Come with an actual flaw in Maps of Meaning

Come with an actual flaw in Maps of Meaning,

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_psychology#Gibson
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_astronomy
scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_bar#Mechanism
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>not a book of maps
>rather meaningless

Why does Peterson stay with Christianity when alchemy is the continuation and more complete myth of Christianity which is more true to psychology like Jung showed?

>Come with an actual flaw in Maps of Meaning,
1. it is too flawless, that is its flaw

now you argue why I am wrong

>alchemy is the continuation and more complete myth of Christianity

His understanding of Godel's theorems is brainlet-tier

He draws his ideas from Jungian New Age garbage.

>not taking charge of the work of redeeming anima mundi upon yourself

>implying you peon servitors won't do it for me ad infinitum

I haven't read it but it's wrong because it's not my system and my system is right because it sometimes accidentally yields magical results in horrifying ways beyond my ability to control, predict, or stop oh god help me

I went to buy it on the iTunes Store after getting a gift card for Christmas and it was 80 bucks. For a digital copy. Insane.

There is simply no collective subconscious and consequently there are no archtypes.
There structures are mere imaginary constructs to half explain a more complex reality like aether was used in Chemistry or the four humours in Medicine but ultimately are misleading and incorrect.

Beautiful and interesting to consider but in the end of the day simply can not be taken seriously as representing reality

Uga Science lead to bad things so me no accept science

You have poor reading comprehension

Or you simply have illconsidered opinions

psychology is not a legitimate science

nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

Absolutely agree

...

Medicine is not a legitimate science, over half of all trial medications fail the placebo test.

He treats alchemy at length in Maps at least

fpbp

you're correct in saying the practice of Medicine (anything from putting a band-aid on your leg to administering chemotherapy) is by itself not science, you're wrong in that things like anatomy, genetics, pharmaceutics, and healthcare studies are most definitely a science

There is a difference between failing a test, and failing to be reproducible. In a good science most studies should come back negative, the problem with psychology is that 90% of studies show the hypothesis is correct, and then nobody bothers to replicate to confirm.

It's free on his website desu

Neither point, mine or yours, is a remotely valid analysis of the underlying structure. Scientific hypothesis, medicines, and experiments are not randomly forged. I am unable to defend all of psychology, but I assure there are many branches testing models and assumptions in nothing short of a scientific manner. Please look into behavioral psychology if you want to see science.

>over half of all trial medications fail the placebo test.

What, yeah thats the fucking point of the trial

>I am unable to defend all of psychology, but I assure there are many branches testing models and assumptions in nothing short of a scientific manner.

Which means absolutely nothing if the whole field has an epistemologically unsound foundation. That foundation being psychometrics

the only thing wrong wih the new age movement is over-commercialization. Its no different to the occult than megachurch preaching is to Christianity.

You are delusional. Keep building that wickerman. Noob. I am out.

Shit I didn't think it'd be that easy to scare him off

he's right tho

any psychology that isn't immediately tied to neuroscience is subject to the problem of ecology, which is increasingly being defined by human interference (sociology)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_psychology#Gibson

this is the inherent problem in Peterson's critique of socialism, because individuals gain far more from making actions collectively insofar as the major factors impacting their life and future, than as individuals

>there's no collective subconscious

the occult is for edgy losers

It contains a critical mass of false propositions.

>the only thing wrong wih the new age movement is over-commercialization.

Seriously, thats the ONLY thing wrong with it?

>Medicine is not a legitimate science, over half of all trial medications fail the placebo test.
Consistently? As in, this result is reproducible? I hope you see what you just did, sweetie...

No, you definitely misread the post

Wrong

It's a joke post. Your autism is showing.

Yes, its focussed on base desires, selling books and magical crap that only brainlets think will work. If you got rid of the Ramthas and Tolles and had more teachers like Manly P Hall it would be quite respectable.

Medicine is not a science, it is a collection of sciences used in a specific goal, much like engineering
If you're referring to medical science, the reason it's a science and psychology isn't is because it relies on controlled experiments of objective data. Psychology tries to be a science but it comes down to how people feel, which is subjective and therefore will never be reliable enough to be a science.

it costs 300 dollaroos

>mena
Who has that loser ever helped in his sad life?

t. nocoiner

Because he is pitching to wide, mostly stupid audience. Alchemy is difficult to grasp.

oh wow haha another stale right wing Twitter meme.

haha another poorfag forking over money to a boomer self help cult leader

Yep,but evolutionary psychology is tho

Is he part of the "Tribe"?

evolutionary psychology ceased being a natural science the moment human evolution started being influenced as much by human activity (sociology) as it did by nature

I hope this is a joke. Evo-Psychology is the most pulling shit out of ass pseud field in Psychology.
Practically no experimental rigor and even less applicability

Its basically just "find any animal that behaves in a way thats convenient for my theory and say this is what humans do"

>if most experiments in a field are not currently reproducible then that field is not a science
this is your brain on positivism

lmao imagine actually posting this with a straight face

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments

this is elementary school stuff m8

>Peeven Stinkert

Pynchon a loaf all over this mans name

You're right. Believing in the concept of a scientific method is elementary school stuff. People more knowledgeable about the topic would know that there is no such thing as the scientific method as there is no set of procedures or common algorithm that can characterise all scientific activity exclusively. I bet you think Popper had the last word on philosophy of science as well.

>Believing in the concept of a scientific method is elementary school stuff

Read the section on philosophy of science in the wikipedia article that guy linked to get a sense of where I'm coming from.

ass

>"literally all of the principles used to develop technology from agriculture to chemotherapy to space stations has been developed via observation, repeatable experimentation, and knowledge sharing, across thousands of years to develop theories, axioms, and engineering practices, but the scientific method doesn't exist"

Paul my friend! Long time no see. How are you doing my friend?

No no but dude, you see what he's saying is that the scientific method doesn't correspond 100% to every discovery ever made so its literally useless

Flaw is we've already made his entire life's work a meme. It was too easily reduced.

All you are doing is asserting that all technological development happened because of a few principles/practices. Not only have you not tried to demonstrate that to be true, you have also not explained how those few prinicples/practices are exclusive to science and exhaustive of all science.

No, I'm not saying that idealized method is useless. I'm saying that using the few principles/practices people associate with the method as a tool for marking what is a science and isn't a science is wrong.

The sad part is that these posts are probably not bait. Open your eyes,take the redpill my dudes.

Repeatability of experiments can not be one of them. Its the only point of experiments to begin with

Someone who wants to drag man down to the level of ape is not redpilled

>because of a few principles/practices

yeah, the scientific method

>Not only have you not tried to demonstrate that to be true

go read a book on the history of engineering, history of mathematics, history,

>you have also not explained how those few prinicples/practices are exclusive to science and exhaustive of all science.

well those principles are the definition of the scientific method, but I did not claim those principles whether collectively nor isolated are exclusive to science, for example, in painting the scientific method has been used over centuries to figure out how to produce and use pigments, brush techniques, concepts, and figures

>"anyone I don't like is a commie"

>Space Odyessy 2001 is a movie that claims man is at the level of ape

k dude

>>Space Odyessy 2001 is a movie that claims man is at the level of ape
>k dude

Thats not what I was implying at all

There is a difference between repeatability and reproducibility. The experiments mentioned earlier to have failed reproducibility have been shown to be repeatable. Repeatable means conducting the same experiment, reproducible means getting the same results from the experiment.

>I did not claim those principles whether collectively nor isolated are exclusive to science
Then you're not understanding the point of this conversation because that is what you must demonstrate for me to be wrong. The concept of a scientific method is exactly what you said you're not doing, which is a set of principles/practices that collectively and exclusively characterize what science is.

>There is a difference between repeatability and reproducibility.

I misspoke, I was referring to repeatability of results.
Regardless an experiment that does not have reproducible results is literally useless as are any theories based on it

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has really read MoM. It's primary focus, or at least my primary takeaway, was how the most culturally important and influential stories might have influenced the morality of different societies or civilizations; how the different lessons and abstractions learned from all the different different groups' common folklore would have intimated different ideas to them and thus how they would have created or determined positive or negative assignments of valence to the array of novelties they extracted from acting as such. Literally, how might we have each come (maps) to have the different sets of values (of meaning) unique to different cultural identities, and therefore why we can evolve so differently and why, if there is a reason, a certain culture or set of ideas came on "on top". It's a lot of mythological deconstruction, so of course you can say that as far as it is concerned psychologically it is not "scientific," because we weren't around to ask those people 40,000 years ago why these are their stories, or why they were important enough to them to remember and pass on for untold generations. It just seems like an asinine, non-contributory comment to me. It doesn't help further the discussion.

>Regardless an experiment that does not have reproducible results is literally useless as are any theories based on it
I agree with you on that. That doesn't take anything away from my position on the other stuff we're talking about

its not physicalist and thus not scientific, its poor philosophy, its illogical, the main premises are wrong or unfalsifiable. its not comprehensive enough, the person who wrote it was an alcoholic depressive and is of questionable character. it was written by a member of academia. it was written by a Canadian. it was written by an anglophonic nigger

>that is what you must demonstrate for me to be wrong

you're being so incoherent that I have no idea what you're trying to prove

>which is a set of principles/practices that collectively and exclusively characterize what science

science is generally defined as applying the scientific method (correctly); observation, repeated experimentation, knowledge recording and sharing, and theory production etc, to a knowledge base

physics is overwhelming considered a Science because of how ridiculously successful it has been with all of those principles, especially repeatability

psychology is controversial as a Science because it has a major repeatability issue, because humans, society, and their environment is changing all the time, there is no periodic table of human experience that is guaranteed to stay the same over the next million years and especially nothing that can be found to be in isolation of ecology (today ecology for humans is largely society, the literal definition of something that is a social construction)

>digital painting

>you're being so incoherent that I have no idea what you're trying to prove
All I'm trying to persuade you guys on is that using the concept of a scientific method as a way to mark what is and isn't a science will not work.
>science is generally defined as applying the scientific method (correctly); observation, repeated experimentation, knowledge recording and sharing, and theory production etc, to a knowledge base
That is how people commonly think of it, yeah. And I'm saying that is just an idealized/simplified conception of what science is that does apply to much of science and is useful to teach kids about science but it isn't a true marker of what science is.
>physics is overwhelming considered a Science because of how ridiculously successful it has been with all of those principles, especially repeatability
You're making the same mistake the other poster made here which is mixing up reproducibility and repeatability. also, I can agree with you that the empirical success of physics has caused many people to regard its methods as the standard for what is science. I'm saying that is wrong.
>psychology is controversial as a Science because it has a major repeatability issue
Again, I'm going to assume you meant reproducibility. I agree with you that people that hold your view of what science is believe psychology to be controversial as a science because it does not have the same empirical success in the same areas that physics has. I'm saying the controversy with psychology is not a problem with psychology but a problem with your conception of what science is.
>because humans, society, and their environment is changing all the time, there is no periodic table of human experience that is guaranteed to stay the same over the next million years and especially nothing that can be found to be in isolation of ecology (today ecology for humans is largely society, the literal definition of something that is a social construction)
Now here you are making a point about the contingency of animal behavior. That the way an animal behaves is not determined by a natural law but by the randomness of how the organism and its society evolved. I agree with that 100%. However, I don't agree with the conclusion you're trying to draw from it, which is that scientific laws are required of a science. That is just a part of your conception of what science is that you got from using the methods and success of physics as the standard.

>All I'm trying to persuade you guys on is that using the concept of a scientific method as a way to mark what is and isn't a science will not work.

if our disagreement is that science != the scientific method, I guess we can agree to disagree on that point until you can point out a single case of science that did not use the scientific method, by listing the step in the scientific method it has omitted and to what degree it has been omitted

>However, I don't agree with the conclusion you're trying to draw from it, which is that scientific laws are required of a science.

they're not 'laws' it's a set of procedures that /every single culture/ has used, roughly speaking, to develop its bases of knowledge, weaponry, and way of life, but that the cultures with knowledge bases that have /turned out to be the most reproducible, the best at knowledge sharing, and been most productive of formal hypotheses/ are the most powerful geopolitically is a testimony to its success and the robustness of the procedures listed as the scientific method

I regret making this thread

I own a copy, but I didn't read it since I watched his lectures on Youtube. The book contains way way more content though. But yeah, I imagine that the average Peterson detractor on Veeky Forums hasn't read it.

>I guess we can agree to disagree on that point until you can point out a single case of science that did not use the scientific method, by listing the step in the scientific method it has omitted and to what degree it has been omitted
This question implies there is such a thing as the scientific method and that we both agree on what practices/principles are included in the method. I guess I'll set that aside for now and use an example that does doesn't include one of the practices commonly believed to be part of the scientific method. The manipulation of independent variables in order to see how it is related to a dependent variable is commonly believed to be the defining characteristic of a scientific experiment. Astronomy is considered to be a natural science yet much of the most celebrated experiments in its history did not manipulate any variables in order to reach its conclusions. This happens because we as humans on Earth can't manipulate much of the variables that astronomy studies far out in space.

>they're not 'laws' it's a set of procedures that /every single culture/ has used, roughly speaking, to develop its bases of knowledge, weaponry, and way of life, but that the cultures with knowledge bases that have /turned out to be the most reproducible, the best at knowledge sharing, and been most productive of formal hypotheses/ are the most powerful geopolitically is a testimony to its success and the robustness of the procedures listed as the scientific method
not sure what you're saying here or what you're arguing against

You're not going to want to accept this, but you should be on /pol/
Politics has nothing do with this thread and the fact you bring it up shows you belong there

You made a peterson thread, not only you should regret it you should be banned

>This question implies there is such a thing as the scientific method and that we both agree on what practices/principles are included in the method.

Observation, hypothesis and theory formulation, data collection, knowledge sharing, and reproducible/repeatable experimentation. Ask any professional scientist if these constitute the scientific method and 9 out of 10 times you will get a straightforward resounding Yes, that's the scientific method and you're making a contrarian argument to say otherwise.

>Astronomy is considered to be a natural science yet much of the most celebrated experiments in its history did not manipulate any variables in order to reach its conclusions.

Viewing angles, dates of observation relative to other heavenly bodies and other observations, these and many more are all different variables we changed to figure out cosmology.

>Observation, hypothesis and theory formulation, data collection, knowledge sharing, and reproducible/repeatable experimentation. Ask any professional scientist if these constitute the scientific method and 9 out of 10 times you will get a straightforward resounding Yes, that's the scientific method and you're making a contrarian argument to say otherwise.
I'll ignore this because my response to this is the same as what you responded to when you said this.
>Viewing angles, dates of observation relative to other heavenly bodies and other observations, these and many more are all different variables we changed to figure out cosmology.
You don't seem to understand that all variables do not have an impact on the events being studied. The variables you mentioned are unrelated to the subject matter of much of astronomy. You will not change the position of a star relative to Earth by changing the angle you are using to measure it. All of the things you are talking about are observational tools you have at your disposal which is entirely separate. In physics experiments, for example, one may drop an object of various sizes and use those different sizes to determine if there is a different in how fast they drop. That kind of direct manipulation of the event being studied is not possible in astronomy.

Read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_astronomy

>You don't seem to understand that all variables do not have an impact on the events being studied. The variables you mentioned are unrelated to the subject matter of much of astronomy. You will not change the position of a star relative to Earth by changing the angle you are using to measure it. All of the things you are talking about are observational tools you have at your disposal which is entirely separate.

are you really suggesting that the variables you have to manipulate must be physical matter or energy manipulated in order to constitute a science?

>The variables you mentioned are unrelated to the subject matter of much of astronomy.

No, those variables are how astronomy came to be in the first place.

I challenge you to find a mainstream astronomer that makes the same ridiculous case you're making.

>are you really suggesting that the variables you have to manipulate must be physical matter or energy manipulated in order to constitute a science?
No, I'm not. I'm saying that the defining characteristic of a scientific experiment is commonly believed to be the direct manipulation of one or more independent variables in order to see what effect it has on one or more dependent variables. I brought that up because conducting a scientific experiment is commonly believed to be a step in the scientific method. I am showing an example of a science that does not conduct experiments with the use of direct manipulation of the events being studied in order to show you how there are sciences which do not follow that idealized method you are advocating which is what you asked me to provide an example of.

As a side note, I am not sure why you keep bringing up the opinions of scientists as to what they believe science is. Scientists are not the people to ask to find out what science is. Just like how politicians are not the people to ask to find out what politics is.

does it even get cited in academia?

> I am showing an example of a science that does not conduct experiments with the use of direct manipulation of the events being studied in order to show you how there are sciences which do not follow that idealized method you are advocating

Time/space in astronomy, in cosmology, in physics is a manipulated independent variable for observations. Relativistic physics, the foundation of modern astronomy is predicated on this. F(t) is one of the most seen functions in papers on physics and chemistry, if not /the/ most used one, you will ever see.


>I am not sure why you keep bringing up the opinions of scientists as to what they believe science is. Scientists are not the people to ask to find out what science is.

I trust scientists to say what science is especially considering their success with the methods they claim to be science, politicians have never claimed such a 'political method'. What I assume to be armchair thinkers with no demonstrated proof of success with their methods have to say about the philosophy of science is overwhelmingly uninteresting to me, especially when to fails to demonstrate any new insights.

scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

257 at least

>Time/space in astronomy, in cosmology, in physics is a manipulated independent variable for observations. Relativistic physics, the foundation of modern astronomy is predicated on this. F(t) is one of the most seen functions in papers on physics and chemistry, if not /the/ most used one, you will ever see.
Humans cannot manipulate time and space. There is no direct manipulation people can make to study astronomy. Time passes and objects move through space on their own. Obviously time can be measured to help understand events in space, however, controlled experiments with direct manipulation are not possible in astronomy.
>I trust scientists to say what science is especially considering their success with the methods they claim to be science politicians have never claimed such a 'political method'.
This is really naive on your part. Scientists are trained in specific fields, not in science. There is no scientist on Earth who is an expert in all fields of science. Also, scientists have success in specific fields of science, they don't have success in "science" in general. A physicist may very well know what physics is but that does not mean he knows what science is. A physicist does not need to receive training in that in order to conduct physics experiments.
>What I assume to be armchair thinkers with no demonstrated proof of success with their methods have to say about the philosophy of science is overwhelmingly uninteresting to me, especially when to fails to demonstrate any new insights.
Why are you holding philosophers to the standards of scientists? You really are a positivist lmao.

>Humans cannot manipulate time and space

well actually they can and do all the time, movement itself is a manipulation of spacetime if you understand relativistic physics

>controlled experiments with direct manipulation are not possible in astronomy

Go ask an astronomer what their controlled variables. Your hard-on for "direct manipulation", whatever that means in your non-standard vocabulary, has nothing to do with controlling variables in observations and experiments. The time of an observation is itself a controlled variable in astronomy.

>Why are you holding philosophers to the standards of scientists? You really are a positivist lmao.

Because you're playing some weird language game where astronomy, and presumably any other time-dependent experiments, are somehow breakthrough examples of science that doesn't use the scientific method.

>well actually they can and do all the time, movement itself is a manipulation of spacetime if you understand relativistic physics
And do you see how that matters not one bit to what we are talking about? None of our movement on Earth is going to be enough to directly manipulate the time and space of the events being studied in astronomy.
>Go ask an astronomer what their controlled variables. Your hard-on for "direct manipulation", whatever that means in your non-standard vocabulary, has nothing to do with controlling variables in observations and experiments. The time of an observation is itself a controlled variable in astronomy.
I'm not using non-standard language. Independent variables can be called controlled variables. We agree that there are controlled variables in astronomy but they cannot be manipulated by the researcher. They can only be measured.
>Because you're playing some weird language game where astronomy, and presumably any other time-dependent experiments, are somehow breakthrough examples of science that doesn't use the scientific method.
No, I'm not saying that any experiments with time as a variable are not science. I'm saying that time and space cannot be manipulated by researchers in a way that will effect any dependent variables. That is direct manipulation and its not possible in astronomy. I'm not playing some weird language game. What I am saying is generally accepted stuff even among scientists. If you read the page I linked earlier you'd see it even said "As a science, the study of astronomy is somewhat hindered in that direct experiments with the properties of the distant universe are not possible." That is all I'm saying.

>None of our movement on Earth is going to be enough to directly manipulate the time and space of the events being studied in astronomy.

We had to displace and stabilize a giant mass of metal (mass distorts and is affected by the distortion of spacetime) to make Weber bars to test gravitational waves, so you're wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_bar#Mechanism

>No, I'm not saying that any experiments with time as a variable are not science.

This is just wrong. If I want to study the growth rate of a certain species of plant, and a billion other experiments, you use the time, among other things, as a controlled variable.

> "As a science, the study of astronomy is somewhat hindered in that direct experiments with the properties of the distant universe are not possible."

Yes, that has nothing to do with your bullshit about time not being a controlled variable.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_bar#Mechanism
Okay, I shouldn't have said it as an absolute in my post, you're right. However, if you recall earlier I just said that much of our celebrated experiments did not use direct manipulation. That still holds true.
>This is just wrong. If I want to study the growth rate of a certain species of plant, and a billion other experiments, you use the time, among other things, as a controlled variable.
You must have read me wrong because I said I'm NOT saying experiments with time are not science.
>Yes, that has nothing to do with your bullshit about time not being a controlled variable.
I didn't say time was not a controlled variable. I said that it can't be manipulated by the researcher. "We agree that there are controlled variables in astronomy but they cannot be manipulated by the researcher. " Not to mention that the time and space of the events being studied are in fact properties of the distance universe so that statement is about time and space. We can't manipulate those properties of those events.

pretty sure that link is a physics experiment not an astronomy experiment

You're not going to want to accept this, but you should be on reddit.
Politics has everything to do with this thread because Peterson is an snakeoil salesman cult leader pushing a false political agenda to gullible faggots like you and the fact you bring /pol/ up shows you don't belong here.

BTW don't forget to buy my books,donate to my patreon and subscribe to my "self-authoring program" ,it will solve all your problems!! c-c-clean your room bucko and bend-over your ass to my throbbing cock while you're at it,retard.

your original point was that astronomy doesn't use the scientific method because 'it doesn't manipulate time' is still broken though, and 'direct manipulation' is not a commonly accepted criteria for the scientific method, which also apparently doesn't exist because you're being contrarian against an overwhelming consensus of definition developed in modern science, with which I could concede "using your irregular use of the term 'scientific method' yes not all science corresponds to your flawed use of the term 'scientific method'"