| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, this should be fun. When's the rest of the gang going to get here?
Not every idea even genius think up is a good one so they need to test them and that is waht the scientific method is for. The scinetific method is what you input into theories to test. Testing the empty set doesn't end up with amny results.
Ooh, this should be fun. When's the rest of the gang going to get here?
Eh, obvious troll is obvious.
Hee hee!
I'm pretty sure Citizen Duck is earnest in his desire to win for gay-friendly Christianity equal footing with secular humanism in the hearts and minds of Paizo messageboard trolls.
Hee hee!
I'm pretty sure Citizen Duck is earnest in his desire to win for gay-friendly Christianity equal footing with secular humanism in the hearts and minds of Paizo messageboard trolls.
I get into most of my more annoying discussions by assuming people are in earnest. Trying to break the habit.
So is this, "Genius's think differently and this causes them to be Geniuses and to develop their hypothesis and therefore science is invalid!"
Cause that's what it sounds like. Please note however that many Geniuses are considered loons or wrong until they subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing and prove that it holds up.
Otherwise we should be listening to crack addicts since they 'think differently' and obviously will be right because of that -- and we should do so without testing their statements because they think differently. We should just... take it on faith.
Why not create a government of entirely austic people they think differently.
I'd like to point out that it's only when their ideas are held up by the rigors of the scientific method that they're considered geniuses. Otherwise we call them cranks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out that it's only when their ideas are held up by the rigors of the scientific method that they're considered geniuses. Otherwise we call them cranks.
Only, of course, if they are in scientific fields. Also, did Freud use the scientific method?
I'd like to point out that it's only when their ideas are held up by the rigors of the scientific method that they're considered geniuses. Otherwise we call them cranks.Only, of course, if they are in scientific fields. Also, did Freud use the scientific method?
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that was what was specifically being addressed by DD. As far as things outside the purview of science (or mathematics) genius would be judged by different criteria. Like a musical genius (though arguably music is nearly all math...). But in that instance it has nothing to do with science so I'm not sure why the thread title would be what it is...
I don't know enough about Freud to make a case either way.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that was what was specifically being addressed by DD.
True dat. The article appears to mostly draw its example from the realm of art, though, with Einstein and Freud being two notable exceptions. Hence, the Freud. I don't know much about him, either, but I'm pretty sure he didn't use the scientific method. But I could be wrong.
EDIT: I take it back, there's a few more science dudes.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that was what was specifically being addressed by DD.True dat. The article appears to mostly draw its example from the realm of art, though, with Einstein and Freud being two notable exceptions. Hence, the Freud. I don't know much about him, either, but I'm pretty sure he didn't use the scientific method. But I could be wrong.
EDIT: I take it back, there's a few more science dudes.
I don't want to answer the question because I'm not confident enough in my knowledge about Freud. But I can say some related things. :)
In Freud's day, you had to do something that amounted to philosophy with certain scientific trappings. At the time there was very little choice since we knew little about brain functions except for basic anatomical stuff. Had he been born a century later (scientific psychology is very young) he'd probably have done quite well.
Neuroscience is absolutely one of the most fascinating fields today. We've mapped the human genome, let's map the human brain! The field of psychology isn't what it was 150 years ago, college psychology courses are looking more and more like neuroscience.
Hey, Citizen Meatrace, you know what genius didn't use the scientific method?
Oh yeah, you know it!
Hey, Citizen Meatrace, you know what genius didn't use the scientific method?
Oh yeah, you know it!
I didn't hear genius as much as I heard hippy-dippy aural masturbation.
But this is HARDLY the place for a musical battleground.
fanbois of science
Now be honest with me, DD, is this a typo or a purposeful misspelling? Either way, I like it.
I probably am a fanboi of science, but I don't have the education to speak meaningfully on the scientific method (or anything else, for that matter). There's like what eight steps or something? Aristotle or whonow?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking inside the box and matching reality is easy.
Thinking outside the box is easy.
Thinking outside the box AND matching reality... now there's the trick.
I didn't hear genius as much as I heard hippy-dippy aural masturbation.
You really should read the article about how geniuses (geniuii?) think, Citizen Meatrace, and then you would realize the futility of thinking in mutually exclusive dichotomies.
Thinking inside the box and matching reality is easy.
Thinking outside the box is easy.
Thinking outside the box AND matching reality... now there's the trick.
Yeah, which is why I prefer my geniuii in the arts--there matching reality is of no great import.
The point I was asserting is that many non-scientific ways of thinking have value. For some posters on these boards, that's a heretical statement. This article describes one of these valuable non-scientific ways of thinking.
Strawman much?
The point I was asserting is that many non-scientific ways of thinking have value. For some posters on these boards, that's a heretical statement. This article describes one of these valuable non-scientific ways of thinking.
Its not non scientific.
Science doesn't care if you get your ideas from a rational conclusion of observed events or a fortune cookie. All it cares about is that the ideas you come up with are TESTABLE and that they can be shown to match reality through experiment.
Without that selective process Einsteins ideas are just as valid as Emporer Nortons. The idea of the crazy person that gets discounted and they're eventually proven right is a common one, but people keep forgetting about all the crazy people who are wrong.
You claim the process described in this article is not non-scientific (ie. that it is scientific).
You're thinking in binary. Something is either scientific or its not scientific. Its more complicated than that.
The process that one uses to develop a hypothesis is often intuitive. Until that point the idea is neither scientific or non scientific. Its just an idea. How you COME UP with the idea has nothing to do with science, how you VERIFY the idea does.
As this article presents it, science and genius are two different methods.
Genius is, at best, step one for generating a scientific idea, not a different method.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point I was asserting is that many non-scientific ways of thinking have value. For some posters on these boards, that's a heretical statement.
[citation needed]
I had no idea I was surrounded by fellow Discordians.
*sniff*
Hail Eris!
Without heresy would there be any progress. Where would the world be without heresy.
Do not insult Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.The point I was asserting is that many non-scientific ways of thinking have value. For some posters on these boards, that's a heretical statement. This article describes one of these valuable non-scientific ways of thinking.Its not non scientific.
Science doesn't care if you get your ideas from a rational conclusion of observed events or a fortune cookie. All it cares about is that the ideas you come up with are TESTABLE and that they can be shown to match reality through experiment.
Without that selective process Einsteins ideas are just as valid as Emporer Nortons. The idea of the crazy person that gets discounted and they're eventually proven right is a common one, but people keep forgetting about all the crazy people who are wrong.
HEATHENS
TAR AND FEATHERS WE DEMAND THEM
I think you're confusing the term 'non-scientific' with 'anti-scientific'.
thats what you're doing. Look at the vs in your title.
I'm not claiming that genius is anti-scientific. I'm only pointing out that it is non-scientific and, therefore, is an example of a process of thinking that is non-scientific, yet has value.
Genius gains value through science. Until then its indistinguishable from insanity.
I think you're confusing the term 'non-scientific' with 'anti-scientific'.
thats what you're doing. Look at the vs in your title.
I'm not claiming that genius is anti-scientific. I'm only pointing out that it is non-scientific and, therefore, is an example of a process of thinking that is non-scientific, yet has value.Genius gains value through science. Until then its indistinguishable from insanity.
It's also worth noting that the article talks about creativity and intelligence rather than genius and science once you get past the section titles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Science gains value through genius. Until then, its just a bunch of guys testing color changes in test tubes. Its mediocre and probably not worth the expense of doing.
I guess I thought we were all on the same page in regards to genius. Apparently we are not.
Not every idea someone has is a result of creative genius. Genius is just a matter of being able to make connections no one else sees. It's responsible for huge leaps forward in our understanding, but it's not responsible for ALL understanding as you seem to believe. There's plenty of understanding that just grows naturally from research and understanding.
Alfred Wegener wasn't a genius for noticing that the coasts of South America and Africa seemed to line up, in fact it had been noticed before and dismissed. His work was not of scientific genius, but of scientific rigor. He saw a problem, hypothesized a solution, yadda yadda.
But none of this really matters, since literally no one has said what you claim, which is that non-scientific thought has no value. This entire thread is a straw man and you're only trying to provoke a response by misrepresenting views that have previously been expressed. In other words, trolling.
DD I dunno where you come up with this supposed dichotomy of thought and science. A person's genius has nothing to do with the study or application of science. A person might use their genius for the pursuit of things scientific, or may focus it toward music or art.
These things can embrace from time to time, but they are completely unrelated.
Furthermore, I've not seen anyone use science in place of religion here.
Use of the term heretical is trollbait at the least, and intellectually dishonest at the worst. Some folks have merely stated that they like things to be measurable and tested instead of accepting things at face value or on faith.
As for whether anyone has argued that non-scientific ways of thinking don't have value, one poster, for example, has argued that philosophy (which he has defined as science without experiment) has no value. Anything that is even less like science is, in his mind, of even less value. As genius is described in the article I linked to, its all conceptual. Experiment comes later, after genius has created the hypothesis.
Not all thinking is philosophy. Certainly not all genius is philosophy.
Furthermore how many of those modes of thinking would be accepted as good philosophy? Philosophy would reject them as invalid out of hand. Science might give them a chance.
DD I dunno where you come up with this supposed dichotomy of thought and science. A person's genius has nothing to do with the study or application of science. A person might use their genius for the pursuit of things scientific, or may focus it toward music or art.
These things can embrace from time to time, but they are completely unrelated.Furthermore, I've not seen anyone use science in place of religion here.
Use of the term heretical is trollbait at the least, and intellectually dishonest at the worst. Some folks have merely stated that they like things to be measurable and tested instead of accepting things at face value or on faith.The value genius applies to science lies in the quality of hypothesis used as a starting point.
Genius leads to higher quality hypothesis with which science can work.
The problem with this is hypothesis is science. It's the first step in scientific method.
Other than that I'm still missing the point here. Is it that since people are either a genius or not at God's behest, that trumps science?| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, calling deriving a hypothesis "science" is like calling both walking to your car, and driving your car "transportation," and then deciding what they have in common, and then calling that "the scientific process," but, hey, whatever.