It seems I have upset you with my post, nanook - not entirely sure why though. Perhaps it was my initial comment. The entirety of my post was not addressed to you, however. It was an expression of frustration from someone who is also a bit tired of generalising comments about science, and being misunderstood.
Perhaps I need to clarify a few things, my apologies if the following was not clear in my previous post, and for any more misunderstandings I may commit with my following post.
My first comment about your view on science just reflects my curiosity as to why someone would dismiss (that is how I interpret your comments,- forgive me if I'm wrong) certain people for having a 'sensing' approach:
...because big five is literally a way of sensing static aspects of reality, that is what allot of well funded science does, it nails down hard static points and edges and avoids speculations about the how, the process of things, which is always invisible and too complex to be predictable, but an intuitive will keep trying. of course such academic science is theoretic and complicated and sensors like their theories and are smart enough to remember them. academic science is practical enough to make shitloads of money, like big pharma. working for pharma implies a practical attitude. nobody needs to understand how disease and self healing works, you just need to know your pills. i also think introverts, including thinkers, are more interested in the subjective side of human condition (including creativity) than in objective systems like technology or sociology (which limit creativity and demand precise adaptation). by now i have already been blasphemous about half of mbti clichees...
What I have highlighted in bold kind of begs for a response - these are pretty strong generalisations. I understand that generalisations sometimes are necessary to describe a trend, but I cannot sit here and accept every one of them because it is necessary to provide a nuanced view - for the sake of people who may be reading this, not for the sake of argument - I am not interested in arguing with one person, I am interested in providing a different facet (or several) to an argument.
As I outlined in my excessively long post above (should have shortened it for clarity), I prefer a multi-faceted approach.
Yes, science nails down hard, static points for the sake of clarity - this is what is required if you do not wish to be misunderstood in the scientific community. However, the hard, static points are generally but a fragment of the enormity of science that is actually behind it. Most people do not get to reading the full studies or articles because they are sadly often not available, and the community is left with the very generalising interpretations of people who may not necessarily take their time to understand the entirety of the science behind such articles. Often, people will just read the abstracts, and these can generally not include disclaimers, limitations or speculations for the sake of word limits. It is required that you present your data in a brief, succinct and precise manner, or you may not get your message through. Your work will be dismissed.
So the science that is communicated in the media is for a large part, greatly simplified and distorted, misinterpreted and cherry-picked, depending on the agenda of those interpreting it. But you probably already know this - I am here writing for the sake of providing a perspective from the inside to those who would be interested.
What is not communicated or understood is that most serious scientists are very cautious about making bold statements - precisely because they do not wish to be misunderstood or misquoted. However, even then they are at the mercy of those who put the final product into print - and what is their agenda? To attract interest and generate profits as a result. Because, ultimately, in every medium, the bottom line is money. Nobody actually gives a shit about what the science is actually about, because people find non-opinionated statements uninteresting - it's not dramatic enough.
Example: scientists propose a theory about a dinosaur stampede caused by massive carnivorous giants pursuing smaller ones. The media get a whiff of it and smell sensation because dinosaurs have mass-appeal, just like whales, koalas and cute dolphins.
Result: article attracts a great deal of attention because DINOSAUR MASS STAMPEDE WOW, SUCH DRAMA. It even inspired a scene in Stephen Spielberg's Jurassic Park.
Some people from the Smithsonian society in the US expressed doubt - the larger prints appeared to be from those of a giant herbivore, but this was ignored for the most part. A few years later come modern technology and some Aussie wizard tech dude plays around with 3D remodelling of the clay imprints from the stampede site, and discovers a great deal of other interesting data that points towards the possibility that this was probably not a carnivore-induced mass-stampede, but potentially a migration event. The footprints indicate that the all the smaller dinosaurs were not, in fact just running, but walking, and even swimming. Additionally, the smaller dinosaurs probably made their way across the mudflat some time
after the larger ones made their imprints. The smaller ones were walking through tall bushes and reeds, so there was no way they could be running without great difficulty.
DING - intuition could be wrong.
The interesting thing is that nobody from the media were interested in this story. It wasn't interesting anymore, because it wasn't dramatic enough.
The only people to draw attention to the fact that the scientists who initially made intuitive guesses about the nature of the event could be wrong, were, in fact, scientists.
Who's the sensation seekers? The media, not the scientists. This is why science comes across as sensing dominated because the media are not interested in vague intuitive leaps or speculations - they want hard, static edges, and this is why most science is interpreted as such.
Also, how can one intuit anything without acquiring sensory data first...? The more sensory data you acquire, the more your intuition has a basis for making connections.
Also, a comment about how disease works, self healing, etc.
Most medications are prescribed by GPs. Many of these people are overworked and unhealthy themselves, as a result of being forced to see an excessive amount of patients every day. They don't even have time to explore underlying reasons and vital aspects of medical history is often largely neglected or missed because the practitioner doesn't have time to ask, and the patient is often not educated enough to provide relevant information that the practitioner may have no way of inferring.
Problem two. 'Big pharma' does push GPs and medical practitioners into pushing their products, not because of scientists, but the people who profit from pharmacological research - company and institutional owners, politicians, etc. Big money is poured into this kind of research, and other, more investigative fields of science are ignored - this forces people who want to have a career in science to pick disciplines that guarantee them an income. Many of them are even pushed into their career paths by parents, etc - something that is becoming more and more apparent here where I live.
Can we really blame them?
My point about solipsism: not directed at nanook. Just something I see a lot on these boards. My point is that it is often assumed that people who work in science do not consider these aspects of philosophy. They do. If anyone is aware of subjective bias, it is scientists. Which is precisely why the scientific methods strives towards objectivity through rigorous methods, self-checking and peer-review. I don't know of any other discipline that scrutinises itself with such vigour. It is not faultless, of course. Nobody is without fault. But it tries, at least.
As for you point about intuitives/intuitive thinkers being more interested in subjective side of humanity (including creativity) than the technical and sociological (limiting creativity...?) - I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I guess it depends what you consider to be creative.
I'm worried I've made another giant, unreadable post so I will finish here for now.
