Science is dominated by facts.(?)

[Ex-User (8886)]

I hate, when people ask me why do I think so. They want facts, arguments, but all I have is my instinct. They they tell me I'm stupid, wait for facts, and then remember what I had told them and I was right.
Now I study physics and in laboratories I make experiments. I hate calculations, I know what result will come, but they want facts and calculations.

It is so exhausting to meet engineering requirements. I also live with my ISTJ cousin. So annoying man. In this moment, I want say, I hate Si people, they are so stupid and unintelligent.

Thanks for reading this, my name is Paul and my problem is INTPsness.

 

[Sinny91]

People would do well to remember that before there was 'science', there was instinct.

Fuck other people, and fuck their expectations.

 

[redbaron]

Well falsifiability is a necessity for science and you can't falsify an idea or instinctive understanding. I guess you're more interested in your personal levels of understanding than you are in adhering to science, so having to, "show your working" is tiresome?

I can understand it feeling limiting but i think it helps prevent people forming habitual mental shortcuts too. Also some people are excited by the investigation and confirmation/rejection process and the deeper your study the less likely instinctive arguments hold up.

The reality of things is often counterintuitive to instinct or common sense.

 

[ummidk]

People would do well to remember that before there was 'science', there was instinct.

And before instinct, there were rocks, so what?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Several reasons. First of all nothing makes instinct correct. Secondly, how is your instinct going to be understood by others? They have different intuition and will most likely find your explanations strange or disagreeable, unless you find a common language and agree on standards of accuracy.

Physics is the language with which it's possible to describe wild leaps of intuition, I can understand the frustration, but its usefulness is very high.

Consider that you are hardly beginning to learn about this language and the theories that it helped produce. You are in this position where you are expected to appreciate and accept what is being offered to you, the time for your own contribution and innovation should naturally come afterwards. Perhaps you would be much more satisfied in the position of a theoretical physicist narrating the various cosmologies of the universe, this however takes years of successful career, honing your intuition and mastering the language of your colleagues and peers.

 

[Archer]

Saw this on reddit. Congrats OP, you are very smart. https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/comments/4bsvuw/science_is_dominated_by_facts/

 

[Haim]

Yea science method has its limits.

Well falsifiability is a necessity for science and you can't falsify an idea or instinctive understanding. I guess you're more interested in your personal levels of understanding than you are in adhering to science, so having to, "show your working" is tiresome?

I can understand it feeling limiting but i think it helps prevent people forming habitual mental shortcuts too. Also some people are excited by the investigation and confirmation/rejection process and the deeper your study the less likely instinctive arguments hold up.

The reality of things is often counterintuitive to instinct or common sense.

By your reasoning Albert Einstein would never dare to research his theories, he had no proof, he had his intuition, Newton's laws of motion had was perceived as factual true, the calculation had "proof" of true.Different physics "laws" can produce the same perceived result, limiting ourself to only what we can know right now is foolish and won't get us nowhere.Also thinking the "experts" know best is not something that the greatest minds have, they do not trust any expert but themselves, they did not receive genius certificate, Albert Einstein was no expert at that time, he did not care what the experts think.You are saying "first enter the box, only then you will be able to go outside it" bullshit if you are inside the box you stay inside the box, you will think like anyone else, the best way to find something new is to go to a new path.

With that said, you do need to rule out everything with logic, and still believe only in probable ideas otherwise you waste your time with conspiracy theories and religion.

 

[Hadoblado]

Prove your intuition to be as viable as anything from a scientific pedigree. That way you only need to do the science once, and forever after you can just assume your instincts right.

Is being too intuitive actually an INTP problem? I thought proofs and diligent logic were more an INTP thing? You're saying you just know things and can't be bothered with the proofs? Maybe you're just smart and not an INTP?

Is scientific rigor really Si? You know the system falls apart without the rigor right? I can't imagine a Ti using scientist not wanting rigor in their experiments (though I can definitely understand not wanting to actually go through the motions, especially when the results seem obvious).

 

[kora]

I think the complaint is not about the logical proof backing up the intuition but more the tedious menial collection of empirical data?

 

[Hadoblado]

I got the impression it was both, since OP said he didn't want to argue it either, and that all he had was instinct.

@Archer
By 'saw' do you mean 'posted'? Wait no. It was RB foreshore, too calm and collected. What're the odds you both use the same subreddit? :P

@Haim
Was Einstein just taken at his word before there was any reason to believe him? Forgive me my ignorance, I'm pretty clueless with this, but I doubt people just favoured his theories over alternatives without being given reason to?

Also, I think you're strawmanning RB just a little. It does not follow from what he said that no research on unfamiliar things would be done. Research is done on the unknown as well as the known, and hypotheses are subject to intuition (as they should be). A hypothesis =/= a conclusion. There is a world of difference between thinking something and assuming you're right then moving on, and thinking something, thinking it worth testing, testing it, and finding yourself right/wrong.

 

[Pyropyro]

I think the complaint is not about the logical proof backing up the intuition but more the tedious menial collection of empirical data?

But science is tedious menial collection of empirical data it isn't like in the movies

If you're going to make an assumption then you better back it up with good data.

 

[Sly-fy]

Instincts and intuitions can sometimes be wrong, but the facts are the facts. However, relying solely on the observable facts of the moment is severely limiting your potential of understanding the big picture. Einstein didn`t just come to his breakthrough formula for the theory of relativity through calculation alone, he originally had an intuition, a hunch, and it went from there. Otherwise without intuition, no amount of adding or subtracting or long division is ever gonna get you anywhere.

 

[QuickTwist]

this reminds of me corporate... and mindfulness. Corporate works by observing the result of affects. Mindfulness works by paying attention to what you are doing and why. They are tools to be used, not the ends to the means. I have to scale back my intuition quite a bit and remember to be mindful of what I do because I realize that nothing in the human psychology is random.

 

[redbaron]

By your reasoning Albert Einstein would never dare to research his theories

I think you've misunderstood my post.

The point is that in science the ultimate arbiter is the ability to produce consistent empirical or mathematical results from your ideas, and how you do that. You not only need to get the right answer, you need to do it the right way.

It's why I likened it to showing your workings in mathematics. Often you only get half (or less) marks for getting the right answer - you need to work it out correctly too, because that means you can work out other similar problems with consistent accuracy.

If your method's are flawed in some way, you might still get some differential equations correct, but your results would be unreliable and you'd get a lot incorrect too. So in science the same rigor is applied to your method. You don't just get credit for an idea, you get credit for showing the idea is true and showing that it's not just a one-off thing.

It's why the Nobel Prize is given to the people who make new discoveries by collecting previously unknown evidence, or by finding a new method of applying existing knowledge (usually both). Ideas are great, but discovery is better.

I have no idea where or why you interpreted this as me saying we should only listen to, "experts" or that you should, "stay in the box". You can do science any way you want - as long as you provide reproducible methods and results it's all good.

 

[Hadoblado]

Instincts and intuitions can sometimes be wrong, but the facts are the facts. However, relying solely on the observable facts of the moment is severely limiting your potential of understanding the big picture. Einstein didn`t just come to his breakthrough formula for the theory of relativity through calculation alone, he originally had an intuition, a hunch, and it went from there. Otherwise without intuition, no amount of adding or subtracting or long division is ever gonna get you anywhere.

Do you think intuitions happens in a vacuum? If intuition is feeding you ideas that have no basis in the reality you observe, it's not intuition, its omniscience or insanity. If intuition is feeding you ideas based on subconsciously connected dots in observed reality, then it is loosely empirical. The proving is a different process, and it's absolutely crucial to making your intuitions into theories or 'facts'.

Nobody is advocating the dismissal of every notion that isn't already proven. It's more that trusting intuition so entirely that reality plays second fiddle isn't a very good way to science. You can have your cake and eat it too. Have an intuition, develop a hypothesis, test it, write down results. Your intuitions are now science.

 

[Tannhauser]

I am more annoyed when people just agree with whatever I say. Later I realize everything I said was nonsense, making both parties idiots.

 

[kora]

But science is tedious menial collection of empirical data it isn't like in the movies

If you're going to make an assumption then you better back it up with good data.

Of course, but it's still the least exciting part.

 

[Polaris]

I'd rather someone argue with me because I got something wrong than just sit there and nod like idiots. I need to be corrected - it excites me and drives me towards self-improvement.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

I'm amazed how you people are lack of trust. How you want do anything without this ability? And intuition gives the best trust. If you want proof, you will come where someone else had came before. If you want go where no one's been, you must fuck facts, follow your instinct and gather new experience. It is what Einstein did (some of you mentioned him). After he published his theories most people still don't believed him - they are most Si people - ISTJs - they are very distrustful and it's reason why any ISTJ never discovered anything purposefully.

 

[Cognisant]

Now I study physics and in laboratories I make experiments. I hate calculations, I know what result will come, but they want facts and calculations.

Too bad.

Assuming you are in fact a physicist your job is to find properties matter/energy/whatever for engineers to make use of.

 

[Sly-fy]

Do you think intuitions happens in a vacuum?

Well if you`re implying that that`s where I`m coming from with what I said then that`s taking what I said to an extreme and out of context. However, intuitions can come to individuals simultaneously with data input, but not without any data upon which to base an intuition to begin with.

For instance, babies when they`re born have this enormous influx of visual information that they`re unfamiliar with and they start immediately having intuitions to help them make heads or tails out of what`s going on in their minds when seeing the outside world for the first time. As their experience expands, the intuitions used to identify visual information which are found to be wrong (inconsistent) are forgotten and the consistently correct intuitions stick as first memories.

For example, if a baby sees something which appears to be an animated object, but it turns out that the only reason animation was perceived was due to the baby`s own change of perspective, the baby will realize that the object is in fact inanimate and the initial intuition was wrong. None the less, this trial and error through empty guesswork is essential in developing the thinking processes of deduction and reason.

There`s nothing wrong with being wrong and realizing that you were wrong and learning from that, it`s an inherent pattern of behavior and it`s how we learn. The baby uses all of the available information it has at the time, and outside of it having any context of experience the information is useless without resorting to intuition which is unsubstantiated by empirical data, because the data itself is meaningless out of context, like a series of numbers if you don`t know what those numbers represent. Chances are that if you keep guessing, sooner or later you will figure out the pattern (even though you will have made mistakes in order to get to the right answer.)

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

aint not, get ur fax str8 m8, ur avin a laff

 

[Sly-fy]

aint not, get ur fax str8 m8, ur avin a laff

Oh yeah? Where`s your empirical data to prove it m8? lol

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Do you think intuitions happens in a vacuum?

Hi, I'm Henry the Hoover, and I'm an INTP.

I has a yo-yo.

Please rate my joke on a scale from 1-10.

 

[Pyropyro]

I'm amazed how you people are lack of trust. How you want do anything without this ability? And intuition gives the best trust. If you want proof, you will come where someone else had came before. If you want go where no one's been, you must fuck facts, follow your instinct and gather new experience. It is what Einstein did (some of you mentioned him). After he published his theories most people still don't believed him - they are most Si people - ISTJs - they are very distrustful and it's reason why any ISTJ never discovered anything purposefully.

I believe that Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper and Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig? cited and then build upon scientific data and equations such as those pioneered by James Clerk Maxwell and even Newton to a lesser extent. Einstein also systematically showed his proofs there instead of intuitionally as you propose.

By the way this last translated snippet of Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig? might be of interest to you.

If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies.

Like any self-respecting researcher, Einstein knows that theories are beholden to facts not the other way around. He didn't, as you want us to follow, fucked facts.

As for "most people" not believing Einstein's theory, it's simply common sense. The mathematics is okay but special relativity must still be confirmed IRL. One of the earliest chance that they can do so was during the Ives–Stilwell time dilation experiment in 1938. There wasn't an ISTJ conspiracy out to get his unruly hair. People were simply waiting for the confirmation of a remarkable theory.

As for intuition, I think that's only useful if you have lots of experience and data backing it up. I can intuit the safest way around a certain area only after identifying prominent landmarks and studying the different streets that snake within it.

I'll just leave you with your ISTJ hate though. I'm not going to touch that nonsense.

 

[Sly-fy]

@Artsu Tharaz - /10

 

[redbaron]

If you want go where no one's been, you must fuck facts, follow your instinct and gather new experience. It is what Einstein did (some of you mentioned him).

What are you talking about?

Einstein went out of his way to gather lots and lots of evidence and to empirically and mathematically demonstrate proof for his ideas. He spent years doing just that.

After he published his theories most people still don't believed him - they are most Si people - ISTJs - they are very distrustful and it's reason why any ISTJ never discovered anything purposefully.

Which theories in particular? He published hundreds.

Einstein himself made plenty of amendments and changes to several of his theories after publishing, not even he believed all of them. Also let's note that a whole lot of Einsteins most significant achievements were made by finding previously unknown evidence and/or finding new methods of applying existing knowledge and evidence.

Also noting that he was actually going to huge lengths to make arguments and demonstrate facts - publishing more than 300 papers. It's like people think Einstein is so famous and was so brilliant because he just sat around, "instinctively" solving super complex problems. But that's not it.

He's so famous and lauded because he demonstrated more important facts than anyone else. Einstein was the undisputed king of facts and argumentation in his era of physics - THAT'S why he's so revered, not because he had good "instincts" - that's just delusional.

 

[Intolerable]

I do believe ideas come from total asspull regions. For the simple fact nothing can be proven if it hasn't been dreamt first.

Now, experience and exposure to the world can lend to forming an idea surely. But nobody comes up with something by limiting themselves to what they know.

I think it goes without saying that the less curious among us are rarely inventors.

 

[Thurlor]

Intuition is all well and good as a motivator. However, like everything else it can be taken too far. If you ignore reality in favour of your intuition you are probably on the wrong path.