It's not difficult to understand that limited viewpoints yield limited understanding. Here's an analysis that with a little effort will show us why Faucian science leads to relative impoverishment.
Good description of the process. A good name for ‘authoritarian science’ = “Faucian”. A good description of Faucian tactics. Let’s just call them what they are: Liars!
well for me this confirms/matches the social/psychological drivers which i model perceive is creating your well described phenomenon...
that our will to power drive falsely believing that it is the entire us, of how our valuating desire for relatedness drive is shadowed into a mostly unconscious empowerment of who we think we are...
leading to a mindset that tends to seek absolutism this shadow empowered by the unresolved fear of uncertainty...
that science speaks of meaningful predictability which best we all then need to do our due diligence to valuate from a perspective empowered by a conscious vs unconscious desire for relatedness...
vs authoritarian science, or scientism, which seeks absolute answers justified by privileged top down is done for you valuation of what they think you should believe...
The most important problem with Popper's philosophy is the "Death of the scientific method". Without old standards, scale, errors of measurement, and calibrated methods we cant perform real measurements. And without real physical measurements like "systems biology" or "psychology constructs", we need the insight to interpret it and it gives back only our biases. We are subjective observers, so we need objective methods. The scientific method is quite limited but it gives us the information about the real world we can use. We can prove our knowledge very easily. We don't need to know everything - our scientific endeavors generate technology or valid predictions. So every time we light the electric lamp we prove the theory of electricity, and every time we can predict the trajectory of a satellite, we prove the gravitation theory - it is enough for us. There is no philosophy of science just an old methodology of science. Francis Bacon and Renee Descartes made our technological progress possible and Carl Popper led us into a sophist paradox. A new generation of scientists doesn't understand that the most important thing is to measure physical variables according to the scientific method, they think they can use unvalidated methods and then filter it with statistics. We predictably went to the medieval ages in 2019 and we are bogged down there now. Our knowledge now is subjective and our feelings are objective. It is an upside-down world of medieval men. and that world is quite cruel. We need a new reinessanse with the rebirth of the scientific method.
Good description of the process. A good name for ‘authoritarian science’ = “Faucian”. A good description of Faucian tactics. Let’s just call them what they are: Liars!
Lyingwailering bullshit.
well for me this confirms/matches the social/psychological drivers which i model perceive is creating your well described phenomenon...
that our will to power drive falsely believing that it is the entire us, of how our valuating desire for relatedness drive is shadowed into a mostly unconscious empowerment of who we think we are...
leading to a mindset that tends to seek absolutism this shadow empowered by the unresolved fear of uncertainty...
that science speaks of meaningful predictability which best we all then need to do our due diligence to valuate from a perspective empowered by a conscious vs unconscious desire for relatedness...
vs authoritarian science, or scientism, which seeks absolute answers justified by privileged top down is done for you valuation of what they think you should believe...
The most important problem with Popper's philosophy is the "Death of the scientific method". Without old standards, scale, errors of measurement, and calibrated methods we cant perform real measurements. And without real physical measurements like "systems biology" or "psychology constructs", we need the insight to interpret it and it gives back only our biases. We are subjective observers, so we need objective methods. The scientific method is quite limited but it gives us the information about the real world we can use. We can prove our knowledge very easily. We don't need to know everything - our scientific endeavors generate technology or valid predictions. So every time we light the electric lamp we prove the theory of electricity, and every time we can predict the trajectory of a satellite, we prove the gravitation theory - it is enough for us. There is no philosophy of science just an old methodology of science. Francis Bacon and Renee Descartes made our technological progress possible and Carl Popper led us into a sophist paradox. A new generation of scientists doesn't understand that the most important thing is to measure physical variables according to the scientific method, they think they can use unvalidated methods and then filter it with statistics. We predictably went to the medieval ages in 2019 and we are bogged down there now. Our knowledge now is subjective and our feelings are objective. It is an upside-down world of medieval men. and that world is quite cruel. We need a new reinessanse with the rebirth of the scientific method.