Page 17 of 46
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:18 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:28 pm
Yes! Don't talk or listen to practitioners who identify gaping problems with your methods, talk/listen to your followers!
Religion-building 101.
fix-society.png
peacegirl wrote:This is humorous. What practitioners? What gaping problems?
Logik wrote:You lack empirical evidence that your strategy will have the desired/predicted/expected effect!!!
Granted, empirical proof is the ultimate proof of the pudding. But just because it's difficult to prove empirically that he was right because the set-up for an empirical experiment is difficult due to the inability to isolate all of the variables (i.e.,
https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf) DOESN'T MAKE HIM WRONG. If I know that an equation is correct that allows me to build a bridge that will not collapse over time, then just because I have not yet built the bridge (to prove empirically that it works), doesn't mean that it won't work.
Logik wrote:How much particular do you want me to get.
As particular as necessary.
Logik wrote:Yes me and “my cronies”. The Illuminati! The old guard standing in your way!
That is what you're making this out to be. So I'm going to be ostracized?
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:22 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:18 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:28 pm
Yes! Don't talk or listen to practitioners who identify gaping problems with your methods, talk/listen to your followers!
Religion-building 101.
fix-society.png
peacegirl wrote:This is humorous. What practitioners? Do you mean YOU and your cronies? What gaping problems are you talking about?
Logik wrote:You lack empirical evidence that your strategy will have the desired/predicted/expected effect!!![/qutoe]
Empirical proof is important. Just because it's difficult to prove empirically that he was right because the set-up for an empirical experiment is difficult, DOESN'T MAKE HIM WRONG. The proof of the pudding is if this works in real life. If I know that an equation is correct that allows me to build a bridge that will not collapse, just because I haven't yet built the bridge to prove empirically that it works, doesn't mean that it won't work.
Logik wrote:How much particular do you want me to get.
I'm game. Get particular.
Logik wrote:Yes me and “my cronies”. The Illuminati! The old guard standing in your way!
That is what you're making this out to be. So I'm going to be ostracized?
I got particular.
Evidence for effectiveness please.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:30 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:34 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:32 am
But man is measurer.
That we are. Some yardsticks are worse calibrated than others on measuring complex issues.
1. 0000....00001 failure rate still observes:
2. 1 unit greater than 0.
3. 1 is infinitely greater than zero.
Measurement is just a belief system.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:44 pm
by Logik
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:30 pm
Measurement is just a belief system.
So is perfectionism.
Which one is more harmful?
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:49 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:05 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:03 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:58 pm
You lack empirical evidence that your styategy will have the desired/predicted/expected effect!!!
How much particular do you want me to get.
Yes me and “my cronies”. The Illuminati! The old guard standing in your way!
Yes, in a way you are acting like the illuminati. I'm just following your lead. I don't need this forum. I just thought you'd like to know where I find major arrogance and a block to anything that you deem impossible or wrong or unworthy of your time while you go round and round discussing issues that will not have any lasting impact. I don't need to hear your retort, as I'm not willing to be taken in by your mistaken reasoning.
Where would you like me to e-mail you your “I could fix the world if you stop oppressing me” membership card?
You are categorizing me as a fundie. I never said I can fix the world. I said that I have knowledge that can help the world based on observations that were made in latter part of the 20th century. If his observations are correct, then this knowledge is worth hearing about. You could have read the first three chapters many times over by now, but instead you would rather argue over nothing.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:52 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:22 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:18 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:28 pm
Yes! Don't talk or listen to practitioners who identify gaping problems with your methods, talk/listen to your followers!
Religion-building 101.
fix-society.png
peacegirl wrote:This is humorous. What practitioners? Do you mean YOU and your cronies? What gaping problems are you talking about?
Logik wrote:You lack empirical evidence that your strategy will have the desired/predicted/expected effect!!![/qutoe]
Empirical proof is important. Just because it's difficult to prove empirically that he was right because the set-up for an empirical experiment is difficult, DOESN'T MAKE HIM WRONG. The proof of the pudding is if this works in real life. If I know that an equation is correct that allows me to build a bridge that will not collapse, just because I haven't yet built the bridge to prove empirically that it works, doesn't mean that it won't work.
I'm game. Get particular.
I got particular.
Evidence for effectiveness please.
All I am asking is for you to understand what his observations were.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:54 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:10 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:07 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:52 pm
This highfalutin group is as arrogant as they come.
You've now filled pages with your comments, that's enough room for several summaries.
Come on, you know we all know that the insights of the book are most likely rubbish. How do you want to enforce world peace? Create a global dictatorship and force every human to behave a certain way?
If I were the benevolent dictator this place would be so much better!
Said every dictator. Ever.
This knowledge is about the removal of all dictatorships!
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:54 pm
by Arising_uk
peacegirl wrote:
What is that supposed to mean?
It means you've already been here punting ol' Seymour.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:55 pm
by Logik
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:52 pm
All I am asking is for you to understand what his observations were.
Observations do not translate into a practical solution.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:57 pm
by peacegirl
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:55 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:52 pm
All I am asking is for you to understand what his observations were.
Observations do not translate into a practical solution.
You're right, not necessarily. But these observations are accurate, and they do turn into a practical solution that will make the whole world happy, not just one country.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:09 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:30 pm
Measurement is just a belief system.
So is perfectionism.
Which one is more harmful?
Creating a predictive model is perfectionism. What is wrong with "chaos"?
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:10 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:55 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:52 pm
All I am asking is for you to understand what his observations were.
Observations do not translate into a practical solution.
Tell me what is "practical".
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:24 pm
by peacegirl
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:09 pm
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:30 pm
Measurement is just a belief system.
So is perfectionism.
Which one is more harmful?
Creating a predictive model is perfectionism. What is wrong with "chaos"?
This knowledge that I am sharing is not about a predictive model of perfectionism. There isn't a foolproof way we can predict with 100% accuracy what the outcome of every situation will be. This is not a prerequisite.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:49 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:54 pm
peacegirl wrote:
What is that supposed to mean?
It means you've already been here punting ol' Seymour.
I am so glad you decided to come in and join the conversation...please tell me how "order" is restored...or even if this is the right question to ask.
You are so witty and clever....err "try to be", I want to be entertained.
I am listening.
Re: Revolution in Thought
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:52 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Logik wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:20 pm
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:10 pm
You will never know what this knowledge offers unless you understand his reasoning?
This is the crux why I won't waste my time reading it.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
The kind of knowledge you can achieve through pure reason is "know that". This is a posteriori knowledge.
The kind of knowledge that matters in this universe is "know how". This is a priori knowledge.
The author does not appear to have any practical experience in dealing with complexity and scale.
Yet another armchair genius who thinks the world's problems can be solved by thinking about them a lot!
That not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works...
Actually is just means practices is just a gradient from of theory considering all "practice" exists through the mold of theory.
Kant is a blowhard, I am going to do a thread about that. He built this "beautiful" cathedral of "knowledge" when in reality one just has to step out in "practice" and observe noone likes cathedrals...they are all empty.
