The Psychology Thread, I Guess...

I think their ideas on epistemology etc are confused because they don't like/read/recommend-to-young-people philosophy (as NDT and LK have openly professed many times).

I think you don't actually know what their ideas on epistemology actually are, your refusal to answer my question three times now makes that pretty obvious.

Edited January 10, 2017 by caze

  On 1/10/2017 at 10:41 PM, caze said:

I think you don't actually know what their ideas on epistemology actually are, your refusal to answer my question three times now makes that pretty obvious.

They are Naive Realists and Logical Positivists, bro. Read my original post on this shit. They think the world is transparent and reality just pours into your fucking brain, unscathed.

 

P.S.

"Refusal" to answer my question?

Keep that whack aggro hyperbole shit off the court, homeslizzle.

Interesting read on scientists and philosophy:

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7936

 

Caze, my offer to walk through NDT's Nerdist comments, line by line, still stands. And together we can figure out what he means when he says philosophy is "useless", "distracting," and a potential "hindrance" to scientific progress.

  On 1/11/2017 at 2:58 AM, LimpyLoo said:

They are Naive Realists and Logical Positivists, bro. Read my original post on this shit. They think the world is transparent and reality just pours into your fucking brain, unscathed.

P.S.

"Refusal" to answer my question?

Keep that whack aggro hyperbole shit off the court, homeslizzle.

 

 

No they're not (certainly not Dawkins and Krauss anyway, not sure how deeply NDT has thought about this stuff - but that exchange on the podcast doesn't suggest to me he holds naive realist or logical positivist views). Again, you don't understand what they believe. Read that pdf I linked a few posts back and you might have a better handle on this.

 

I wasn't being aggressive, you were simply repeatedly ignoring the only relevant point.

 

  Quote

 

Caze, my offer to walk through NDT's Nerdist comments, line by line, still stands. And together we can figure out what he means when he says philosophy is "useless", "distracting," and a potential "hindrance" to scientific progress. 

 

It's useless from the point of view of a working scientist, and the progress of science as a whole (in its primary role of generating knowledge about the world). Philosophy is free to speculate around the fringes (ontological questions), and probably never answer anything ever. It also has a role in analysing the history of science and how it progresses, Popper was great, and Kuhn has merit as well as long as you ignore his more silly conclusions (many of those that came after are less great, Feyerabend for example). There are topics currently outside the realms of science where lots of philosophers are doing good work, often drawing on the work of scientists in the process, figuring out just what kind of questions scientists in the future should be trying to find the answers to, that's obviously fine too, I don't see any scientists objecting to these people doing their work (most of current science owes it's existence to this kind of philosophy being done in the past, and the people you deride are well aware of this). It's all great fun if nothing else, but not really relevant to the work of getting shit done in science. 

 

There's also plenty of scope for philosophers and others to discuss the ethics related to various aspects of science, but claims of Scientism relate to epistemology not ethics (or more accurately mistaking certain scientists epistemological positions with more broader views they don't actually hold), and again, discussions on ethics needn't overly concern working scientists either (it's more relevant to regulatory bodies, funding bodies, governments, science administrators).

 

It wouldn't hurt for all scientists to be broadly aware of all this stuff (and I'm sure most are, at a minimum, many are very well read), but it doesn't really, and shouldn't, affect their day to day concerns.

 

To bring it back to this topic of this thread, obviously you seem to come from a more science based angle on this, but a lot of psychology is filled with wholly unscientific theories (Freud, Jung, Lacan, etc). And there's a lot of philosophy related to that non-scientific view of the human mind and it's pathologies, that's also the kind of philosophy that scientists working in psychology should feel free to ignore and disrespect if they so wish.

  Quote

But a lot of psychology is filled with wholly unscientific theories (Freud, Jung, Lacan, etc)

As I've been trying to say for 7 pages now: there are other forms of insight/knowledge than scientific* knowledge.

 

 

*as defined today

Edited January 11, 2017 by LimpyLoo

Just out of curiosity, you do know what Amos Tversky said about the need for data in psychology right?

  On 1/11/2017 at 6:59 PM, chenGOD said:

Just out of curiosity, you do know what Amos Tvertsky said about the need for data in psychology right?

Just to be clear: I am not anti-science.

 

 

Of course data is good. Of course!

 

...but maybe...MAYBE you can't interpret data without good underlying assumptions (because data doesn't tell you how to interpret it)...

 

and MAYBE (e.g.) our control studies are only as good as our prior understanding of *which* of the innumerable variables in any situation might possibly affect the outcome (and thus require controlling)...

 

and MAYBE we've become so attached to our axioms that we defend them against any and all poking and prodding...

 

 

 

Chen, You probably understand this stuff better than me, but I think this is a decent example of how far the scientism rot has spread:

 

Once upon a time, there was a village. Whenever someone died in this village, they'd get buried, but not very deep. And so on (say) hot days the smell of corpses would waft through the village and give people a predictably bad time.

 

Well, soon enough this susceptibility/sensitivity to 'bad times' was given a name, so people could talk about it, and it was given the name Ch'i (or Qi).

 

Well, western scientists like to debunk things whether they understand them or not, so they took out their tape-measures and measured all the atoms they deemed relevant and determined that there was no evidence for the existence of Ch'i.

 

To quote Wikipedia:

  Quote

Despite widespread belief in the reality of qi, it is a non-scientific, unverifiable concept.

Well, forgive me if I find that both ignorant and arrogant.

 

Cheers

Edited January 11, 2017 by LimpyLoo

Ach...some scientists argue String-theory is unscientific because there are no experiments at this point in time denying/affirming it's predictions. Perhaps this is equivalent to a Qi-theory. Who knows. String-theorists can do valuable work and produce verifiable results sometime in the future. If Qi-theorists can deliver those as well, all is fair. Until then, the Qi-people just have a lot of work to do.

 

If you present a theory about how something works, at least make some objectively verifiable predictions. If there's some kind of causality involved, there should be some experiment to prove it, right? That's neither arrogant nor ignorant to expect, I'd argue. Without verifiable proof, it's just a theory. No big deal. Qi-theory. String-theory. It's all fun.

 

It would become arrogant or ignorant if theories are simply dismissed without any particular reason other than: no experimental results, imo. If there are experiments possibly debunking Qi-theory, that's another story. But at that point, the argument should be about research methodology, for instance (wrong assumptions? faulty data? wrong analytical approach? etcetcetc). That's science...right?

  On 1/11/2017 at 8:27 PM, goDel said:

Ach...some scientists argue String-theory is unscientific because there are no experiments at this point in time denying/affirming it's predictions. Perhaps this is equivalent to a Qi-theory. Who knows. String-theorists can do valuable work and produce verifiable results sometime in the future. If Qi-theorists can deliver those as well, all is fair. Until then, the Qi-people just have a lot of work to do.

 

If you present a theory about how something works, at least make some objectively verifiable predictions. If there's some kind of causality involved, there should be some experiment to prove it, right? That's neither arrogant nor ignorant to expect, I'd argue. Without verifiable proof, it's just a theory. No big deal. Qi-theory. String-theory. It's all fun.

 

It would become arrogant or ignorant if theories are simply dismissed without any particular reason other than: no experimental results, imo. If there are experiments possibly debunking Qi-theory, that's another story. But at that point, the argument should be about research methodology, for instance (wrong assumptions? faulty data? wrong analytical approach? etcetcetc). That's science...right?

An experiment to test Qi would be trivially easy. (But of course, if you don't know what you're trying to measure, your measurement error will be ~100%)

 

Here's a working definition of Qi:

 

That aspect of your experience that degrades when you (e.g.) smell a week-old corpse.

 

Okay, so how could we possibly measure that?

It's truly a mystery, truly unverifiable. "Which atoms would we measure to even figure that out?!?"

 

It's a scientific mystery. (Or 'pseudo-science' even)

Edited January 11, 2017 by LimpyLoo

Would have made an attempt to reply if I didn't have my weekly lizzardpeople conference call in a minute. Todays topic will be: "Prometheus the sequel, and how to influence peoples opinion on todays world". It's gonna be a blast! :D

how can I have more sex dreams1

  On 1/12/2017 at 12:26 AM, usagi said:

how can I have more sex dreams1

 

practice lucid dreaming, and hold off from fapping

  On 1/11/2017 at 7:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/11/2017 at 6:59 PM, chenGOD said:

Just out of curiosity, you do know what Amos Tversky said about the need for data in psychology right?

Just to be clear: I am not anti-science.

 

 

Of course data is good. Of course!

 

...but maybe...MAYBE you can't interpret data without good underlying assumptions (because data doesn't tell you how to interpret it)...

 

and MAYBE (e.g.) our control studies are only as good as our prior understanding of *which* of the innumerable variables in any situation might possibly affect the outcome (and thus require controlling)...

 

and MAYBE we've become so attached to our axioms that we defend them against any and all poking and prodding...

 

 

 

Chen, You probably understand this stuff better than me, but I think this is a decent example of how far the scientism rot has spread:

 

Once upon a time, there was a village. Whenever someone died in this village, they'd get buried, but not very deep. And so on (say) hot days the smell of corpses would waft through the village and give people a predictably bad time.

 

Well, soon enough this susceptibility/sensitivity to 'bad times' was given a name, so people could talk about it, and it was given the name Ch'i (or Qi).

 

Well, western scientists like to debunk things whether they understand them or not, so they took out their tape-measures and measured all the atoms they deemed relevant and determined that there was no evidence for the existence of Ch'i.

 

To quote Wikipedia:

  Quote

Despite widespread belief in the reality of qi, it is a non-scientific, unverifiable concept.

Well, forgive me if I find that both ignorant and arrogant.

 

Cheers

 

 

Ok, so you know that he said "psychology without data is just...philosophy". The problem of course, as Tversky and Kahneman showed repeatedly, is that people use their underlying assumptions far too much, and so their decision making is skewed.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at with your hypothetical origin of qi (just to be clear, there is not only a single reference for how the term "Qi" came to be defined - even Mozi (to whom the corpse story is attributed) had differing definitions of qi ).

 

I would agree that qi is non-scientific or unverifiable. But so what?

  On 1/12/2017 at 12:30 AM, ghOsty said:

 

  On 1/12/2017 at 12:26 AM, usagi said:

how can I have more sex dreams1

 

practice lucid dreaming, and hold off from fapping

 

thank

  On 1/11/2017 at 9:30 PM, goDel said:

Would have made an attempt to reply if I didn't have my weekly lizzardpeople conference call in a minute. Todays topic will be: "Prometheus the sequel, and how to influence peoples opinion on todays world". It's gonna be a blast! :D

 

Oh, so it's gonna be like that...

 

How about this: feel free to provide specific examples of where you disagree with me, and we can take it from there.

  On 1/12/2017 at 12:36 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/11/2017 at 7:59 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/11/2017 at 6:59 PM, chenGOD said:

Just out of curiosity, you do know what Amos Tversky said about the need for data in psychology right?

Just to be clear: I am not anti-science.

 

 

Of course data is good. Of course!

 

...but maybe...MAYBE you can't interpret data without good underlying assumptions (because data doesn't tell you how to interpret it)...

 

and MAYBE (e.g.) our control studies are only as good as our prior understanding of *which* of the innumerable variables in any situation might possibly affect the outcome (and thus require controlling)...

 

and MAYBE we've become so attached to our axioms that we defend them against any and all poking and prodding...

 

 

 

Chen, You probably understand this stuff better than me, but I think this is a decent example of how far the scientism rot has spread:

 

Once upon a time, there was a village. Whenever someone died in this village, they'd get buried, but not very deep. And so on (say) hot days the smell of corpses would waft through the village and give people a predictably bad time.

 

Well, soon enough this susceptibility/sensitivity to 'bad times' was given a name, so people could talk about it, and it was given the name Ch'i (or Qi).

 

Well, western scientists like to debunk things whether they understand them or not, so they took out their tape-measures and measured all the atoms they deemed relevant and determined that there was no evidence for the existence of Ch'i.

 

To quote Wikipedia:

  Quote

Despite widespread belief in the reality of qi, it is a non-scientific, unverifiable concept.

Well, forgive me if I find that both ignorant and arrogant.

 

Cheers

Ok, so you know that he said "psychology without data is just...philosophy". The problem of course, as Tversky and Kahneman showed repeatedly, is that people use their underlying assumptions far too much, and so their decision making is skewed.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at with your hypothetical origin of qi (just to be clear, there is not only a single reference for how the term "Qi" came to be defined - even Mozi (to whom the corpse story is attributed) had differing definitions of qi ).

 

I would agree that qi is non-scientific or unverifiable. But so what?

IMO it's neither non-scientific nor unverifiable. But the whole point of the story is that science doesn't always know what it's doing. When I was in high school meditation was still basically pseudo-science and the food pyramid was the path to health. And there was no doubt about any of it.

 

Maybe we should check our axioms once in awhile, just in case.

I'd be willing to bet that when you were in high school, nutritionists had long debunked the food pyramid (which was a terrible implementation, highly influenced by lobbyists), but politicians had votes to win and money to earn.

 

I would have thought it quite obvious science doesn't know what it's doing all the time, that's why they do experiments - to test hypotheses.

 

Look, obviously NDT and Dawkins care a great deal about promoting science - it's their moneymaker. And they see it as the road for human progress. And human progress, in measurable terms, that's a pretty easy win for science over philosophy. And sure some of things they say about philosophy are rash, but NDT himself said in a different Q+A: "Up until early 20th century philosophers had material contributions to make to the physical sciences."

 

And that shows what he's concerned about - the material progress of science. I don't think he's dismissing philosophy as a whole, just philosophy in terms of its material contributions to science, which as I've pointed out, in measurable terms, is not easy to define. Now, is it a little shortsighted on his part - arguably, yes, as philosophy has an important role to play in things like the ethics of AI, decision making in autonomous vehicles, etc. But to say that NDT and the like are causing great harm to philosophy - well, all you have to do is google "Neil Degrasse Tyson nerdist philosophy" to find some pretty vigorous and well reasoned defenses of philosophy.

 

and yes, checking one's axioms from time to time is good.

 

p.s. Dawkins is still an abhorrent idiot of a man.

  On 1/12/2017 at 2:30 AM, chenGOD said:

but NDT himself said in a different Q+A: "Up until early 20th century philosophers had material contributions to make to the physical sciences."

 

 

There was a time when philosophy had a branch that made material contributions. It was called "natural philosophy" (today called "science").

 

Today, when someone does 'natural philosophy,' it is immediately, almost-by-definition categorized as 'science,' not 'philosophy'.

 

(NDT should check out Wittgenstein on how categories deform our thinking about the underlying world)

I'll give you a perfect example of what I consider 'scientism':

 

Psychiatry is famously resistant to absorbing good ideas that were arbitrarily deemed (by someone else) as part of the Anti-Psychiatry movement. There's a thread on r/psychiatry right now with people railing against sensible ideas that were historically deemed "anti-psychiatry."

 

(Oh and of course linguistic categories warp our *political* thinking, too: categorize, find your category tribe, and protect it against invaders)

And so Caze: I'm not particularly worried about psychoanalysis (etc) being deemed (by you or anyone else) as "un-scientific."

 

Ideas in the world reach you pre-package, by someone else, into a category (in fact, that's a pre-requisite for them reaching you in the first place!). So we shouldn't take those categories at their face.

 

Language is an evolutionary data-compression-algorithm, for practical purposes of communicating, so we should always be looking *beyond* it, towards what it's *purporting* to describe.

Edited January 12, 2017 by LimpyLoo

Btw, since I'm sitting here ranting at 6am, here's the heuristic I follow when I encounter language:

 

Whenever I see something presented to me as a binary category (e.g. Psychiatry/Anti-psychiatry), I *immediately* assume that's a 1-bit downsampling of a 32-bit reality. So I try to imagine what that 32-bit reality might be, and try to orient myself towards that.

(e.g.)

Science/Philosophy

Science/Religion

Clinical/Non-Clinical

Left/Right

(Etc Etc take your pick)

Edited January 12, 2017 by LimpyLoo

(or perhaps linguistic categories are a 1-bit downsampling of an underlying 'analog' world)

Btw 2: Electric Boogaloo

 

Here's a heuristic I use for determining how to act in the world:

 

Step One: Maximize the amount of oxygen getting to your brain and that of others

Step Two: Is there a problem? See Step One.