@
Auburn
That subjectivity you're denigrating is actually inextricable from all the processes/standards you're postulating as superior to it. To get the idea that a microscope shows smaller things inside another thing, to maintain a vision of causality which allows for certain measurements and consistencies to mean certain things, to engage in a process of peer review in accordance with a certain cultural standard-- all of these things are inherently
contracts of subjectivity.
Any decent Philosopher of Science knows this. Knows that the naive objectivity which uninformed people like yourself postulate is entirely a child of the arrogance that comes from a lack of historical perspective on the one hand and a lack of familiarity with the structure of the models which form its supposed foundation on the other.
All fruitful Scientific contracts have been about looking through some new and hard to understand lens, the revealings of which are supposedly open only to those few well versed and sciency enough (note that Science and its insights have
always been
esoteric to the layman, veiled behind a refinement of subjectivity they could not reach) to read and understand its meanings. And, yes, you're right that this process mirrors the means by which groups become deluded into many different perspectives. But the issue you have is not with
us, it is with what is actually possible for Science, what kinds of certainty or fruitfulness are actually possible. You are holding us up to a standard that has never been reached (the elimination of subjectivity, elitism, and not being able to show discoveries or consistencies to
anybody), that is irrelevant to ascertaining or observing the fruitfulness of a Research programme, and that, again, is ever more clearly a unique product of your own phantasmagria of poorly thought through referents to lots of words and concepts and methods which you know exist in culture with authority but actually understand nothing of.
The misguided standard you are trying to hold us to is one which would of necessity eliminate maths from physics, causality from biology, psychology from science and fruitful understanding from human life. You are suffering from the unique set of contorted delusions which arise when a being who is inherently designed to work
across the SS index mistakes its own particular distribution across it for an elimination of all of the subjective portions. You've somehow convinced yourself that behind the technologies which serve as a literal sign that our models are working, there is some clear-cut objectivity guaranteed by the instruments/methods used.
There just isn't. You need to learn more about science and its history from well-informed (not pop. science) sources. What there is, in successful Science, is a highly explanatory unity of perspective which grounds itself in a very refined observation of some portion of reality, which focuses upon evidence and has a ruthless attitude to extrapolating consequences and strict implications (in terms of contradiction/consistency etc.) from that evidence, and which, because of its social attitudes, is essentially a
technology for accelarating the dialectical process of human knowledge beyond what religious etc. contexts achieve.
If you want to challenge me on this, by all means go ahead and construct for me some version of how science works, what it really is, that links up with the reality of events and discoveries over the past couple of centuries of its history
. Do a phenomenology of it for me. 'cos right now you're assuming a lot of things about Science and empiricism, and how it bolsters your position, which basically don't link up with the reality of it. It's all a lot more complex, anarchic, run-and-go, and to do with useful attitudes and fortunate historical conditions and the characters of those involved than you realise. In the end what it comes down to is 'how much does this explain, how precisely, and how could we test that', with the latter stages of that process often coming a long time after the first have made the perspective by far the best one going. There are always tonnes of assumptions and weak areas and whatever involved-- things that just need to be done for it to make sense, or assumed, or dark spots that have to be left as is for our precise literal predictions to work out. This is how it is now in Physics (the supposed basis/justification of the overall current Scientific Research program, although most of the disciplines that think they're fundamentally justified are working with a warped pop version of where it was at in about 1800). In Biology. In individual precise concerns and in disciplines as a whole. If you want to understand something of how this all actually works, look into Imre Lakatos' work.
Currently, many areas of institutional 'Science' make very little real epistemological progress and yield very little usefully predictive content, because they're attached to assumptions and research programs (including about the nature or relevance of statistics, materialism, neurology, etc.. etc.) which are taken to have been far more fruitful in their fields than they ever have been. It's entirely social, entirely complex and not clear-cut, how these areas continue on as they do. Entirely about shame and courage and how or how not new Research Programs can take a hold. And whenever research programs do take hold or have taken hold in the outer regions of experimental or theoretical science, it's always a hell of a lot more human and about 'but
can't you see you fool!? This is just there!' than the naive assume (the same naive who trusted priests and God before whilst heretics were on the edges doing experimental alchemy or mathematics-- i.e. the naive such as... yourself).
What we have is something which, if you, or those more talented than you and therefore capable of doing so,
develop and refine your subjectivity appropriately, will provide far more explanatory power than any model you've been using or that is public. It will be highly consistent, make falsifiable claims and predictions in terms of the trained instrument used, and generally just clearly illuminate the whole fact of humaness with a predictive power and refinement of causal-connectivity previously unreached. This is really as good as it gets. It grounds down into physical cues and is entirely consistent with them in so far as it does (for those trained to know what's relevant), achieves a highly predictive unity of perspective far more detailed and... just (
right!... how could you retards not see this? etc.). And those predictions etc. cross reference and inter-support and match up with all our ways of being in the world or approaching it in so far as could possibly be expected.
Now, will this be
more proven as time goes on? Yes, if its right. But what
you're thinking is the kind of thoughts which prevent
any truly apex/revolutionary discipline from being entered into and understood for what it is at its revolutionary/Einsteinian/OMFG-this-can-be-
understood? stages. It has the same kind of weight. And
when it does translate to other measures (assuming it does) that will be only really clearly known for what it is by those who've at least undergone the appropriate technical trainings and self-developments to know what the discipline really claims. What it really seems to explain. Why it's treated as as important as it is by the adept.
Additionally, anybody trained will be able to see just how far what we have is beyond anything else that's ever been available for understanding and dealing with human sociality in a strict epistemological manner. We are in a crisis situation globally, and it will be seen by the relevant people to be of utmost importance to that. That in itself doesn't make it
true of course.
The most important thing is that all the materials needed for training are available publicly, as is interaction with us as a student of them (incl. tests etc. with answers and explanations, and upcoming in-depth annotations of individual videos). We take as a prerequisite to really assessing the value of this, to really being competent to comment, that they
train their subjectivity as an instrument and
then make a rational assessment.
If you're calling this brainwashing... you're making some seriously dodgy claims about what any kind of education or subjectivity used axiomatically in any epistemological discipline or as part of a Research Program is.
You are basically epistemologically timid and crippled. You know very little, have very muddled epistemological perspectives, and are very afraid to explore outside of the fragile equilibrium you misguidedly hold together in the midst of that context of peasantile retardation and poverty of learning. You're obsessed with Reading but you've admitted, on the record, that you have no idea what we actually mean by that.
You've straight up admitted you have no basis for really seeing what we're talking about with implications etc. Again, you're a very confused amateur, and your reasons for remaining one are historically impoverished and epistemologically very shaky assumptions about how science, knowledge and human progress work. Ultimately you're just an amateur. Any serious player would have found out what we meant, tried on the perspective, and then ruthlessly analysed from many angles. Like I did before leaving PHY.
You're a very, very irrational person. Your life is a mas of unquantified and badly thought through assumptions that you get away with only because they superficially seem to be supported by prevalent models. If you were more well learned, you'd see that their internal structure and the role they play in your life really isn't justified in that way. Your entire mind is this muddled labyrinth of peasentile stupid and superstition and the hesitancy needed to maintain it, 'cos that kind of illogical superstition really only ever does maintain itself by a fear to look behind the curtain. By treating the curtain as sacred. You need to stop that and actually learn what Science is, what we're saying, how your perception must become flexible and be expanded and developed for your Zai to ever be anything more than a weak inconsistency-eradicating mechanism for confirmation-biasing your delusions.
Your Zai is terribly weak, Auburn, and you reign in your Nyy so much to try and keep it so. Your Vai holds it back in fear, and your Xyy ends up coming out with this kind of retarded product. You need more experience, more learning, more exploration. You need to do drugs, fail at relationships, have triumphs and tragedies. 'cos that's the only way I can see your fragile, fearful Zai attempted-equilibrium from really being shattered and reformed in some genuinely strong and towering form. Like Adymus'. Like an experienced and ingenious Zai'nyy's can be...
You're basically retarded. Stop it.
