 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 208 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613450 Today 3 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you think that "soft sciences" and humanities like psychology, sociology and economics could ever become "hard sciences" with greater objectivity and stronger predictive power? What would be needed to achieve this? Could it be achieved simply by utilising greater processing power to generate more accurate models, or is something different or more fundamental required? (this is all in the context of IDM of course) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's up to you really. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, if you base everything on movement of energy, everything is "hard sciences". We just don't have the power to utilize that fact. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Maths, computing, physics, chemistry. These are examples of "proper" sciences. Liberals talking about their spectacularly subjective, non-repeatable, frequently illogical ideas in an abstract way? That's art, or at best, philosophy. Just sticking the suffix "Sciences" on a subject doesn't make it a science, kemosabe. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That post says a lot about you, you miserable old twat! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Just sticking the suffix "Sciences" on a subject doesn't make it a science, kemosabe. " True of course. But that's what I hope we can eventually overcome. With greater processing power we can get rid of the niche that dogmatic subjectivity currently resides in. e.g. if we could model society to a degree sufficient to make sociology an empirical science, then that would kill off a lot of the politically-motivated assertions that abound when it comes to social issues. I just wonder if that will ever be possible or if there would be other means to make them empirical. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This question boils down to asking whether both human behaviour can ever be accurately modelled by computers and the complete environmental conditions of Earth (space-influence included) can ever be accurately predicted by statistical models. The answer in short is no. The accuracy of approximations to models of real-life phenomena does become ever greater with our improved technology. On the whole though, these things that would need to be "predicted" are far too convoluted to do so empirically. The funny thing is if we were able to do such a thing, we would essentially harness the power of complete predestination, since if we could stretch far enough to model humans, Earth and our galaxy perfectly, we would have a good chance of modelling the entire universe and its time evolution with good accuracy also. The power to last until the heat death of the universe, or perhaps even defy entropy with some sort of energy collation and recycling tech, and live in a little mass-energy bubble in the middle of tepid infinity til the infinite bound of time. Or until the Big Bounce decides to say hello |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
who fucking cares. the map is not the territory, the question is rigged in the first place. we will never solve Truth in some absolute sense, just come up with better and better models of what may be going on. being able to simulate the universe is a classic limp-dicked intellectual exercise, omg are the simulated people real? i am so intellectual. simulating the universe requires matching its complexity, and what are you going to do, pull a second universe out of your arsehole? even the things that vaguely hold a candle to that, like dyson spheres etc. will fucking never ever happen because humans are immature greedy fucks. space ain't happening unless one country gets jealous of another's progress, any life-safe discovery is used to profit off the sick first, to make us comfortable next, and to entertain us thereafter. root causes are never addressed, bunch of assholes at a university sit in their bubble and argue why, it's obvious why, fuck off you skinny stick philosophers, they're skinny because you can't eat philosophy and philosophy doesn't pay the bills and you only get paid by participating in humanity's greedy bullshit have a nice day but now, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"we will never solve Truth in some absolute sense, just come up with better and better models of what may be going on." That's what I mean though. We won't ever find the 100% Truth, but we might be able to model things better such that things like sociology actually become objective, and capable of generating predictions without any of the political dogma bullshit. "dyson spheres etc. will fucking never ever happen because humans are immature greedy fucks." Yeah probably. Techno-fetishists annoy me with their talk of the Singularity and how we will shortly be living in some kind of augmented-reality utopia where our way of life is fundamentally different and better. It won't happen. Technology is great but it hasn't changed our psyche since we were cavemen, we're no less flawed emotionally. But maybe that's the same political dogma right there, that I want to banish from the social sciences yo. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Stop pretending you know things, folks! It looks silly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So I get on the subway. Its dead quiet because its early morning and the only other people on were some curly haired grandma and a dark haired man with glasses. I lean on a bar sort of in between them, bend over and break wind. It sounded like a nice long zipper being pulled fast, then really slow, then fast again. None of us laughed. Instead I turned toward the grandma and began explaining: "I felt that there was plenty of air over here, and here" I said, gesturing with my hands, "but not enough right there. I just wanted to leave some air right there. I'm just trying to help." "Oh, its ok sonny, said the grandma and she lovingly took my head in her hand and I snuggled on the bench beside her, buried my face in her short dress and into her panties briefly, then rested my left ear on her thigh, and we both gazed at the dark haired man with glasses very solemnly. He kind of furrowed his brow and tried to awkwardly avoid eye contact and look down at his paper, but he couldn't help repeatedly glancing back and we were still gazing at him. After about 3 minutes he picked up his hat, folded his paper and left. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It might look silly, but it doesn't matter how it looks, you complete dry shite. Considering our limits as living things is just another healthy part of being alive. Nobody pretended to know anything. drill rods, it's not possible to do the modelling you're talking about and so anything based off it is just conjecture and for fun purposes only. But NO fun must be had in thinking or talking about it because you will look like a real idiot |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're one of the few here that could have a career at riced out yugo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm a loving and caring person. I don't know why i went overboard like that. I'm really sorry as it seems you felt insulted. Are you OK? ffs :D. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Would you care to show us the complicated maths and engineering schematics by which you arrived at that conclusion? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, because that opinion is in itself art/philosophy, rather than something clear and demonstrable. RussellDust: It's interesting that you took my theory as an insult, as though art/philosophy were somehow less important. I don't think that they are. I just don't understand the "me too!" mentality of a lot of subjects to want to be reclassified from their traditional designations as arts to "sciences". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I definitely didn't feel isulted. I just find you boring and a bitter conservative. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Does that make it a spectacularly subjective, non-repeatable, illogical idea in an abstract way? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Baaaam! You just got light up, cuz! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It is: Spectacularly subjective. A reasonably abstract concept. It is not: Illogical to consider 'soft sciences' in this way. "Repeatable" is rather irrelevant in this context; I was referring to one of the criteria that I find key in differentiating soft sciences from proper science. Namely, that the soft sciences have a much greater frequency with which attempts at repeating experiments fail to yield the same results. This was key to drill rods' initial post. Is my opinion itself repeatable? I don't know, ask me again in 10 years. Ask most proper scientists their view and you'll probably find that you get a view akin to my own that is "repeated" more consistently amongst that group than you would get in most social experiments. ---- RussellDust: I can see where you're coming from. It's often easier to criticise the individual than the discourse. Particularly where such criticism, even if it were true, in no way refutes the argument. I'm reading some Theodore Dalrymple at the moment. He's so educated and drops so many literary and historical references that have me reaching for the dictionary and every two minutes. It makes you feel stupid and so you feel as though he is writing in a patronising manner (although he isn't) and look at his face. Plus he's a retired doctor and white and terribly middle class and God, just look at his face, he's a poster child for the establishment he claims to hate. Also, what about that name. I could well imagine that all these things would irk people who already disagree with his political views. Although all these things are utterly irrelevant to his argument of course, which is completely informed, reasoned and consequently are considerably harder to attack. So fuck it, he's just an old conservative from a rich background. ----- Anyway, that's probably enough zilty for me for another year or so. I used to enjoy these sort of debates, but I've become apathetic about the point of them in my old age: You'll continue with |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...your foolishness opinions, as will I. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's a LOL |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't over analyse me just giving a tiny opinion. Sorry if it felt harsh. "Anyway, that's probably enough zilty for me for another year or so" Ha ha you poor thing! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Looking forward to more of your contributions! =) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And on this matter, like so many others before it, the Muslim community chooses to remain silent. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"it's not possible to do the modelling you're talking about and so anything based off it is just conjecture and for fun purposes only" but why is it not possible? It should be possible given improvements to modelling and processing power. The results thereof would certainly always be much vaguer than they are in e.g. physics, but I don't see that there should be some impermeable barrier that stops the scientific method from being meaningfully applied to psychology, at the very least. also, lol @ thread |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
His real name is Anthony Daniels. Theodore Dalrymple is his pen name. He apparently chose it to impress the thickos who buy his books. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Taking gloves off lulz More of a patriot than george himself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I'm reading some Theodore Dalrymple at the moment." He seems to think everything can be blamed on the nanny state basically making the plebs turn into layabouts. I reckon that it's at least partly It's a testable (and tested?) Regardless of the truth, this is exactly the kind of thing that improved processing power should be able to help us to understand more, by allowing us to play with ever-bigger datasets and accommodate for more variables and shit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Although I do agree with him that welfare systems have to make sure they avoid removing the incentive for self-improvement. Which, maybe, Western ones have actually done in some instances. (Look at Brazil's Bolsa Familia for a good example of one that doesn't do that.) But again, I can't easily PROVE any of that shit, which is why I hate the humanities and prefer to hide away in the world of science like the meek shy science nerd that I am. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The cecil rumsfielder |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
set strict on denikin b.t.w there's a skype pic of julian looking worse for wear floating around |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
