User Tag List

First 3111213

Results 121 to 126 of 126

  1. #121
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Forever_Jung View Post
    I apologize, I'm not expressing myself clearly.

    I did not mean to say scientific facts are a leap of faith. I should have said scientific "fact". If you make bullshit look sciencey and academic, many people can't tell the difference. We take it on faith that the findings in question, were discovered using the scientific method. But we never really check. All the scientists have to say is: "Yup, we scienced it. Trust us." And many people will just assume they did their due diligence.

    Look at all the damage Jenny McCarthy did with all her BS about autism and vaccinations. The assurance that there was some science there somewhere, and that some doctors agreed, was enough to fool countless people.
    Sure, we are surrounded by pseudo science from Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science of the 19th century to pseudo science about autism and vaccinations in the 20th century.

    And closer to home we have the pseudo science of Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers and mbti.

    And, dear Forever_Jung, Jung himself wrote that his book, "Psychological Types", is based on no empirical evidence, and so is at best pseudo science, and at worst, religious ramblings with no basis in reality.

    I find the magazine, "Skeptical Enquirer", to be good at exposing pseudo science.

  2. #122
    Senior Member Forever_Jung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Sure, we are surrounded by pseudo science from Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science of the 19th century to pseudo science about autism and vaccinations in the 20th century.

    And closer to home we have the pseudo science of Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers and mbti.

    And, dear Forever_Jung, Jung himself wrote that his book, "Psychological Types", is based on no empirical evidence, and so is at best pseudo science, and at worst, religious ramblings with no basis in reality.
    Yes, but Jung wasn't asking for the same kind of territory as scientific fact. Jung basically boiled psychological types down to being a practical guide for personal development, understanding different sorts of people and as a therapeutic tool. He wasn't super dogmatic about it, or make a bunch of biological claims. I don't think he'd care much for the way we approach his typology.

    The difference between false claims about autism and the pseudo-psychology of personality type is that the latter has practical value. As long as you're not taking Myers-Briggs too seriously and just using it as a rough guide it can help you. If it works, it works. If you believe patently false things about autism, the knowledge still won't be helpful. It will fail you every time.

  3. #123

    Default

    Nope, but there are plenty of people who treat it as such, both skeptics and supporters of said "science."
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  4. #124
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    Nope, but there are plenty of people who treat it as such, both skeptics and supporters of said "science."
    It is much easier to idolize science or to vilify it, than to try to understand it. Ignorance in either direction is dangerous, and the antithesis of scientific thought.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    Nope, but there are plenty of people who treat it as such, both skeptics and supporters of said "science."

    In these world lots of people supports science.

  6. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    It is much easier to idolize science or to vilify it, than to try to understand it. Ignorance in either direction is dangerous, and the antithesis of scientific thought.
    Yes. Deification and assigned infallibility is equally problematic.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

Similar Threads

  1. Why Science is so Hard to Believe
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  2. [Other] What is your favorite quote...
    By jck221 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 05:43 PM
  3. Is religion a science?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 11:27 PM
  4. Science is nothing more than magic that actually works.
    By onemoretime in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-06-2012, 09:20 AM
  5. Is your Religion your Race?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO