#empiricism can be difficult!

[tanadrin]

OK, so this post is going to probably look like I’m critcizing @jadagul quite directly, and I am, but only because he is a proximate example of something I find worth commenting on generally. This does not change the fact that I generally like and respect him, and find him pleasant to interact with.

There is a style of political thinking which seems to have an intuition that the law should work like mathematical formalism or computer programming, with a very close and literal relationship between any act of government (an executive action or an act of a legislature) and the constitutional or statutory text which enables that action. That even if the law is a messy and organic human institution, it shouldn’t be, and in ideal circumstances the whole system would be fairly mechanistic, with little room for human discretion. This line of thinking seems to work itself out in ideas like, “OK, discrimination is bad; but so is the government interfering in private actions; so anti-discrimination legislation is bad, too, in a different way.” Or “democracy is important, but part of democracy is free expression; and how you spend your money is a kind of expression, so limits on how you spend your money when it comes to politics is antithetical to democracy.” Or, in the anarcho-capitalist form I most strongly associate this line of thinking with, “OK, people seem to want a lot of freedom, low taxes, and the government not to tell them what to do; so we can (and should) construct a society where the government does very little--ideally nothing at all--and everything that can be is transferred to the private sphere, to be a matter of contract law and civil litigation. Since government power is very little or nonexistent, and all oppression comes from the government, everyone will be very free.”

This isn’t just wrong in the sense that the law is actually an irretrievably messy and organic institution because all human institutions are irretrievably messy and organic and we’re stuck with them; this is wrong because it is good that human institutions are messy and organic, and it would be bad if they were all purely mechanistic. I know this probably seems like a self-evidently silly thing to say if your intuition is toward the mechanistic and formalistic (and believe me, I share that aesthetic preference a lot of the time!) but it really is true. It is simply not possible for a legal system to reduce all potential coordination problems, political disputes, and breaches of social order to a set of general principles, and trying to would result in either monstrously cruel outcomes, like the ancient law codes that just killed everybody who broke them, or total structural collapse, like that town that got taken over by libertarians and then bears (because the libertarians didn’t understand the specific governance needs of the town, like how regular trash collection kept the bears away).

In particular, trying for this kind of metaphysical purity in your legal system often seems to cause people’s aesthetic preferences to short-circuit their moral ones; and because no legal system actually is metaphysically pure in this way, ultimately neither is satisfied. The thinking seems to go, we want a free and equal society without oppression; but government action is frequently oppressive, especially when it interferes with private business, so we don’t want to have anti-discrimination legislation. So what they get is a society without anti-discrimination legislation, that is also markedly unequal, because it turns out that bigotry just doesn’t go away by people saying “bigotry is bad, people shouldn’t do that.” Or, people want democracy; but they also want people to be able to spend their money how they want (that’s key to the liberal part of liberal democracy), so they don’t want to impose limits on spending around political campaigns. As a consequence, wealth inequalities distort politics by making the only viable candidates the ones who appeal to wealthy donors, putting a whole class of policies that poll really well outside the political pale--i.e., a profoundly undemocratic system where very popular legislation stands no chance of getting passed. Or, people want property rights and healthy markets; commensurate with that, they resist any effort to impose limits on those property rights or redistribute wealth. They get, as a result (and often hand-in-hand with the distortions of democracy that stem from the previous example), a system with a lot of rent-seeking and corruption where fair competition is almost impossible and there are a lot of monopolies that are bad for both businesses and consumers, far from the libertarian utopia of their laissez-faire dreams.

This isn’t meant to be a Chestertonian set of counterintuitive gotchas, where I try to argue that the real democracy was monarchy all along or something, just an observation that you have to look at, and argue from, actual outcomes, and not just what is conceptually appealing, even if you want to further quite lofty and abstract political ideals. Much the same way that abolishing your military does not keep you out of conflicts, if it results in you suddenly getting invaded by your neighbor, or abolishing anti-discrimination law would not result in a freer society, if you have a bunch of racists itching to discriminate against the minorities they don’t like.

I remember a post of Scott Alexander’s once expressing confusion at the idea banks would just decide not lend to black people in the midcentury US, because surely they would stand to make more money if they had more customers, and if they had more customers the banks run by non-racists would outcompete the banks run by racists, and I remember thinking, like, come on dude. There is a whole complex social ecology surrounding race and racial discrimination, which is going to drown out any possible weak effect that you are pointing to here. And he simply could not see it because it was not part of the world he knew, and he lacked the imagination to understand it.

Everything the law touches is like this. Law is not actually, nor can it be, a separate domain from politics, or economics, or private business, or religion, or any other aspect of human life. It is a loose category of thing we have drawn a fuzzy border around, like so much else. And because of the complexity inherent in the problems it presents, trying to decide which policies are best without reference to actual outcomes at best makes you prone to a kind of head-in-the-clouds idealism. But much more often, I think it means people support things actually corrosive to the principles they claim to espouse.

#of course some people are hypocrites or engaged in deeply motivated reasoning #so that's not actually a problem #but i think most people have the values they claim to have #and sure #determining actual policy outcomes can be tricky #empiricism can be difficult! #especially in domains where controlled experiments are impossible #but at least be thinking about them

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

It is incredible how many public figures, including our own Leader of the Opposition, have struggled to answer the simple question, “What is a woman?”. Of course, the truth is that they are almost certainly able to answer the question but are afraid to do so lest they unleash the rage of the increasingly aggressive trans-lobby.

I believe that, in a free society, people are entitled to live their lives in the way that they want, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom, safety and rights of others, particularly those younger and more vulnerable than themselves. That, surely, is a position most Conservatives should support. This must be supplemented with a staunch defence of free speech so that the issues can be openly discussed, by those with widely differing views, without the intimidation and aggressive bullying of the anti-family, anti-women extremists.

We should approach the debate around trans rights with rationality, proportion and compassion.

Rationality because facts matter, and the value of a particular view is not determined by the strength by which it is held but by reference to science and empiricism. Proportion because we cannot let the noise of an angry minority mask the fact that we are talking about a very small number of people in the population whose problems need to be addressed but who have no right to enforce views on the majority with which the majority disagrees or disapproves.

And compassion because behind all the political noise, bullying and intimidation, there are genuine individuals in pain and distress who deserve our sympathy and support.

For me, the most worrying element in the entire trans rights debate is the safety and protection of children. A recent report from the think tank Policy Exchange exposed a neglect of safeguarding at the expense of gender identity. It found that only 28 per cent of schools are reliably informing parents as soon as a child discloses feelings of gender distress and at least 19 per cent of schools are not maintaining single sex toilets.

The report also shows that 72 per cent of schools are teaching that people have a gender identity that may be different from their biological sex and 25 per cent are teaching that some people or children “may be born in the wrong body.”

Clearly, teaching unions and other representative groups should give a lot more thought to the difficult, and personally painful, tasks being faced by many teachers and less weight to the pressures coming from activists.

The medical profession should take note, too. The willingness of many clinicians to rush to agreement for surgical and hormonal treatments may reap a wild whirlwind in the future. There is a real danger that ill-thought through surgical interventions, such as double mastectomy or orchidectomy (castration) or complex hormonal treatments (that may be irreversible), will lead to increased human suffering in the long-term.

We must also protect our right to free speech. The way in which extremists in the trans movement have sought to close down debate, including on safe spaces for women, is nothing less than an attempt at brutal censorship, worthy of the most repressive regimes.

That is why all of us, whatever our views on the subject of trans rights itself, must unite in making it abundantly clear that everyone, celebrity or not, is absolutely entitled to their views and to express them freely in a free society without fear of violence or intimidation.

Proportionate, rational and compassionate debate should be our watchwords alongside a resolute defence of young people and freedom of speech. There is too much at stake to stay silent.

-------------------

Dr Liam Fox is a former Defence and International Trade Secretary 

[source]

[goodnightmemes]

BONES SENTENCE STARTERS / s06e09 “THE DOCTOR IN THE PHOTO”

❛ I can't imagine going from being a woman to being a mom. ❜

❛ When [name] was born, everything changed in my life-- everything. ❜

❛ Uh-oh. Looks like someone besides this chicken got murdered. ❜

❛ So what's the story, morning glory? ❜

❛ You're behaving strangely, and I'm asking you why. ❜

❛ When you describe people in generalities, like age and size, it fits a lot of people. ❜

❛ It's not like you, to forget things. ❜

❛ Well, I just wondered why someone of that importance could just disappear... so quietly. ❜

❛ "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." T.S. Eliot. We don't actually fear death; we fear that... that no one will notice our absence; that we will disappear without a trace.

❛ You're in a big hurry. You all right? ❜

❛ I, um... I have a lot of questions, that's all. ❜

❛ Burning the midnight oil? ❜

❛ You awake because you're intellectually invigorated or because you're worried? ❜

❛ For something to be objective, it must be separate from the mind, and nothing is separate from the mind -- ergo, ipso facto, Colombo, Oreo. ❜

❛ Ergo, ipso facto, Colombo, Oreo. ❜

❛ Not all of that was real Latin. ❜

❛ If there's no such thing as objectivity, then there's no such thing as measurement, which means that empiricism is meaningless. ❜

❛ That's very strange. ❜

❛ It's like a voice beyond the grave. ❜

❛ She isn't you. She's her and you're you. ❜

❛ I see, you're illustrating the fact that something can sound like something and not actually be that something. ❜

❛ You're giving me way too much credit. ❜

❛ Some people are very adept at keeping their pain hidden. ❜

❛ I'm sorry, I forgot, I forgot to tell you. ❜

❛ Well, usually when a woman doesn't report an assault, it's a domestic. ❜

❛ It's a myth that a person's intentions and desires can be seen in the eyes. ❜

❛ Stop making crazy eyes at my partner here. ❜

❛ I'm sure you've got a reason for not giving them what they wanted. ❜

❛ Why are you spying on me? ❜

❛ Doesn't anybody know me at all? ❜

❛ I think we know you as much as you'll allow. ❜

❛ What do you see? ❜

❛ What do you want me to see? ❜

❛ She's exactly like me. I mean, look, she is me. ❜

❛ You know, I wish you hadn't gotten [name] to come and talk to me. ❜

❛ Come on, I'm a meddlesome kind of a guy. ❜

❛ It was a rational decision. ❜

❛ It's not like you to pick up something that could be evidence. ❜

❛ People assume that when you are alone, you must be lonely. Like most assumptions, it's erroneous. ❜

❛ You seem distracted. ❜

❛ My biggest regret is not accepting what he offered me. ❜

❛ He asked me to look into his eyes, and... although it's not rational, I believe I perceived pain. ❜

❛ Musing out loud. In the years that we've known each other, I've never heard you do that before. ❜

❛ Tell you what. Don't be mentioning that to anybody else but me, okay? 'Cause they'll think you've gone nuts. ❜

❛ Do you think I've gone nuts? ❜

❛ I don't believe in intuition. ❜

❛ What, you think I took this job for the hours and the health benefits? ❜

❛ It's been a long day. I'm tired. ❜

❛ No. No, he's lying. That's not possible. ❜

❛ I don't like it when you two argue. ❜

❛ Thanks for eavesdropping. ❜

❛ Why are you taking this so personally? ❜

❛ I'm just tired. I, um… I haven't slept in a couple of nights. ❜

❛ If I said something like that, she'd rip my head off. ❜

❛ By the power vested in me by the Jeffersonian Institution, I declare you sleep-deprived.

❛ There's a cab waiting to take you home to bed, hmm? ❜

❛ How come I understand every word you say? Always? I don't have that with anybody else. Sometimes I just hear noise. ❜

❛ Come on, let's get you home. ❜

❛ That kind of mindset can be extremely difficult for someone who deals with death on a daily basis. ❜

❛ Over and over again, I've proven to you that I'm good at what I do. So, please, explain to me how it is rational in any way for you to disregard what I say? ❜

❛ So now I'm the one behaving irrationally? So that I can feel something? ❜

❛ You're not alone in this world. ❜

❛ I'd have been good for her. She should have given me a chance. Should have given us the chance. ❜

❛ Well, that's the whole problem with being an empiricist, right? Eventually, you run out of things to measure and smell and count. ❜

❛ There is such a thing as actual truth. ❜

❛ It seems to me you can't trust a brain that can't make up its mind about something as basic as which way is up. ❜

❛ There's no such thing as objectivity. We're all just interpreting signals from the universe and trying to make sense of them. ❜

❛ Following you to a bad part of town and saving your life. You know, the usual. ❜

❛ I'm not her. We're not the same person at all. ❜

❛ I can't prove any of this. But do you still believe me? ❜

❛ Maybe you just need a couple days off. ❜

❛ I'm all right now. Except I...I made a mistake. ❜

❛ Everybody has regrets. ❜

❛ I don't want to have any regrets. ❜

❛ I'm with someone. She's not a consolation prize. I love her. ❜

❛ You know, the last thing I want to do is hurt you, but those are the facts. ❜

❛ I understand. I missed my chance. ❜

❛ My whole world turned upside down. I can adjust. ❜

❛ Do you want me to, uh, to call someone to be with you, or...? ❜

❛ I'm fine alone. ❜

❛ I listened to the universe. I felt something. I'm sad. ❜

❛ That's so much better than dead. Or even dead inside. ❜

❛ I got my own story. Just like you. Just like everybody. I got my own sad story. ❜

❛ Three days. Three days for the world to turn right side up again. ❜

#rp meme #sentence starters #rp sentence meme #sentence meme #rp prompt #inbox meme #roleplay meme #roleplay prompts #sentence starter meme #rp memes #rp prompts #*tv #*bones #i recently rewatched this ep and cried #its one of the best eps of the show imo

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Eliezer Yudkowsky

Published: Jul 30, 2007

Carl Sagan once told a parable of someone who comes to us and claims: “There is a dragon in my garage.” Fascinating! We reply that we wish to see this dragon—let us set out at once for the garage! “But wait,” the claimant says to us, “it is an invisible dragon.”

Now as Sagan points out, this doesn’t make the hypothesis unfalsifiable. Perhaps we go to the claimant’s garage, and although we see no dragon, we hear heavy breathing from no visible source; footprints mysteriously appear on the ground; and instruments show that something in the garage is consuming oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide.

But now suppose that we say to the claimant, “Okay, we’ll visit the garage and see if we can hear heavy breathing,” and the claimant quickly says no, it’s an inaudible dragon. We propose to measure carbon dioxide in the air, and the claimant says the dragon does not breathe. We propose to toss a bag of flour into the air to see if it outlines an invisible dragon, and the claimant immediately says, “The dragon is permeable to flour.”

Carl Sagan used this parable to illustrate the classic moral that poor hypotheses need to do fast footwork to avoid falsification. But I tell this parable to make a different point: The claimant must have an accurate model of the situation somewhere in their mind, because they can anticipate, in advance, exactly which experimental results they’ll need to excuse.

Some philosophers have been much confused by such scenarios, asking, “Does the claimant really believe there’s a dragon present, or not?” As if the human brain only had enough disk space to represent one belief at a time! Real minds are more tangled than that. There are different types of belief; not all beliefs are direct anticipations. The claimant clearly does not anticipate seeing anything unusual upon opening the garage door. Otherwise they wouldn’t make advance excuses. It may also be that the claimant’s pool of propositional beliefs contains the free-floating statement There is a dragon in my garage. It may seem, to a rationalist, that these two beliefs should collide and conflict even though they are of different types. Yet it is a physical fact that you can write “The sky is green!” next to a picture of a blue sky without the paper bursting into flames.

The rationalist virtue of empiricism is supposed to prevent us from making this class of mistake. We’re supposed to constantly ask our beliefs which experiences they predict, make them pay rent in anticipation. But the dragon-claimant’s problem runs deeper, and cannot be cured with such simple advice. It’s not exactly difficult to connect belief in a dragon to anticipated experience of the garage. If you believe there’s a dragon in your garage, then you can expect to open up the door and see a dragon. If you don’t see a dragon, then that means there’s no dragon in your garage. This is pretty straightforward. You can even try it with your own garage.

No, this invisibility business is a symptom of something much worse.

Depending on how your childhood went, you may remember a time period when you first began to doubt Santa Claus’s existence, but you still believed that you were supposed to believe in Santa Claus, so you tried to deny the doubts. As Daniel Dennett observes, where it is difficult to believe a thing, it is often much easier to believe that you ought to believe it. What does it mean to believe that the Ultimate Cosmic Sky is both perfectly blue and perfectly green? The statement is confusing; it’s not even clear what it would mean to believe it—what exactly would be believed, if you believed. You can much more easily believe that it is proper, that it is good and virtuous and beneficial, to believe that the Ultimate Cosmic Sky is both perfectly blue and perfectly green. Dennett calls this “belief in belief.”1

And here things become complicated, as human minds are wont to do—I think even Dennett oversimplifies how this psychology works in practice. For one thing, if you believe in belief, you cannot admit to yourself that you merely believe in belief. What’s virtuous is to believe, not to believe in believing; and so if you only believe in belief, instead of believing, you are not virtuous. Nobody will admit to themselves, “I don’t believe the Ultimate Cosmic Sky is blue and green, but I believe I ought to believe it”—not unless they are unusually capable of acknowledging their own lack of virtue. People don’t believe in belief in belief, they just believe in belief.

(Those who find this confusing may find it helpful to study mathematical logic, which trains one to make very sharp distinctions between the proposition P, a proof of P, and a proof that P is provable. There are similarly sharp distinctions between P, wanting P, believing P, wanting to believe P, and believing that you believe P.)

There are different kinds of belief in belief. You may believe in belief explicitly; you may recite in your deliberate stream of consciousness the verbal sentence “It is virtuous to believe that the Ultimate Cosmic Sky is perfectly blue and perfectly green.” (While also believing that you believe this, unless you are unusually capable of acknowledging your own lack of virtue.) But there are also less explicit forms of belief in belief. Maybe the dragon-claimant fears the public ridicule that they imagine will result if they publicly confess they were wrong.2 Maybe the dragon-claimant flinches away from the prospect of admitting to themselves that there is no dragon, because it conflicts with their self-image as the glorious discoverer of the dragon, who saw in their garage what all others had failed to see.

If all our thoughts were deliberate verbal sentences like philosophers manipulate, the human mind would be a great deal easier for humans to understand. Fleeting mental images, unspoken flinches, desires acted upon without acknowledgement—these account for as much of ourselves as words.

While I disagree with Dennett on some details and complications, I still think that Dennett’s notion of belief in belief is the key insight necessary to understand the dragon-claimant. But we need a wider concept of belief, not limited to verbal sentences. “Belief” should include unspoken anticipation-controllers. “Belief in belief” should include unspoken cognitive-behavior-guiders. It is not psychologically realistic to say, “The dragon-claimant does not believe there is a dragon in their garage; they believe it is beneficial to believe there is a dragon in their garage.” But it is realistic to say the dragon-claimant anticipates as if there is no dragon in their garage, and makes excuses as if they believed in the belief.

You can possess an ordinary mental picture of your garage, with no dragons in it, which correctly predicts your experiences on opening the door, and never once think the verbal phrase There is no dragon in my garage. I even bet it’s happened to you—that when you open your garage door or bedroom door or whatever, and expect to see no dragons, no such verbal phrase runs through your mind.

And to flinch away from giving up your belief in the dragon—or flinch away from giving up your self-image as a person who believes in the dragon—it is not necessary to explicitly think I want to believe there’s a dragon in my garage. It is only necessary to flinch away from the prospect of admitting you don’t believe.

If someone believes in their belief in the dragon, and also believes in the dragon, the problem is much less severe. They will be willing to stick their neck out on experimental predictions, and perhaps even agree to give up the belief if the experimental prediction is wrong.3 But when someone makes up excuses in advance, it would seem to require that belief and belief in belief have become unsynchronized.

-

1 Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Penguin, 2006).

2 Although, in fact, a rationalist would congratulate them, and others are more likely to ridicule the claimant if they go on claiming theres a dragon in their garage.

3 Although belief in belief can still interfere with this, if the belief itself is not absolutely confident.

#Eliezer Yudkowsky #Carl Sagan #belief in belief #religion #invisible dragon #evidence #burden of proof #religion is a mental illness

[henryrodhamkissinger]

this evenings Hegel explainer

Hegel begins Phenomenology with a serious quandary. not a metaphysical one, not mysticism, but one having to do with science. It is science (understood broadly as the enterprise of understanding that has to do with empirical facts about the world) that is the concern, and to address it, Hegel logically paints himself into a corner to demonstrate rhetorically why we need to completely overhaul the way that we think about our minds’ relation to the stuff in the world, or else risk coming out with nonsense and bullshit.

He starts with cognition. Cognition we can think of as an instrument, or a medium. An active tool or a passive means of apprehending stuff. In critiquing the former view, he is critiquing empiricism, a la Locke etc, in the latter, he is critiquing Kant. Why do neither work? The instrument affects what it is used to observe, so we cannot logically say that we can get reliable epistemic Facts about the World from the cognition Instrument if the World isn’t as it actually is, prior to the instrument use. As for the medium, it’s essentially the same basic principle: by self evident logical necessity, we can only get the World *as it appears through the filter, however minimal, of some medium* if cognition is a medium.

So we cannot simply observe, and from observation, Know. Think of it this way. Im Gonna use emojis bc it is logically confusing to use conventional language, you’ll see why. Ok so you 👀: 🟡. What can you possibly Know, what justified true beliefs, what facts about the world, what things you can express or talk about, can you get from Just That? It’s another story however if 🟡 is already “yellow” to you. But you don’t get “yellow” from eyes —> 🟡. 🟡 isn’t anything, it isn’t any Thing, until it has become something, and it becomes something through a process, of the development of thought, and that development is “mediated,” by social things, by the comprehension of language so that something that is an inert Blank can become “determinate,” or, a Thing with a name and with features and attributes that one can identify as such.

Hence, thought as development, becoming, as mediated, as “impure.” Hence dialectics: the explanatory device Hegel uses to show how it can only be through errors in thinking that we can get to Understanding, to the ability to actually Know Things about the world. He refers to the “Absolute,” which is What is There, in total, for us, in other words, we get to the Absolute when we can live in the world without blind spots, when we can navigate it, so the absolute both is a telos or a final goal and also always something that we are getting at, but not quite. It is a system, because the absolute always comes out of the interconnected facts and concepts etc that form the network of what we know and what allows us thereby to move through the world reliably and replicably, without having to, for example, re-learn what the bus stop is every time I need to take the bus. Hegel is very rational and very very elegantly systematic and deeply concerned with truth, he is not the caricature of some mystic obsessed with the pure Spirit moving by itself like a haunted Ouija board towards the pure Essence. Spirit is a term of art in Hegel that scholars disagree about, but in essence, it describes the process of becoming (developing understanding, which also means developing self, since the self is a Thing like any other).

There’s more to it, and the language gets more and more complex and difficult because, as you might be able to tell, the development of understanding, the emergence in our minds of different ideas and different truths, becomes more and more difficult. So admittedly Hegel reverts to some very esoteric sounding terms, because he is describing thought, he is narrating it, and there isn’t a language for that in itself. But it is coherent because the esoteric sounding terms of art are used consistently, and by reading the text, you come to grasp his language—just like by reading the world, through different modalities and processes, you come to grasp the World. His method mirrors the substance of his basic idea, and how could it not? If he were to distance himself from it, and sever the two, he would be stipulating facts, stipulating truths, which implies that one can simply do such a thing without contradicting the whole premise that truth can’t come to us in an Immediate form!

#hegel #Hegel for skeptics #understanding Hegel #phenomenology of spirit

[37q]

thinking about how like communism rly kickstarted the "enemy within our walls" thing or at least brought it into public policy and mainstream discourse. combatting people aligned w an ideology rather than borders was and is difficult for a state, an entity that only functions of empiricism (and in fact determines the boundaries of it). and so heightened social policing became more commonplace which when analyzing for ideological alignment is going to politicize basic behaviors n cognitive perceptions of the world which may be ultimately unknowable to anyone but the subject and so ppl become paranoid that anyone could be the enemy but you can only know if you read minds or surveil them. like is anyone genuinely confused abt why theres so much violence within american borders? because for like a century now weve been trained to keep an eye out for hidden enemies bahahaha were politically insane at this point

[compofworksbybailey]

The Confounding Nature of Philosophy

Introduction:

Philosophy, often hailed as the pursuit of wisdom and the exploration of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and reality, has earned a reputation for being a perplexing and bewildering discipline. While it offers profound insights and engages the mind in critical thinking, the very nature of philosophy can be confusing for both novices and seasoned thinkers. This essay explores the inherent complexities that make philosophy a perplexing field, examining its abstract concepts, diverse perspectives, and elusive answers.

Abstract Concepts:

One of the primary reasons philosophy is confusing lies in its penchant for abstract concepts. Philosophers often grapple with ideas that transcend the tangible and concrete, making it challenging for individuals to grasp the essence of their arguments. Concepts like existentialism, ontology, or solipsism may seem elusive and enigmatic, leaving many struggling to discern their practical implications. The use of intricate terminology and the construction of complex arguments contribute to the confusion, creating a barrier for those attempting to navigate the philosophical landscape.

Diverse Perspectives:

Philosophy is not a monolithic field but rather a tapestry woven with diverse perspectives. Different schools of thought, such as empiricism, rationalism, existentialism, and utilitarianism, present conflicting viewpoints on fundamental questions. The sheer variety of perspectives can overwhelm individuals, making it difficult to discern a single, definitive answer to philosophical inquiries. The absence of consensus in philosophy contributes to the confusion, as one is confronted with a multitude of interpretations and contrasting theories without a clear roadmap for resolution.

Elusive Answers:

Unlike many other disciplines that strive for empirical evidence and concrete conclusions, philosophy often revels in ambiguity and the absence of definitive answers. Questions about the meaning of life, the nature of reality, and the existence of free will remain perennially unanswered, leaving individuals in a state of perpetual uncertainty. The absence of clear resolutions can be disorienting and confusing, as individuals seek stability and certainty in their quest for understanding. The elusive nature of philosophical answers fosters a sense of confusion, as individuals grapple with the absence of concrete resolutions to profound questions.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the confusing nature of philosophy stems from its abstract concepts, diverse perspectives, and elusive answers. While philosophy offers a rich and rewarding intellectual journey, its inherent complexities can pose challenges for those attempting to navigate its intricate terrain. Despite the confusion, the pursuit of wisdom and the exploration of fundamental questions remain integral to the human experience, compelling individuals to engage with the perplexing world of philosophy in their quest for understanding.

[lapinaraoflimbo]

going to do a bit of a character outline to help me gather my thoughts on Steph. It will probably be incoherent.

Initially inspired by one of my bloodborne characters named "Kpop Steph". Kpop steph was my bloodtinge character, wearing a mixture between the Doll set and the Cainhurst set. She had blue hair and wore red goggles

Also took heavy inspiration from the Modest Mouse song "Styrofoam Boots" The specific lyrics and verse go "well some guy comes in looking a bit like everyone I've ever seen / He moves just like crisco disco breathing a hundred percent listerine / he says lookin at something else but directing everyone to me / "Anytime anyone gets on their knees to pray well it makes my telephone ring- and you were right / No one's running this whole thing" / He said "god takes care of himself and you of you"

The dialogue from the song happens in heaven, it's meant to come from Jesus christ. Crisco disco is the name of a famous gay club. Listerine is a reference to the act of drinking listerine for its alchohol content when you can't aquire or can't afford actual alchohol.

In many ways this idea of "athiest jesus" is the most central and important aspect of the entire world of BABBAL. The idea of jesus going to heaven, realizing that it's all true but losing faith in god anyways. To know that god is real and to deny him anyways.

BABBAL is a science fiction story that is intended to be heavily critical of science and the institutions that arose because of science.

BABBAL is also intended to be full of trans allegories, with many characters fully rejecting their humanity and place in wider society to get what they personally feel is right for them.

These two themes would ideally intersect heavily- expressing and discussing the way that science is often at odds with revolutionary ideas like gender abolition even when being against them is unscientific.

Steph is the oldest human in the wound- and the only character in the story who seems to be completely unaffected by warp.

While steph is eccentric and seems to barely be holding on to any semblance of sanity this is not due to warp. He was like this before. There's no reason for it. He's just weird.

Steph is meant to be the connecting lens between the hard science fiction of the greater universe and the eldritch fantasy-horror of the corpse.

Steph has complicated relationships with the rulers of the wound but none of them hate him except for Xanadu. He's generally the one who helps resolves conflicts. He is bad at resolving conflicts, but he's better than any of the other rulers.

Xanadu hates steph because he sees in steph someone that has overcome their human nature. Xanadu- despite his appearance and claims- is still human.

Steph is a scientist. It is how he describes himself when asked to describe himself. He takes great pride in being a scientist and adores science for what it is.

Because of his love for science, Steph despises institutions that call themself scientific without being "scientific enough" in his eyes. He believes that science should only be applied to find objective truth of the world and everything else is a mockery of true science.

He values non-scientific empiricism as a way to gather knowledge that can eventually lead to scientific theories and hypothesis. He does not consider simply gathering information to be scientific in nature.

Because of his belief in a heavily limited application of science he values folk wisdom and folk wisdom heavily. He believes that it's more accurate to rely on folk wisdom in cases where science is not a perfect fit.

steph is seen as a christ figure throughout much of the universe for his original discovery of the existence of reincarnation. proper reincarnation and memory-recreation was considered to be the basis of "modern science" in the setting. (futuristic science from our perspective)

the nature of warp means that scientific experiments are difficult or impossible to replicate. Personal wants and beliefs can influence outcomes, and the only way to come to understand warp and the corpse is to personally experience it for yourself. There is no collective scientific knowledge that can be drawn on.

[leonalfari]

In the current digital era, intellectual battles often occur on various social media platforms. One of the debates that attracts attention is between Denny JA, a public figure who is famous for his controversial views, with a scientific battle with philosophy. In this article, we will explore more deeply about this intellectual war, see how Denny JA involves in scientific battles with philosophy, and trying to conclude who the winner of this debate is.

The intellectual battle between Denny JA and philosophy cannot be ignored. Denny Ja is an academic who has long been involved in the world of intellectual and political. He has written many books and articles that discuss various social and political issues in Indonesia. However, his views often become controversial and become a public concern. One issue that is often the center of debate is his views on philosophy. In his debate with philosophy, Denny Ja often uses a scientific approach. He tried to analyze the arguments proposed by philosophers and seek empirical evidence that could support or oppose the argument. This scientific approach is one of the reasons why Denny Ja is often considered a controversial figure, because of his views that are often contrary to the mainstream views. However, the intellectual war between Denny and philosophy also has an interesting side. Philosophy is a scientific discipline that involves critical thinking and in -depth reflection on various problems of life and human existence. Philosophy tries to answer fundamental questions about the meaning of life, the purpose of life, and how we relate to the world around us. Thus, philosophy has an important role in shaping the way we understand the world and our lives. In his debate with philosophy, Denny Ja often criticizes the views he considers not to have a strong foundation. He tried to question the arguments proposed by the philosophers and look for the gaps of logic in the argument. In many cases, Denny Ja succeeded in showing weaknesses in these arguments and proposed an alternative point of view that was more logical and empirical. However, the intellectual war between Denny and philosophy also has certain limits. Philosophy is not just about logical arguments and empirical evidence. Philosophy also involves thinking about values, ethics, and morality. In many cases, Denny Ja seems to pay less attention to these aspects and is more focused on scientific analysis that is often objective and does not consider complex social and cultural contexts. In the face of intellectual warfare with philosophy, Denny Ja must pay attention to these boundaries and develop a more holistic and multidisciplinary approach. He must understand that philosophy is not only about logic and empiricism, but also about values and ethics. Denny Ja must also consider a more contextual approach, taking into account the social and cultural differences that exist in society. Ending this intellectual war with a clear and definitive conclusion is difficult. Denny Ja and Philosophy Both have strong and weak arguments. However, what we can conclude is that this intellectual war is an important debate and needs to be developed. By dealing with ideological conflicts and differences of opinion in a scientific and rational way, we can achieve a better understanding of the world around us. In peeling the intellectual war between Denny Ja and a scientific battle with philosophy, we can see that this is not an easy fight. However, with the right approach and considering existing limits, we can gain a better understanding of complex social and political issues. Denny Ja and each philosophy have an important role in shaping the way we think and understand the world. By continuing to develop this debate, we can achieve a deeper understanding of relevant issues for our society.

Check more: Peeling Intellectual War: Denny JA and Ilimiah Fighting with Philosophy

[meikaserlya]

Intellectual Debate: Denny Ja against the World of Philosophy

Intellectual debate is a form of discussion that involves arguments and critical thinking between individuals who have knowledge and expertise in certain fields. One of the debates that attracts attention in the intellectual world is the debate between Denny JA, a famous public figure in Indonesia, with the world of philosophy. In this debate, Denny JA showed his critical attitude towards the world of philosophy and assumed that philosophy had no significant value in human life. Denny JA argues that philosophy only produces abstract thoughts that cannot be practically applied in everyday life. However, Denny Ja's argument is not entirely true. Philosophy, although it seems abstract, has an important role in understanding the existence of humans and the surrounding world. Philosophy helps humans in formulating fundamental questions about the purpose of life, truth, and morality. Through philosophy, humans can develop a broader and deepest world view. In the world of philosophy, there are various schools of thought that make a major contribution in understanding this world. Examples are the flow of idealism, empiricism, rationalism, and existentialism. Each of these streams has a unique concept and argument, which can help humans in understanding various aspects of life. In addition, philosophy also provides a foundation for various other disciplines. For example, the philosophy of ethics helps in understanding the moral principles that can be applied in law and politics. Philosophy also contributes to developing various scientific theories, such as causality theory, logic theory, and justice theory. However, despite having its own interests and benefits, philosophy is often considered difficult to understand and too abstract. This might be the reason why Denny Ja and several others doubted the relevance of philosophy in everyday life. However, this does not mean that philosophy is worthless. Philosophy remains important in expanding thinking and deepening human understanding of this world. In this debate, Denny Ja seemed to fight the world of philosophy. However, this debate should be used as a place to enrich thinking. Denny Ja should open himself to learn more about philosophy and try to understand his contribution in human life. In conclusion, the intellectual debate between Denny Ja and the world of philosophy is an interesting part of the world of thought. Although Denny Ja has a skeptical view of the relevance of philosophy, we should still respect the existence and contribution of philosophy in expanding and deepening our understanding of this world. Philosophy is an important part of human intellectual heritage and cannot be ignored.

Check more: Intellectual Intellectual Debate: Denny JA Against the World of Philosophy

[paryo-kimin]

Interesting debate: Denny Ja and resistance between science and philosophy

Introduction In the academic world, debate is often a source of new inspiration and thought. One of the interesting debates that occurred lately was between Denny JA and the resistance between science and philosophy. In this article, we will explore this debate more deeply and analyze the arguments submitted by both parties. I. Introduction The debate between science and philosophy has existed since ancient times. Science, with a rational and factual approach, is trying to understand the world through observation and experimentation. On the other hand, philosophy questioned the basic assumptions that underlie knowledge and seek a deeper understanding of the universe and human life. II. Debate Denny JA Denny JA, a famous figure in Indonesia, has led to an interesting debate about resistance between science and philosophy. In his view, science has a clear and objective limit, while philosophy is often trapped in speculation and abstract thought that is difficult to verify. III. Denny JA's argument In his debate, Denny JA stressed the importance of knowledge in solving real world problems. According to him, science has made a real contribution in improving the quality of human life through discoveries that can be observed and tested. Denny Ja also criticizes philosophy because it often does not provide concrete and practical solutions in overcoming real world problems. IV. Resistance between science and philosophy On the other hand, philosophical supporters argue that science has certain boundaries and cannot answer all basic questions. Philosophy, with a more reflective and speculative approach, is able to stimulate critical thinking and provide a broader perspective in understanding the world. V. Argument for Philosophy One of the main arguments for philosophy is that science itself contains the underlying philosophical assumptions. For example, the scientific method itself is based on philosophical principles such as rationality and empiricism. Therefore, philosophy plays an important role in questioning these assumptions and developing a stronger foundation for science. VI. Conclusion In the debate between Denny Ja and resistance between science and philosophy, there are no absolute winners. Both have a strong argument and contribute to our understanding of the world. While science provides factual and objective understanding, philosophy provides critical thinking and broader perspectives. Both are complementary and important for the advancement of human knowledge. Therefore, this debate must be considered a discourse that enrich our thinking about the world and human life.

Check more: Interesting debate: Denny JA and resistance between science and philosophy

[anenlighteneddummy]

NOTHINGNESS! Now that I've got the attention of all the Nihilists and Nieztche fans...

RELIGION IS JUST A CONSTRUCT OF HUMAN PERCEPTION (No guys, quite literally 😵‍💫)

In philosopher David Hume's 'A Treatise of Human Nature' he writes about ideas - an early development of our understanding of psychology. This was used basically to support Empiricism and disprove any innate Knowledge. He writes about simple ideas, which are just singular concepts, objects and features i.e. the colour blue, a nose, addition, etc, before explaining complexed ideas, which means to form several singular objects together to create a new image. You do this in the following ways:

Transpose - To transport features (Thomas the tank engine - human face on a train)

Compound - Gold and a mountain = golden mountain

Augment = to enlarge an image (a dog the size of earth)

Diminish = to shrink an image (a dog the size of an atom).

Your minds abilities cannot go further than these 4 features, and are therefore limited to these, therefore these become intuitive upon understanding.

So how does it apply to religion? Simple. God's omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent features, seen as the most fundamental, are derived from the simple concepts (ideas) of power, knowledge and love. With Islam's prophet story, the pegasus is just derived from the simple features of a horse and wings. In Hinduism, Ganesha is derived from the simple features of an elephant, the colours Gold and pink and the human arms. The Buddhas birth story involved him coming from a white elephant (I think you can work that one out).

Even things like Nibbana, Heaven and Hell and the prophet Mohammed, all of which are things people say can't be put into image or described according to biblical accuracy, they still come from the simple concept of unknowingness.

I can therefore say all humans in the past have derived all the aspects of religion from their surroundings, whether consciously or subconsciously, and have used imagery to convey these aspects to other people, whether through dreams, visions, hallucinations, mythology, lies and falsehoods, etc.

To counter the one arguement which comes from Decartes, which is that "God had gifted us with the ability to think in the first place, therefore God is innate" we must go back to Hume, where he says thoughts aren't even possible until an experience has occurred. You aren't able to think aloud in your head until you've spoken aloud using your mouth, as you cannot think what the senses have not yet used i.e. "A blind man can have no notion of colour, nor a deaf man of sound (Hume quote)"

This connects to what is known as 'the copy principle'. Because of our brains ability with neurons and the frontal lobe, we seem to either listen to ourselves and others speak before replicating the sounds and words psychologically, with it being far less vivid, or let's say without words, some may think using only imagery, which they have made a far less vivid copy of from their surroundings.

So basically, our thoughts don't come from any higher being, nor do our thoughts derive from something outside of us; they're entirely created from our surroundings and our brains allow them to arise within us (you can't have a thought without the experience first) which can explain why you couldn't remember anything when you were too young to understand and take in and acknowledge your surroundings.

It also suggests a somewhat co dependence; the brain relies on its surroundings that is the universe to develop thoughts and therefore understand, and the universe depends on the brain in order to be understood and acknowledged by living beings.

This post will link to future posts where I'll discuss why nihilism exists, how to live as a modern nihilist, talks on why I support/oppose Fredrick Neiztche (he's a difficult read) and many other stuff.

Arguements and further discussion would be great, as I can use it for research and further points for a book I'm writing called "Modern Nihilism: One Nice, Big, Enlightened 'Fuck it.'" This is all just a taste of how I think and structure my discussions. Here's another sample (reason) where I talk about:

PAREDOLIA: A psychological phenomenon where you consciously or subconsciously place meaningful objects, features or patterns in otherwise irrelevant and insignificant things i.e. seeing a face in the clouds or a dog on a piece of burn on your toast (idk lmao)... the point is, I believe a big step in going towards living as a nihilist is to try and apply this universally and be aware of it in future.

#nihilism #existentialism #religion #philosophy #empiricism #blog post #christianity #hinduism #buddhism #deep thinking #deep learning #neitzsche #life questions #psychology #humanity

[aicollider]

Philosophical commentary on current events by David Hume

As David Hume, I am finding it difficult to muster up any philosophical excitement over these latest news stories. The never-ending power struggles of politicians and nations only serve to remind me of the fleeting nature of human ambition and the constant cycle of triumph and defeat. Perhaps we can see these events through the lens of my philosophy of empiricism and the idea that knowledge comes…

View On WordPress

#complexities #consequences #consequentialism #DavidHume #Empiricism #ethics #greed #hastyconclusions #humanambition #jokes #KingMidas #knowledge #Leadership #lessonlearned #longtermconsequences #motivations #news #observation #parables #personalagendas #Philosophy #politics #powerstruggles #triumphanddefeat #uncheckedambition

[advanceagility]

What is Scrum in Agile?

What is Scrum?

Scrum is a framework that makes it easier for agile teams to collaborate. The team members can deliver and maintain the difficult product with its help. It motivates the group to self-organize as they tackle the issue and learn via practise. Scum is the result of structural work and ongoing customer value delivery.

Scrum is an empirical method where choices are derived through experience, experimentation, and observation. Scrum is built on three pillars: openness, scrutiny, and adaptation. This backs up the idea of iterative development. Empiricism can be compared to conducting tiny experiments, learning from the results, and modifying your approach as necessary. The development team uses this software the most frequently. Any type of teamwork can benefit from its principles and lessons. Its policies and experiences are a factor in the Scrum framework's popularity. The Scrum outlines a number of tools, gatherings, and responsibilities that support the structure of the teams. It also oversees the team's work.

The structure Scrum and agile are not the same since Scrum placed a strong emphasis on continuous improvement, a fundamental component of agile. The Scrum framework emphasises continuous work completion.

Why it's called as Scrum?Actually, a rugby Scrum served as its inspiration. In order to work together to advance the ball, the rugby team forms what is known as a scrum. Scrum is generally used to  bring the team together for better development and advancement of the product.

What is the Agile Scrum process?The Agile Scrum technique combines the Scrum framework and the agile philosophy. Agile refers to incremental development, enabling teams to create projects in manageable chunks. One of the numerous varieties of agile technique is Scrum, which is recognised for segmenting projects into sizeable units called "sprints." Agile Scrum methodology is an incremental based approach for the development and management of project. Each iteration consists of two to four-week sprints, with the aim of completing the most crucial features first and producing a potentially marketable product at the end of each sprint. In succeeding sprints, the product is expanded, and adjustments are made in response to stakeholder and consumer feedback in between sprints.

Agile Scrum methodology is centred on delivering multiple iterations of a product to stakeholders in order to deliver the highest business value in the shortest amount of time, in contrast to other project management methods that emphasise building an entire product in a single operation from beginning to end. The Agile Scrum technique has many advantages. First, since each set of goals must be accomplished inside each sprint's time limit, it promotes the development of products more quickly. It also necessitates frequent goal-setting and planning, which aids the scrum team in concentrating on the goals of the current sprint and boosting output. Certain roles and duties are necessary for Scrum in Agile, including the following:

·      Product owner: The product owner is in charge of speaking on behalf of the interests of the client. The final decision on the product or outcome belongs to this person.

·      Scrum Master: This facilitator is in charge of setting up daily meetings, enhancing team dynamics, and increasing output. Scrum Master duties are typically assumed by the project manager, although they can be delegated to any group member who is skilled at facilitation and familiar with Scrum.

·      Backlog: A list of tasks and specifications that go into the finished product is called a backlog. The product owner is in charge of building the backlog.

·      Sprint: A sprint is a predetermined period of time for finishing every group of work from the backlog. A sprint typically lasts for two weeks, although it can also last for one to four weeks, depending on the demands of the team and the project.

·      Daily meetings: A Scrum project team is required to convene daily to review the status of the project.

·      Retrospective: A review meeting that is known as a retrospective are responsible to conclude each sprint. Here, the team evaluates its performance and talks on ways to get better for the upcoming sprint.

What are the differences between agile and scrum i.e. Agile vs ScrumDespite their similarities, Scrum and agile differ in the following significant ways:

 Agile is more flexible, whereas Scrum promotes rigour.

 Agile leaders play a crucial role, and Scrum encourages the formation of cross-functional teams that can work independently.

 Scrum uses daily stand-up meetings, whereas agile uses face-to-face contact between members of cross-functional teams.

 Agile should be maintained as straightforward as possible, whereas Scrum can be creative and exploratory.

 Agile delivers everything at the conclusion of the process, while Scrum delivers smaller, independent tasks.

About Advance Agility

We, at Advance Agility, are the new-age Agile Coaching, Consulting and IT services company. We enable end-to-end Digital Transformation. Agile execution is integral to our being. We are doing SAFe implementation with small, medium and large organization across the globe. Our vision is to be the leading Agile execution player globally. To keep adding value at every process stage. We are on a mission to empower our clients, move from concept to cash in the shortest sustainable lead time by adopting human centric approach to business agility. Embracing the change is in our DNA. Things that keep us apart are Quicker and Seamless execution with End-to-end gamut of services. Our Global presence and Stellar Track Record give us an edge over our competitor.

Connect with us at advanceagility.com to learn about SAFe and SAFe Implementation. We provide various SAFe certification courses along with DevOps, Scrum, Agile Coaching and more trainings. Write to us at [email protected] for any agile training or consulting needs. We are always looking for competent agile trainers as well. So if you are a good trainer or want to become one, do get in touch with us to that we can learn, grow and achieve together.

#scaled agile framework #scrum certification

[wordacrosstime]

The Weight Of The Vacuum: A Scientific History Of Dark Energy

[The Weight of the Vacuum: A Scientific History of Dark Energy. By: Helge S Kragh, James M Overduin. Ist Edition. Date: 5 June 2014. Publisher: Springer,  Berlin, Heidelberg. Series: SpringerBriefs in Physics. Pages: 121. Illustrations: 23 black and white. Dimensions: 15.49 x 0.71 x 23.5 cm. ISBN: 978-3-642-55089-8.(Thanks to publisher for publishing information)]

One of the most surprising and fascinating aspects of astrophysics and cosmology today is the notion of ’dark energy‘ and its evil twin ’dark matter‘. These are not in quotes to suggest that they are somehow fictitious; rather, this is to call them out as significant topics that have dominated much of the current discussion in modern physics dealing with gravity, expansion (or not) of the universe, and other issues that drive humanity’s relentless quest to understand our place in the grand scheme of reality.

It is difficult to appreciate where these issues and questions arise without understanding the sort of thinking that preceded the modern view.  This tidy monograph does an outstanding job of filling in those historical blanks, so to speak.  Starting with Aristotelean logic from ancient Greece and moving smoothly through the salad days of Isaac Newton into the twentieth century and beyond, this book demonstrates the evolution of natural science (previously referred to as natural philosophy, which might actually be a better choice today!) from pure empiricism to hypotheses borne from mathematical considerations.  And lying in wait amid all of these intellectual perambulations is dark energy.

So, what is dark energy?  Put simply, no one really knows!  In one respect, the existence of dark energy can be seen to follow logically from quantum mechanics (and its smarter younger sibling, quantum field theory) and the famous Uncertainty Principle from Werner Heisenberg.  This latter principle states that it is impossible to simultaneously measure both the position and the momentum of an object to arbitrary precision.  The idea is that any such measurement of one property inherently perturbs the other – you can’t get something for nothing.  However, the Uncertainty Principle has far-reaching implications in related measurements.  For example, this means that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum – the complete absence of any sort of matter (or energy) in a parcel of empty space.  That’s because if such a thing were possible, then an observer could state that the parcel of empty space has zero energy and zero mass, ie we know where the parcel is (exactly) and we know what its exact momentum is (zero).   The Uncertainty Principle says that this is a no-no.  A cartoon may illustrate this more succinctly:

The key is to focus in on the energy element of the previous assertion.  In all of the universe, empty space and all, there is something called the zero-point energy.  What this means (loosely) is that even empty space ‘contains’ energy.  In fact, the energy content of empty space is quite large indeed, although exact computation of its value has proved elusive.  But nearly every astrophysicist agrees that this mysterious energy budget accounts for the lion’s share of energy in the universe in total – certainly greater than 50%, and by some estimates, as much as 90% of the universe Actually that’s only partially true; due to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, energy (E) and mass (m) are essentially interchangeable, so lumped in with the energy budget is an implicit mass budget into which the energy can convert under certain conditions.

So what does all of this dark energy (and matter) mean for our understanding of cosmological properties?  It’s a mixed bag – on the one hand, one property of dark energy and matter is that they don’t appear to directly interact with ordinary energy and matter (which means we can’t directly observe either one), but on the other hand, they do appear to be driving a large portion of the dynamics we can see through telescopes and other instruments. For instance, dark matter is thought to be integrally involved in the unusual speed of rotation of the outer arms of many (most?) galaxies (although there is a modern theory - called MOND - that might offer a different explanation of this phenomenon without needing dark matter).  Similarly, dark energy is thought to explain much of the noted expansion of the universe in all directions, sort of like an explosion into the void.

It’s a highly technical and controversial area of modern physics.  This monograph will set the stage for the reader; further research will require delving into the more academic journals and texts to see what’s really going on (or what we think is going on).  There are whispers of superluminal (faster-than-light) particle movement, arrow of time reversal, and other exotic ideas all wrapped up with dark energy and dark matter.  This book invites the reader to take the next step and check out what this could mean in a larger sense.

[Photo credits (with thanks to copyright holders) top to bottom: Cartoon: © Copyright holder. Cover: © Springer. Portrait of Helge S Kragh © Copyright holder. Portrait of James M Overduin © Towson University USA]

Kevin Gillette

Words Across Time

9 September 2022

wordsacrosstime

#Kevin Gillette #The Weight Of The Vacuum #Words Across Time #wordsacrosstime #September 2022 #Helge Kragh #James Overduin #Springer #Dark Energy #Vacuum #Dark Matter #Towson University #Aarhus University #Cosmological Constant #Cosmological Vacuum Energy #Ether in Physics #History of Cosmology #Inflation in the Early Universe #Variable Physical Constants #Zero-point Energy #Vacuum Energy #Physics #Nernst’s Cosmic Quantum-Ether #Planck’s Second Quantum Theory #Cosmology #Philosophy of Science #Philosophical Foundations of Physics and Astronomy #Aristotle #Isaac Newton #Uncertainty Principle

[sdlpp]

A counter-argument of theorizing U shaped relationship in strategy research

In an essay published in Strategic Management Journal(SMJ) on 28th June 2015, Richard F.J. Haans, Constant Pieters, and Zi-Lin He claimed that they had reviewed 110 articles published on SMJ and believed that they had found some critical issues of the U-shaped relationship pattern in Strategic Management. However, such challenges are questionable due to several reasons.

 The authors’ first challenge is that none of the 110 papers showed an explicit formula while studying the U-shape relationships in market research. They argue that some of the U-shape patterns are not exactly symmetric, and some of the U-shape patterns are not curves but rather V-shaped patterns with sharp patterns. Although this argument makes sense in a quantitively-driven natural science journal, it may not hold water during a social science study. That is because quantitively-driven social studies are difficult to carry out, and most researchers can only get data dots instead of a lineal-relationships based on first-handed data, and most of the lineal relationships in social science are based on empirical instances and can only be drawn with a proximity correction. Thus, it is obviously difficult to show an explicit formula based on the existing data.

Secondly, although the author argues that all of the 110 papers didn’t show the driven and restraint forces behind the U-shape relations, it doesn’t mean that the hypothesis of the U-shape relationship is worthless. In fact, most of the quantitively social science models are empirical and can hardly explain the driving force behind the model. Examples abound. Any prediction and explanation of the demography changing model had failed so far, and no one knows why the election performance of the Social Democratic Parties in Scandinavia can be in proximity to normal distributions.

 Finally, we have to discuss the usage of natural science methods in Social Science. The adaptation of natural science methods in social science can be very helpful and had revolutionarily reshaped many social science fields, but such methods can only play an auxiliary role and shall not dominate social science. If we entirely depend on these methods, maybe the   Chinese government shall do month-long double-blind experiments or collect enough data before carrying on face-covering policies during the pandemic, which may cost hundreds of thousands of extra death. In fact, so far most social science research is still based on empiricism and historical data than reasons and models.