Paradigms and normal science

[Surlethe]

The human sciences are at least the following: sociology, psychology, psychoanalysis, and anthropology.

These sciences are fact based but the subject, i.e. humans, are creatures who create meaning.

Please concisely and usefully define "meaning" in this context, and explain why that's relevant to the fact those particular sciences study humans.

Meaning is what is significant and of value to me.

In other words, the "human sciences" study beings that value some things over other things. I fail to see how this negates objective analysis. Please elaborate on how the 'scientific paradigm', as you would style it, does not apply to gathering knowledge about humans simply because humans value some things and not others.

[Surlethe]

Self-esteem is acquired when I am a hero. I am a hero when I do something that is meaningful. Something is meaningful for me if it provides me with a purpose. My telos is to have a life of meaning. I post on these silly forums because I think it is important that people become familiar with important ideas. I am doing something that is meaningful to me.

Serial murderers, rapists, and other sociopaths must be particularly happy with themselves. Therefore, what they do is justified, right?

[Mobiboros]

Self-esteem is acquired when I am a hero. I am a hero when I do something that is meaningful. Something is meaningful for me if it provides me with a purpose.

You miss something right here. Hero isn't a label you can apply to yourself. Others apply it to you. You're a "Hero" when you do something meaningful that affects others positively. Otherwise you're just doing something because you want to and it makes you feel good to do it. What you are doing here isn't heroic. It's self-agrandizement. You're not doing it for heroism you're doing it because you think you have a good idea and want to show off.

Masturbation isn't heroic.

[coberst]

Please concisely and usefully define "meaning" in this context, and explain why that's relevant to the fact those particular sciences study humans.

Meaning is what is significant and of value to me.

In other words, the "human sciences" study beings that value some things over other things. I fail to see how this negates objective analysis. Please elaborate on how the 'scientific paradigm', as you would style it, does not apply to gathering knowledge about humans simply because humans value some things and not others.

I do not think any of the human sciences can be described as normal science in Kuhn's terms. None have paradigms.

[coberst]

Self-esteem is acquired when I am a hero. I am a hero when I do something that is meaningful. Something is meaningful for me if it provides me with a purpose. My telos is to have a life of meaning. I post on these silly forums because I think it is important that people become familiar with important ideas. I am doing something that is meaningful to me.

Serial murderers, rapists, and other sociopaths must be particularly happy with themselves. Therefore, what they do is justified, right?

That seems like a silly idea. Where did you find it?

[Mad]

I post on these silly forums because I think it is important that people become familiar with important ideas. I am doing something that is meaningful to me.

Your posting style is not conducive to your goal. In general, you have been posting excerpts of pre-written essays on a discussion board. The problem is that you are not discussing anything.

On discussion boards, people post, ideas get debated, and lurkers decide for themselves which arguments make the most sense. Your fluttering from topic to topic cannot get ideas across coherently, and you certainly are not properly defending your ideas against rebuttals. As a result, your arguments are likely to be seen as inferior to the ideas expressed in the rebuttals. This is particularly true since your pre-written material cannot adapt to new counter-arguments very well.

You will be taken much more seriously if you can reply directly to counter-arguments. You need to adapt to the environment where you are presenting your information. It will also force you to think critically about your own ideas and modify them as needed. In fact, your current style doesn't force you to critically think about your arguments because your "reply" is simply more of what you have already written. No actual thought or understanding of the concepts is required to do that.

You may also want to slow down in posting new topics. It dilutes your attention too much to allow you to debate effectively. You need to focus on active debates, not create new ones.

If you continue as you have been, then your quest is in vain. And what meaning is there in that?

[General Zod]

Self-esteem is acquired when I am a hero. I am a hero when I do something that is meaningful. Something is meaningful for me if it provides me with a purpose. My telos is to have a life of meaning. I post on these silly forums because I think it is important that people become familiar with important ideas. I am doing something that is meaningful to me.

Serial murderers, rapists, and other sociopaths must be particularly happy with themselves. Therefore, what they do is justified, right?

That seems like a silly idea. Where did you find it?

Try reading your own posts.

Something is meaningful for me if it provides me with a purpose.

Serial murderers and genocidal idiots are filled with a purpose when they kill people. See the problem with your logic yet or should I try using smaller words?

[brianeyci]

I fail to see how there is insufficient focus on the human sciences. Going to college and university is seen now as a birthright rather than something regulated to the elite. This is a bad thing. A whole generation of high school students are being told that trades are useless, working after high school is pointless, and university is the only way to earn a living. To that end, universities create a lot of your so-called "human sciences," psychology, history, English, etc., to meet their bottom line. This is wrong. University degrees are saturated precisely because too many people go to university who shouldn't.

In short there is overfocus on human sciences. There has to be a refocus on math and science, and should a student not be good at math and science, he should be strongly discouraged from wasting four years in "human sciences" unless he is truly interested and talented in the subject matter. People should not be going for history or English majors because they have no choice to get a job. They should be doing it because they love history or Shakespeare. Universities are turning into diploma mills because of so-called "human sciences."

[Surlethe]

I do not think any of the human sciences can be described as normal science in Kuhn's terms. None have paradigms.

I'm fairly certain the human sciences all to some extend utilize the scientific method. There's your "paradigm" right there.

That seems like a silly idea. Where did you find it?

Oh, I'm sorry. They're not simply justified in their behavior; they're actually heroic! There, is that better?

[coberst]

Mad

Good advice, thanks.

[Covenant]

Mad

Good advice, thanks.

Furthermore, you're just making us think whatever idea it is you're a champion of to be a bad idea by proposing it and then shrinking from any objective level of critical debate. Or at least, the perception is that you're either avoiding it, or disinterested in it. Don't avoid it if you are, and if you're not even interested in doing any more than 'providing' material, then that's basically just spamming people with lines from essays and books.

If there's an idea you want to 'get out there', then make a topic about it and ask for discussion, and use your articles as evidence rather than as the beginning and end of your addition to the board. If the thread is full of nothing but scathing rebuttals to the arguement, it ends up looking pretty one-sided.

[Darth Wong]

I do not think any of the human sciences can be described as normal science in Kuhn's terms. None have paradigms.

So "human sciences" as you describe them have no practices and no rules? What the fuck are they, then?

[Wyrm]

I post on these silly forums because I think it is important that people become familiar with important ideas. I am doing something that is meaningful to me.

So you try to educate us with copypastry text that shows no signs of stopping to visit your grey matter? You call this heroism? Ohyeah, heroism is a means of achieving self-esteem, and you seem to derive great self-esteem from torturing us with your copypastry. Silly me.

I suspect it is in high school that we get a real taste of what the hero system is all about. This is, perhaps, our first taste of what socialization, self-esteem, and heroism really mean to us personally.

You've been watching too may reruns of Growing Pains.

Each high school seems to offer some means for becoming a hero. Unfortunately it seems that the hero slots are few and they usually accentuate physical attributes. In one high school football is king of self-esteem, in another it may be basketball, in another it may be baseball, in another etc. There are other hero slots that are filled by those with ‘good looks’, ‘witty personality’, ‘has a car’, etc. Most students must find their own means for becoming heroes because the high school does not provide the means for sufficient hero slots to meet the demand.

So, people at large consider passing pigskins around, or knocking balls around with wooden sticks, and bouncing balls on the ground while running and tossing them into string baskets to be the cool thing. Eventually some people learn that these are in fact silly activites and go off and do their own things. Wow! Great revelation there, Sherlock. You are well on your way to being an hero.

Yes, that word has the correct article.

No, I am not a Brit.

Self-esteem is the goal and heroism is the means,;

Boy, heros sound like self-aggrandizing cunts.

those who do not find a means for establishing self-esteem are in trouble. “The supreme law [of life] is this: the sense of worth of the self not be allowed to be diminished.”--Alfred Adler. In other words, the fundamental law of human life is the urge to self-esteem.

Jeffrey Dahmer must have derived great self-esteem after murdering 17 men and boys. Therefore he must have been a hero, for heroism is the means. That's why we praise his actions. Oh wait. He was executed for them.

Our self-esteem is derived from symbols.

Indeed, the self-esteem of Mitchell Henderson, an real hero, was derived from an iPod.

In the ape such matters were biologically cared for but we humans depend upon a symbolic constitution of worth. We are largely artificialized creatures dependant upon our society to provide each of us with a means for establishing our own self-esteem, without which we go crazy.

In other words, humans need to feel important in the eyes of others. Revelation! You'll be famous!

These forum postings are part of my hero activity. What are some of your acts of heroism, and are they keeping your self-esteem grade high enough to satisfy you?

Eating trolls. Like you.

Do you think that your society is providing you with sufficient means for your hero needs?

"Hero needs?" So you think society obligated to make you feel like a hero? Wow! And here I thought society just had to provide for my safety and and give me fair opportunity to make myself successful. I have to demand society make me feel like more of a hero!

[coberst]

I fail to see how there is insufficient focus on the human sciences. Going to college and university is seen now as a birthright rather than something regulated to the elite. This is a bad thing. A whole generation of high school students are being told that trades are useless, working after high school is pointless, and university is the only way to earn a living. To that end, universities create a lot of your so-called "human sciences," psychology, history, English, etc., to meet their bottom line. This is wrong. University degrees are saturated precisely because too many people go to university who shouldn't.

In short there is overfocus on human sciences. There has to be a refocus on math and science, and should a student not be good at math and science, he should be strongly discouraged from wasting four years in "human sciences" unless he is truly interested and talented in the subject matter. People should not be going for history or English majors because they have no choice to get a job. They should be doing it because they love history or Shakespeare. Universities are turning into diploma mills because of so-called "human sciences."

We study the vocational sciences to keep the status quo machine on the tracks and functioning efficiently. When we study the human sciences we discover who we are and why we do the things we do.

Human science knowledge is needed when we desire to change the status quo. Today’s status quo is driving us over the abyss and only our self-critical understanding can help us to create a better machine and change course. Our technology is too great for us to maintain our present status quo—we are in the process of destroying the human species.

[Fire Fly]

We study the vocational sciences to keep the status quo machine on the tracks and functioning efficiently. When we study the human sciences we discover who we are and why we do the things we do.

What are you talking about? The only reason why we know so much of what we do about the human mind was through physics. FMR, PET, CAT and every other imaging technology is a direct result of physics. Our understanding of chemistry has also led directly to an increased knowledge in biology. Without the natural sciences (real science, mind you), the social "sciences" would be for shit.

Human science knowledge is needed when we desire to change the status quo. Today’s status quo is driving us over the abyss and only our self-critical understanding can help us to create a better machine and change course. Our technology is too great for us to maintain our present status quo—we are in the process of destroying the human species.

You ironically seem to fail at understanding that the natural sciences can also get us out of problems that we get ourselves in the first place. Global warming? We wouldn't even know about it nor would we even have strategies for dealing with it if it were not for climatology. Lake polluted? Chemistry and biology can help with that. Need a more efficient vehicle? Physics and engineering usually takes care of that. How are the social sciences going to help push this so called status-quo if it can't produce something fundamentally important?

In a world were humanity is on the verge of extinction, who is more valuable? A sociologist or a chemist?

[coberst]

We study the vocational sciences to keep the status quo machine on the tracks and functioning efficiently. When we study the human sciences we discover who we are and why we do the things we do.

In a world were humanity is on the verge of extinction, who is more valuable? A sociologist or a chemist?

Both the sociologist and the chemist have value but most important is a population with a much higher level of intellectual sophistication than that we now have. Such intellectual sophistication can develop when more of our citizens become self-actualizing self-learning adults.

[brianeyci]

Why do you assume that studying what you call the human sciences makes a person beome self-actualizing and self-learning?

Have you considered that most people are not interested in higher learning and that forcing people to do something that they have no talent in and no skill in, and most importantly no interest in, is futile?

You sound like the worst kind of humanities student, the kind who thinks himself as important or more important than actual science or math students. I've found the most intelligent humanities students are not filled with delusions of self-importance, but rather admit that doctors and scientists do more important work than they ever could. You being an engineer doesn't get you off the hook: you assume human sciences would make people more interested in self-learning, which is a total non-sequitur. Do you realize that most people hate the idea of writing essays and have no skill in it?

[coberst]

Why do you assume that studying what you call the human sciences makes a person beome self-actualizing and self-learning?

Have you considered that most people are not interested in higher learning and that forcing people to do something that they have no talent in and no skill in, and most importantly no interest in, is futile?

You sound like the worst kind of humanities student, the kind who thinks himself as important or more important than actual science or math students. I've found the most intelligent humanities students are not filled with delusions of self-importance, but rather admit that doctors and scientists do more important work than they ever could. You being an engineer doesn't get you off the hook: you assume human sciences would make people more interested in self-learning, which is a total non-sequitur. Do you realize that most people hate the idea of writing essays and have no skill in it?

I am aware that our culture has a very strong anti-intellectual bias. I am trying to fight against that bias. I am also trying to reveal to people that they personally and their community would be better off if they were to become more intellectually self-reliant.

[brianeyci]

A plumber who focuses as best he can on his trade and learns as much about his trade as possible is somehow not self-actualizing and not self-learning?

You still assume that this "bias" is something bad, rather than a byproduct of a modern specialized economy where everybody focuses on knowing as much they can on their own niche. You assume that human sciences will help people become more self-actualizing and self-learning, when that is not the case.

Essay writing is also not a necessary condition of intellect. It is simply something someone should pursue should they be good at it, like all things. I don't see why this is bias.

[coberst]

A plumber who focuses as best he can on his trade and learns as much about his trade as possible is somehow not self-actualizing and not self-learning?

You still assume that this "bias" is something bad, rather than a byproduct of a modern specialized economy where everybody focuses on knowing as much they can on their own niche. You assume that human sciences will help people become more self-actualizing and self-learning, when that is not the case.

Essay writing is also not a necessary condition of intellect. It is simply something someone should pursue should they be good at it, like all things. I don't see why this is bias.

We all do the jobs that we have acquired as our life work. Doing our job and self-actualizing self-learning are different things.

The water held back by a hydroelectric dam is potential energy. When the gates are opened the water falls through the generating turbines; this potential energy becomes electricity, this potential energy becomes kinetic energy, it becomes dynamic energizing energy.

I think that this is an appropriate analogy for the process of self-actualization. Self-actualizing self-learning is a process of converting our potential energy into a kinetic form of energy. The reason self-actualizing is so important is because it is tailor-made. Only you can ascertain what you need to turn your potential into kinetic energy.

Self-actualization through self-learning is the means for developing my potential energy into the kinetic energy to be all that I can be.

The message is ‘get a life—get an intellectual life’.

When making judgments all bias inhibits rational and therefore better judgments.

Some great mind once said “know thyself” and another said “the unexamined life is not worth living”. Reading about such matters as history, psychology, anthropology, etc. helps one to know them self and to examine life. Also such things can be very interesting.

You are correct in one thing here; essay writing is not a necessary condition for intellect. It is, however, very useful for learning.

[Surlethe]

The water held back by a hydroelectric dam is potential energy. When the gates are opened the water falls through the generating turbines; this potential energy becomes electricity, this potential energy becomes kinetic energy, it becomes dynamic energizing energy.

What the fuck is "energizing energy"?

I think that this is an appropriate analogy for the process of self-actualization. Self-actualizing self-learning is a process of converting our potential energy into a kinetic form of energy.

I weigh about 160 lbs. That's about 73 kg. If I live 80 years and I completely self-actualize during that time, I should be radiating at about 2.9 billion watts, right?

The reason self-actualizing is so important is because it is tailor-made. Only you can ascertain what you need to turn your potential into kinetic energy.

See, this is meaningless: what is my "potential energy"? Kinetic energy is energy of motion; what sort of "potential" do I have that will make me literally move in a certain direction?

Self-actualization through self-learning is the means for developing my potential energy into the kinetic energy to be all that I can be.

The problem you have is one that seems common among faux intellectuals: you're not saying anything because your terms are ill-defined. If you actually mean "potential energy", then 7 million trillion joules is all the potential energy I have.

The message is ‘get a life—get an intellectual life’.

When making judgments all bias inhibits rational and therefore better judgments.

Some great mind once said “know thyself” and another said “the unexamined life is not worth living”. Reading about such matters as history, psychology, anthropology, etc. helps one to know them self and to examine life. Also such things can be very interesting.

What good is self-examination if done subjectively and with bias?

You are correct in one thing here; essay writing is not a necessary condition for intellect. It is, however, very useful for learning.

It is useful for learning only when others critique the logic within the essay and you respond to the critiques and correct yourself.

[coberst]

You are correct in one thing here; essay writing is not a necessary condition for intellect. It is, however, very useful for learning.

It is useful for learning only when others critique the logic within the essay and you respond to the critiques and correct yourself.

Who told you that?

[metavac]

What the fuck is "energizing energy"?

I'm being very generous here, but I think he means to equate 'energizing energy' with the work done by water flow on the turbines.

[Surlethe]

It is useful for learning only when others critique the logic within the essay and you respond to the critiques and correct yourself.

Who told you that?

Does it matter? It makes sense: in order to learn and , you must identify your flaws; it is easier for others to identify the flaws than it is for you to; therefore, you ought to have others critique your logic and then respond to the criticism.

[coberst]

It is useful for learning only when others critique the logic within the essay and you respond to the critiques and correct yourself.

Who told you that?

Does it matter? It makes sense: in order to learn and , you must identify your flaws; it is easier for others to identify the flaws than it is for you to; therefore, you ought to have others critique your logic and then respond to the criticism.

That makes sense to me.

When a scholar is in academia s/he is generally surrounded by individuals who share the same pool of common knowledge. Such is generally not the case for the self-actualizing self-learner. This self-learning is a lonely task because one can seldom find anyone within his or her circle who shares the same pool of knowledge that the lone self-learner is interested in at any particular time. There is seldom a good backboard available for critique.

When such a backboard is available the self-learner is wise to embrace the opportunity to reason together with a brother/sister in scholarship. I use the word ‘scholar’ somewhat loosely. I think we need to take that word off the pedestal where common usage has placed it and apply it to anyone who pursues disinterested knowledge just for the pleasure of understanding.