User Tag List

View Poll Results: Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Only God will ever know the answer.

    0 0%
  • Yes, evolution is supported by science.

    24 92.31%
  • No, evolution is not supported by science.

    1 3.85%
  • I don't know if evolution is supported by science.

    1 3.85%
  • Both the Evolutionist and Creationist theories are correct.

    2 7.69%
  • Neither the Evolutionist nor Creationist theories are correct.

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 49

  1. #31
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529
    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    It is only recently man grew the capability to observe and report, and even then, the capability is not widespread. It makes sense we have achieved what we have in this short stretch of modern history, regardless.
    Yes, with the invention of the printing press in 1440 we started to build literate societies.

    And literacy changed us radically from our previous spoken culture.

    Literacy changed our sense ratios and priviliged the visual.

    But most of all litercy gave us the counter-intuitive cast of mind.

    So we find almost all science and mathematics is counter-intuitive. Modern Economics is counter-intuitive. Liberal Democracy is counter-intuitive. And interestingly even Modern Art is counter-intuitive.

    And the intuitive is left to astrology and mbti.

  2. #32
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    And the intuitive is left to astrology and mbti.
    You do realize that the idea of the "intuitive" was thought up by Nazi collaborator Carl Jung, correct? How can you claim that an "intuitive" is a valid concept, and reject Jung? Ïs the idea of the "intuitive" the one thing Jung got right in your opinion?

    Regarding science, what portion of your last post is backed up by actual science? What studies have determined that the printing press has changed our sense ratios? You claim to be enamored of empiricism (I am more of a rationalist, if anyone is wondering), but continuously do a terrible job of applying it.

    Anyway, I'm more of a rationalist than an empiricist, although I recognize the value of empiricism.

    Literacy changed our sense ratios and priviliged the visual.

    But most of all litercy gave us the counter-intuitive cast of mind.
    Where are these statements supported by any kind of scientific study? If it's just something you arrived at by pure logic, I can see where the privilege of the visual comes from, but where is the leap from that to "counter-intuitive" cast of mind?

    Moreover, in everyday speech, the term "counter-intuitive", is used more often to refer to something that's against common sense assumptions, and has nothing to do with Jung's intuition function. Intuition deals with possibilities. If counter-intuitive were referring to that kind of intuition, it seems to me that saying that a thing is counter-intuitive would be saying that a thing is exactly what we would expect it to be. This is the opposite of how the term is used.

    If anything, literacy takes us beyond what is immediately "sensible". Writing itself is a symbolic representation of another thing, not a thing itself. Writing allows us to gain an understanding of things that we have not witnessed directly with our senses. I wouldn't say that writing represents intuition over sensing, but it's equally absurd to say that it represents sensing because we look at it with eyes. I'm not sure why you are implying that writing is "sensing" over "intuition", since you regard MBTI and Jung as bunk, but if you could explain how you reconcile those thoughts, enlighten me.

    Gotta get back to my weasel lair.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  3. #33
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Se is about learning from evidenced, concrete experience. Se is uncomfortable with intuition in general, and Jung makes it very apparent he uses the term in a classical sense. Evidence will always be greater than logic, the Se user knows this better than anyone. Books expand the scope of experience available to sense-favoring peoples.

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Where are these statements supported by any kind of scientific study? If it's just something you arrived at by pure logic, I can see where the privilege of the visual comes from, but where is the leap from that to "counter-intuitive" cast of mind?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

    Here is a good book on the subject, dealing with the modern mind framed in context of our advanced society. In it, he details two dichotomies:

    System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
    System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious

    I wonder, what dichotomies these could correlate to...?

  4. #34
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    Se is about learning from evidenced, concrete experience. Se is uncomfortable with intuition in general, and Jung makes it very apparent he uses the term in a classical sense. Evidence will always be greater than logic, the Se user knows this better than anyone. Books expand the scope of experience available to sense-favoring peoples.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    In so far as objects release sensations, they matter; and, in so far as it lies within the power of sensation, they are also fully accepted into consciousness, whether compatible with reasoned judgment or not. As a function its sole criterion of value is the strength of the sensation as conditioned by its objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes, in so far as they release sensations at all, make their appearance in consciousness. It is, however, only concrete, sensuously perceived objects or processes which excite sensations in the extraverted attitude; exclusively those, in fact, which everyone in all times and places would sense as concrete.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, regarding extraverted intuition
    . Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision

    Interesting....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

    Here is a good book on the subject, dealing with the modern mind framed in context of our advanced society. In it, he details two dichotomies:

    System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
    System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious

    I wonder, what dichotomies these could correlate to...?
    not sure. I would need some evidence before jumping to conclusions. I wouldn't want to make any conclusion not supported by data.

    If I were to make wild, unsupported claims, I would say that it's T vs. F, not S vs. N.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  5. #35
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision.
    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Interesting....
    "Kahneman uses heuristics to assert that System 1 thinking involves associating new information with existing patterns, or thoughts, rather than creating new patterns for each new experience. In a legal metaphor, a judge limited to heuristic thinking would only be able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute, rather than seeing the unique aspects of that case. In addition to offering an explanation for the statistical problem, the theory also offers an explanation for human biases."

    Don't feel like scanning through, but Jung puts Se as being keenly aware of variances in detail.

    If I were to make wild, unsupported claims, I would say that it's T vs. F, not S vs. N.
    I've only glanced over the concepts of feeling as written by Jung. I presume iNtuiting and Feeling to be in bed with each other, as Thinking and Sensing plainly are (as evidenced by Te and Se type descriptions).

  6. #36
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    "Kahneman uses heuristics to assert that System 1 thinking involves associating new information with existing patterns, or thoughts, rather than creating new patterns for each new experience. In a legal metaphor, a judge limited to heuristic thinking would only be able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute, rather than seeing the unique aspects of that case. In addition to offering an explanation for the statistical problem, the theory also offers an explanation for human biases."

    Don't feel like scanning through, but Jung puts Se as being keenly aware of variances in detail.
    It is, but as another extroverted irrational function, so is Ne. Only being able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute sounds more like Si-Te than Ne-Ti. It merely happens that the details Ne focuses on are different than the details Se focuses on. The generalizing nature of an INTP is due more to Ti than Ne. Ne focuses on the objective external world.

    Needing "similar historical cases" in fact, speaks of the paralytic over-reliance on "evidence" that pushes me away from empiricism, and attracts me to rationalism.

    I've only glanced over the concepts of feeling as written by Jung. I presume iNtuiting and Feeling to be in bed with each other, as Thinking and Sensing plainly are (as evidenced by Te and Se type descriptions).
    No. We have the rational functions of Feeling and Thinking, and the irrational functions of Intuition and Sensing. The two rational functions are opposed to each other, as are the two irrational functions. Sensing, however does not oppose feeling or thinking, nor does thinking oppose intuition or sensing. A rational function and an irrational function don't work against each other in the same way that the two rational functions do.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  7. #37
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529
    @Scheherezade

    You asked me privately about intuitive and counter-intuitive, so I thought I would give you examples.

    For instance, politicians intuitively seek to maximise their power, while liberal democracy counter-intuitively limits power.

    And for instance, religions intuitively see private greed as usury, while Adam Smith taught us counter-intuitively that private greed give public prosperity.

    And for instance, we intuitively understand things our own size, while we counter-intuitively understand things very big with Relativity, or very small with Quantum Mechanics.

    And for instance, we intuitively learn to speak our language at home, but are sent to special institutions called schools to counter-intuitively learn to read and write.

    And in fact spoken cultures are naturally intuitive, while literate cultures are unnaturally counter-intuitive.

    But as I write to you, we are moving on from a counter-intuitive literate culture to an intuitive electronic culture.

    So once again the wheel turns and we are returning to an intuitive culture.

  8. #38
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    @Scheherezade

    You asked me privately about intuitive and counter-intuitive, so I thought I would give you examples.

    For instance, politicians intuitively seek to maximise their power, while liberal democracy counter-intuitively limits power.

    That has nothing to do with intuition. You just threw the word "intuitively" in there, and hoped people would take it at face value. If it's related to intuition, explain how, using logical statements, not flowery but meaningless rhetorical poetry.

    Jungian intuitions are not "gut feelings" or "common sense." I know previously, you said you rejected Jung, but you seem curiously interested in demonstrating the superiority of non-intuitives through stressing the value of something that you believe is "counter-intuition."
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  9. #39
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529
    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    That has nothing to do with intuition. You just threw the word "intuitively" in there, and hoped people would take it at face value. If it's related to intuition, explain how, using logical statements, not flowery but meaningless rhetorical poetry.

    You don't even appear to know what intuition means in the Jungian sense. I'm not surprised.
    This is no surprise as I am a counter-Jungian.

    Jung based his psychological types on no empirical evidence, so Jung's 'intuition' means nothing to me.

    Rather I use 'intuitive' and 'counter-intuitive' in the English sense of natural and unnatural.

  10. #40
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Rather I use 'intuitive' and 'counter-intuitive' in the English sense of natural and unnatural.
    That's a very interesting choice of words to use around here. I'm sure they were chosen just by coincidence.

    Also, I have yet to see any empirical evidence for 95% of the points you make in your posts. When pressed for evidence, you do nothing but supply more weird rhetorical poetry.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

Similar Threads

  1. Is the Big Bang Theory supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-13-2013, 01:52 PM
  2. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  3. The New Seven Deadly Sins- Courtesy of the Pope - do you agree and what is your list?
    By Geoff in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-16-2008, 03:47 PM
  4. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-09-2008, 05:06 PM
  5. E is in the I of the observer.
    By samIam in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-04-2007, 12:31 AM

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