. > > > There > > > is no logical problem with arguing that science serves these > purposes, but > > > to argue that only science can do so is just arguing from its own > > > conclusion. > > Their IS no way of knowing things without the scientific process. > You're just arguing religion again. > > > > > > > There's nothing particularly scientific about many of the means I > > > personally > > > use to minimize self-deception. Of course, I could just be kidding > myself > > > about that. > > Why do I get the feeling most of those 'means' are related to religion?
I didn't write that, Nick did. I think mixing up Nick's post and mine will inevitably result is a combination with internal contradictions, because Nick and I differ on some points. > > > > > > I think the mistake is to *compare* the value of intuition and > scientific > > > thinking, rather than holding up some sort of Spock-like detachment > and > > > objectivity as an ideal. Spock is fiction. > The claim I'll make about intuition is that sometimes a portion of the > large amount of background processing that your brain does might slip > through the filter your mind uses, but it is hardly a rational, > reasoned, and scientific process. Nick wrote the text you are responding to here, also. As I think you could tell from reading my post, I don't separate scientific thinking and intuitive thinking. With all due respect, I don't think you have a feel for the scientific process. That's pretty common. Textbooks usually organize things after they've already been worked out. They rarely give a feel for the actual process. >And also based much more around hardwired instinctual responces that may >not be very good. If they aren't good....then it's hard to be creative. Some people don't have very good intuitions...and their guesses are often wrong. Others do have good intuitions. It's also a matter of being able to see patterns and pick up clues. > > I've followed this thread for a bit, and I find that I organize > things ub a > > manner that is significantly different from what I see here. In > particular, > > I think the discussion of intuitive vs. scientific thinking misses > how > > science actually works. > > > > Intuition is an important part of science. Great scientists, such as > > Feynman, had overwhelming intuitive ability. Feynman is legendary > for his > > rough guesses being validated by experiments 10-20 years later. > But Feynmans intuition isn't being discussed here. I thought intuition itself was being discussed. >What's being discussed is Jung's psuedo-scientific model of 'intuition' >(on which the MBTI bullsh!t is based around). Since human thought is in the gray area, I don't see the problem with using non-scientific means of understanding. We have a scientific understanding of the charm found in some quarks. We do not have a scientific understanding of the natural charm of certain people. We have explanations, and we tend to categorize as part of our explanations. So, talking about introverts and extroverts, for example, is not meaningless...even though it is not as precise a scale as, say, electromagnetic potential. > > > > You've merely trained your brain to do work that you used to do > consciously to being done sub consciously. How do you know what I do so much better than I do? How are you sure that when I leap from A to J, that I am actually, subconsciously doing steps B, C, D...etc? If that's what I was doing, wouldn't it be much easier to do the steps. The process of coming up with a creative solution is not linear. I realize that contradicts a mechanistic understanding of human thought, but that understanding isn't science...it is metaphysics. > > The distinction that I see is between linear thinking and disjunctive > > thinking. The former goes is a systematic fashion from A to B to C. > The > > latter tends to jump from A to J, without stopping at B, C, or D. > > No, you only think it is skipping B, C and D. Again, how do you know my mind so well? > Calculus wouldn't work if the underling arthimetic and algebra didn't > also work. Calculus wasn't formally proven long after it was shown to fit experimental data quite well. Neither Newton nor Leibniz had a rigorous proof of the validity of calculus. > > I accutually would argue that is completely false. Altuistic > punishment was selected for in humans for a reason. Pretty much > everything people claim as 'moral' is based around the selection of > some attribute. Right, like it is moral to rape the women after conquest because it is evolutionarily favored...or it is moral to let people with genetic defects die because they are just a burden on the gene pool. > You just want to argue religion again tho. There is a decent consensus among scientists as to the purpose and nature of science. I'll give two examples from this list. Rich and I have significantly different metaphysical viewpoints, but we have very strong agreement on the nature and the purpose of science. Second, in this very thread, Charlie has noted his agreement with me. Charlie and I differ on a number of topics, as he noted, but we are in fairly good agreement here. I would offer this as evidence that this viewpoint is not dependant on one being religious, since it is held by non-theists on this list. > No Empirical basis would be more correct. There aren't differences along these lines between people? > > For example, when I took it, it > > seemed right on several divisions, but it had me down as feeling on > > feeling/thinking. My family thought that was a hoot. > > That's exactly how charlatanism works. Getting people to laugh at them when they are wrong? > The manipulator knows that his mark will be inclined to try to make > sense out of whatever he is told, no matter how farfetched or > improbable. > > He also knows that for every several claims he makes about you that you > reject as being inaccurate, he will make one that meets with your > approval; and he knows that you are likely to remember the hits he > makes and forget the misses. Ah, that's not how those tests work when I've taken them. We had them administered and read for free....I took the results with a grain of salt, thinking that the best value in them was in asking those sorts of questions about oneself. Getting people to ask questions about what they like to do is not inherently selling snake oil. > The fact of the matter is you can take any of the descriptions of the > 16 'types' and change them around and still get the person taking the > test to believe that description 'matches' them. It would be interesting to see a real study, but I'd guess that there would be correlations between the results for friends filling in the test about someone and someone filling in their own blanks. I know that I took a spiritual gifts inventory, and there was extremely strong correlation between the results from my part of the test and that of my friends. This was fairly common in the group. Out of, say, 15 different categories, the friend's score may be ordered C, F, A.... and the self score might be ordered F, C, A, but the correlation was not random. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
