Low Culture, High Culture

[Mole]

In high culture there is a word theory, and in low culture there the same word theory, but they have different meanings.

In low culture theory means something which is not true. We say, it is just a theory.

In high culture theory means something which is true. For instance, there is a theory of Physics, a theory of Chemistry, and a theory of Biology, but there is no theory of Psychology.

This leaves the way open for charlatans, like Jung, Briggs and Myers, to gull those who only know low culture.

 

[xXxXx_wEltschmErz_xXxXx]

The middle ground, I think, would be a culture in which theory means something which is not with certainity known to be true or false. A suggestion. Would we call this middle culture?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yes, Mike Pence and the "it's just a theory" crowd are guilty of misusing the word. I don't know if they're even aware they're doing it, I think they're just that stupid.

I think what you're referring to is how people overlook the two primary definitions of the word or conflate the two meanings? In which case, it really isn't about "low" vs "high" culture so much as the layman meaning of "theory" vs the scientific meaning of "theory"

 

[Mole]

The middle ground, I think, would be a culture in which theory means something which is not with certainity known to be true or false. A suggestion. Would we call this middle culture?

We are quite close to certainty in physics, chemistry, and biology. Our measurements are now almost unimaginably accurate, so we can now measure how close we are to certainty, Of course we don't reach absolute certainty and we have a lot more to learn, and we know we are no where near to certainty in psychology, and the charlatans take advantage of this.

 

[Mole]

There is a low culture aesthetic and a high culture aesthetic, high culture is in good taste, and low culture is in bad taste. If we spend all our time in low culture, we have no opportunity to cultivate our taste, our egos are invested in low culture, so we don't know what tastes good, and we don't know, we don't know.

 

[rav3n]

We are quite close to certainty in physics, chemistry, and biology. Our measurements are now almost unimaginably accurate, so we can now measure how close we are to certainty, Of course we don't reach absolute certainty and we have a lot more to learn, and we know we are no where near to certainty in psychology, and the charlatans take advantage of this.

That's highly inaccurate. Everything's called a theory in science because they're open to amendment. There have been many theories, taken for truth in the past, that have been refined for their inaccuracy or tossed out. That's also why science uses correlation, rather than anything more conclusive because of uncertainty of the complete truth. Studies look at narrow bands because of cost.

 

[Mole]

That's highly inaccurate. Everything's called a theory in science because they're open to amendment. There have been many theories, taken for truth in the past, that have been refined for their inaccuracy or tossed out. That's also why science uses correlation, rather than anything more conclusive because of uncertainty of the complete truth. Studies look at narrow bands because of cost.

Quantum Mechanics is accurate to ten decimal places and counting, so far with no anomalies.

This is getting very close to certainty, but as you say, not absolute certainty.

Almost all of life depends on photosynthesis and photosynthesis depends on Quantum Mechanics. So how certain we are is no trivial matter.

 

[rav3n]

Quantum Mechanics is accurate to ten decimal places and counting, so far with no anomalies.

This is getting very close to certainty, but as you say, not absolute certainty.

Almost all of life depends on photosynthesis and photosynthesis depends on Quantum Mechanics. So how certain we are is no trivial matter.

Quantum mechanics is premised on probabilities.

 

[Mole]

That's highly inaccurate. Everything's called a theory in science because they're open to amendment. There have been many theories, taken for truth in the past, that have been refined for their inaccuracy or tossed out. That's also why science uses correlation, rather than anything more conclusive because of uncertainty of the complete truth. Studies look at narrow bands because of cost.

Physics, Chemistry, and Biology and interestingly Demographics, are able to make accurate and reliable predictions because we have accurate theories of causation. We cannot make accurate and reliable predictions in Psychology as we don't understand psychological causation. Psychology is more like a religion than an established science. And psychologists are more like priestesses and priests.

 

[Mole]

Quantum mechanics is premised on probabilities.

Yes, Quantum Mechanics is based on the mathematics of Statistics. It is extraordinarily accurate, and extraordinarily difficult to understand, as to us it appears there is no causation.