User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 157

  1. #31
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Science is hard to believe because it is counter-intuitive.

    By contrast religion is easy to believe because it is intuitive.

    And interestingly, what we can perceive with our senses is easy to believe because it is intuitve.

    And what we can't perceive with our senses but can only be perceived with telescopes and microscopes and mathematics is hard to believe because it is counter-intuitive.

    So the big question is: why for 200,000 years have we been limited to intuitive belief, but only in the last few hundred years have we been able to believe both intuitively and counter-intuitively?
    Likes Legion liked this post

  2. #32
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @Mole

    Personally I find that relationship to be inverted. For me science is intuitive and religion counter-intuitive.

  3. #33
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    For me science is intuitive
    Then you haven't taken quantum mechanics. Anyone who says it's intutitive is lying and doesn't actually get any of it.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  4. #34
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    So the big question is: why for 200,000 years have we been limited to intuitive belief, but only in the last few hundred years have we been able to believe both intuitively and counter-intuitively?
    Some thoughts...

    Perhaps most people believe it simply because it is what they are told. I don't think religion is intuitive necessarily but has to be learnt. But the difference is, religion came from someone's intuition originally and was then told, and perhaps fits into the mold of all people's intuition because that is where it came from originally, and science came from the use of an objective methodology. Science has a life of its own, its own intuition. And so we believe now what is told by something that is not human. There is a process we follow, and this process gives us supposed truth. And when you hear about the process, it seems intuitive. Use evidence based methodologies to form conclusions. And the way we express the truth of science is in a form which is intuitive.

    Idk

  5. #35
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    @Mole

    Personally I find that relationship to be inverted. For me science is intuitive and religion counter-intuitive.
    Religion projects our natural father into a supernatural loving father called God. This is entirely intuitive.

    Science takes us into areas totally outside the experience of our family in the ultra large in Relativity and the ultra small in Quantum Mechanics. Both are counter-intuitive.

    What is extraordinary is that it is only in the last few hundred years that some of us have learnt to think counter-intuitively. Why is that?

  6. #36
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Then you haven't taken quantum mechanics. Anyone who says it's intutitive is lying and doesn't actually get any of it.
    Well quantum mechanics isn't intuitive, it's transcendent of our perceived reality. I don't think anyone can be blamed for not quite getting it.

    Like field effect transistors. I still don't know WHY they work. I can make one, I know their construction, I know the theory and electron holes and all that stuff but it might as well be voodoo really. But at least I can harness it for predictable effects.

  7. #37
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Religion projects our natural father into a supernatural loving father called God. This is entirely intuitive.
    I disagree. I never thought God was intuitive.

    Science takes us into areas totally outside the experience of our family in the ultra large in Relativity and the ultra small in Quantum Mechanics. Both are counter-intuitive.
    Those are both fringe extremes. There's plenty enough to intuit in between in daily experience.

    What is extraordinary is that it is only in the last few hundred years that some of us have learnt to think counter-intuitively. Why is that?
    Ideas are memetic. Once the genie is out of the bottle it doesn't like to go back in.
    Likes SpankyMcFly liked this post

  8. #38
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    That was my point. It doesn't matter if they knew whether animals are an open system or not because the reasoning they were using is faulty. And how about you don't patronize me.
    If they knew animals were open systems, they'd know that argument was from thermodynamics was simply inapplicable, which is even worse than merely incorrect. No patronizing intended, sorry for the mistaken impression.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  9. #39
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    If they knew animals were open systems, they'd know that argument was from thermodynamics was simply inapplicable, which is even worse than merely incorrect. No patronizing intended, sorry for the mistaken impression.
    Right. Which is why I believe this was no honest mistake.

    If they were merely mistaken and didn't know about open systems, they would consistently apply this error, no? They should have said naively that evolution disproves thermodynamics instead of the other way around if this was a simple misunderstanding, because there's tons of other examples if you're not clued in about open systems.

    But they didn't consistently apply this mistake, they applied it ONLY where it was convenient, directly, with laser accuracy. Which tells me that it wasn't a simple misunderstanding. I'd say at best it's an extreme confirmation bias, and at worse somebody was intentionally misleading.

  10. #40
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Then you haven't taken quantum mechanics. Anyone who says it's intutitive is lying and doesn't actually get any of it.
    Neils Bohr said the same thing; but recall he was born bred and steeped in classical training; and also that in his day not even the full components of the atom had been sorted out into their proper sizes and mutual relations (plum pudding, anyone?)

    In fact, from some of the comments below, a goodly number of the giants *needed* to have someone clamber up and stand on their shoulders:

    SCIENCE HOBBYIST: The End of Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Some thoughts...

    Perhaps most people believe it simply because it is what they are told. I don't think religion is intuitive necessarily but has to be learnt. But the difference is, religion came from someone's intuition originally and was then told, and perhaps fits into the mold of all people's intuition because that is where it came from originally, and science came from the use of an objective methodology. Science has a life of its own, its own intuition. And so we believe now what is told by something that is not human. There is a process we follow, and this process gives us supposed truth. And when you hear about the process, it seems intuitive. Use evidence based methodologies to form conclusions. And the way we express the truth of science is in a form which is intuitive.

    Idk
    Glad to see the IDK at the end. I think your contention is a mixture of conjecture, misunderstanding, and perhaps some mis-classification.

    Recall the Cargo Cults spoken of by the late Richard Feynman; and his discussion of psychology...not to mention medicine.

    The Cargo Cults saw the planes and landing towers built by Americans in World War 2; they inferred, correctly, by direct observation that the construction of the towers, and the headgear worn by the inhabitants, were correlated with the arrival of the planes bearing hitherto-unseen goods.

    So they did their best *imitation* of the towers and radios, but they didn't work; not knowing the underlying mechanism.

    Similarly, Feynman spoke slightingly of psychology (hat tip to @Mole for his oft-repeated depredations of MBTI *on a typology forum* ) -- when as a newly bereaved husband (to Tuberculosis, yet, so much for science being all-puissant, even for the best and brightest!), he told a psychologist he spoke to his dead wife:

    Q. "And what do you say to her?"
    A. "I tell her I love her, if that's all right with you!"
    Q. (makes notes: third-person auditory hallucinations *confirmed*)

    So psychology has the *trappings* of science, but was not able to capture the real experience of being human.
    (Even with neuroscience, the mind remains synergistic; and being able to selectively interfere with one function or another cannot recreate a human from scratch.)

    And medicine: even dating from the Enlightenment, a reverence for the authority of the past limited advances.
    Longer ago, the sacred name of Galen halted inquiry; Semmelweis, after effectively stopping puerperal fever, was condemned to an asylum -- according to Discovery.org, drawing from the US CDC website, he died from an infection he had contracted during an operation; according to Wikipedia, he was beaten and may have suffered gangrene from it; but in any case, his opposition came from practitioners of, *ahem*, science.

    Science isn't the only thing which came from objective methodology; engineering and technology did too.
    Recall the ancient Greeks: the Golden Ratio, Pythagoras' theorem, ...and Zeno's Paradox. They had objective methodology and reasoning. Contrast that to the Romans, who weren't big on theory, but were great *practical* engineers. As humorist P.J. O'Rourke put it:

    The Romans made a better road than anyone ever has since. For a primary road like the Sarn Helen they dug parallel ditches more then eighty feet apart and excavated the soil between them Then they laid in a sand-and-quarry-stone foundation bound on either side by tightly fitted curbs of dressed and wedged stone blocks. On top of this foundation they built an embankment four or five feet high and fifty feet wide, constructed of layers of rammed chalk and flint and finished with a screened-gravel crown two feet thick.

    Even so, 1,573 years of neglect have taken their toll. The road has worn down and topsoil has accumulated along it, and the Sarn Helen has turned from an embankment into a ditch. There are washouts and mudholes and boulders in the ditch, too. But the Sarn Helen *is* still there. I doubt we'll be able to say the same about I-95 in the year 3556.


    Or, one may consider refinements from the Middle Ages including the Horse Collar and Flying Buttresses: both performed without CAD software or measurement of force vectors.

    So advances can and do come without a firm underlying theoretical framework.

    And it is possible to have both accurate, and inaccurate intuition; evidence-based methods alone can take you a long way, but they are not sufficient.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Religion projects our natural father into a supernatural loving father called God. This is entirely intuitive.

    Science takes us into areas totally outside the experience of our family in the ultra large in Relativity and the ultra small in Quantum Mechanics. Both are counter-intuitive.

    What is extraordinary is that it is only in the last few hundred years that some of us have learnt to think counter-intuitively. Why is that?
    Not sure that I agree with you about religion being a projection of our natural father: the cultural remnants of Christianity in the modern West give that impression: but the pantheon of classical gods were much more concerned with petty squabbles among themselves, if mythology portrays the beliefs about them accurately.
    Buddhism and Hinduism don't seem to have much in the way of a loving Father: and other older religions in both the Old and New world practiced human sacrifice.

    As to why some people have learned to think counter-intuitively, I think the answer to that is a combination of several items: increasing technology, in conjunction with greater health (fewer literal plagues due to improved sanitation, Athens was subject to pestilence as much as London) and more food (thanks, Medieval Warm Period!) led to the opportunity for people to do more than live hand-to-mouth intellectually, so to speak.

    This was combined with the emergence of a mercantile class, for whom improvements in everything from navigation to transport, led to a great increase in technology, for the direct purposes of acquiring wealth (not to mention that somewhat of Western Civilization had to be built up to the point that there were city-states which were not being attacked constantly, and it was safe to travel from place to place -- The Pax Romana had more benefits than people realized);

    the "why" of the ancients (looking for idealized causes, purposes, teleological reasons) became replaced by the "why" of the tinkerer, and thence to the "how" of the engineer; when this was combined with both empiricism *and* the inclusion of mathematical modeling, things really took off.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.
    Likes ygolo liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] why is introverted intuition so hard to verbolize?
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-13-2015, 11:46 AM
  2. Why does my generation find it so hard to grow up?
    By Lightyear in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 05:39 AM
  3. Why are we so attracted to misfortune?
    By Geoff in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 11:44 PM
  4. Why is it so hard to not feed the trolls?
    By Zergling in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 05:23 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