/lit/ - Literature

>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?

>>10555685
>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

>>10555736
>alchemy is the continuation and more complete myth of Christianity

>>10555685
His understanding of Godel's theorems is brainlet-tier

He draws his ideas from Jungian New Age garbage.

>>10555756
>not taking charge of the work of redeeming anima mundi upon yourself

>>10555766
>implying you peon servitors won't do it for me ad infinitum

>>10555685

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

>>10555685
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.

>>10555685
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

>>10555773
Uga Science lead to bad things so me no accept science

>>10555784

You have poor reading comprehension

>>10555788
Or you simply have illconsidered opinions

>>10555784
psychology is not a legitimate science

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

>>10555794
Absolutely agree

>>10555685

>>10555794
Medicine is not a legitimate science, over half of all trial medications fail the placebo test.

>>10555736
He treats alchemy at length in Maps at least

>>10555702
fpbp

>>10555952
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

>>10555952
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.

>>10555775
It's free on his website desu

>>10555972
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.

>>10555952
>over half of all trial medications fail the placebo test.

What, yeah thats the fucking point of the trial

>>10556009
>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

>>10555759
the only thing wrong wih the new age movement is over-commercialization. Its no different to the occult than megachurch preaching is to Christianity.

>>10556021
You are delusional. Keep building that wickerman. Noob. I am out.

>>10556031
Shit I didn't think it'd be that easy to scare him off

>>10556031
he's right tho

>>10556009
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)

https://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

>>10555776
>there's no collective subconscious

>>10556030
the occult is for edgy losers

>>10555685
It contains a critical mass of false propositions.

>>10556030
>the only thing wrong wih the new age movement is over-commercialization.

Seriously, thats the ONLY thing wrong with it?

>>10555952
>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...

>>10555793

No, you definitely misread the post

>>10556088
Wrong

>>10556100

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

>>10556069
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.

>>10555952
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.

>>10555685
it costs 300 dollaroos

>>10555811
>mena
Who has that loser ever helped in his sad life?

>>10556236
t. nocoiner

>>10555736
Because he is pitching to wide, mostly stupid audience. Alchemy is difficult to grasp.

>>10556241
oh wow haha another stale right wing Twitter meme.

>>10556252
haha another poorfag forking over money to a boomer self help cult leader

>>10555794
Yep,but evolutionary psychology is tho

Is he part of the "Tribe"?

>>10556380
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

>>10556380
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"

>>10555794
>if most experiments in a field are not currently reproducible then that field is not a science
this is your brain on positivism

>>10556410
lmao imagine actually posting this with a straight face

>>10556410
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments

this is elementary school stuff m8

>>10556380
>Peeven Stinkert

Pynchon a loaf all over this mans name

>>10556413
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.

>>10556425
>Believing in the concept of a scientific method is elementary school stuff

>>10556432
Read the section on philosophy of science in the wikipedia article that guy linked to get a sense of where I'm coming from.

>>10556380
ass

>>10556425
>"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"

>>10556425
Paul my friend! Long time no see. How are you doing my friend?

>>10556458
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

>>10555685
Flaw is we've already made his entire life's work a meme. It was too easily reduced.

>>10556458
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.

>>10556469
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.

>>10556402
>>10556404

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

>>10556501
Repeatability of experiments can not be one of them. Its the only point of experiments to begin with

>>10556527
Someone who wants to drag man down to the level of ape is not redpilled

>>10556487
>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

>>10556527
>"anyone I don't like is a commie"

>>10556548
>Space Odyessy 2001 is a movie that claims man is at the level of ape

k dude

>>10556558
>>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

>>10556543
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.

>>10556558
>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.

>>10556585
>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.

>>10556610
>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

>>10555685
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

>>10556585
>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)

>>10555685
>digital painting

>>10556637
>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.

>>10556673
>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

>>10556614
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 /lit/ hasn't read it.

>>10556708
>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

>>10556527
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

>>10556714
You made a peterson thread, not only you should regret it you should be banned

>>10556765
>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.

>>10556787
>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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_astronomy

>>10556821
>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.

>>10556832
>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?

>>10556851
> 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.

>>10556893
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en

257 at least

>>10556895
>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.

>>10556956
>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.

>>10557007
>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.

>>10557103
>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.

https://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.

>>10557156
>https://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.

>>10557156
pretty sure that link is a physics experiment not an astronomy experiment

>>10556775
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.

>>10557176
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'"

>>10557204
forgot pic

>>10555776
>There is simply no collective subconscious
what are memetics?

>>10557204
and 'direct manipulation' is not a commonly accepted criteria for the scientific method
Yes it is. Performing an experiment is a commonly accepted step in the scientific method. And an experiment is commonly thought to include manipulating at least one variable.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
"Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method."
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment
"Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated"
"Much research in several science disciplines, including ... astronomy, relies on quasi-experiments. For example, in astronomy it is clearly impossible, when testing the hypothesis "Stars are collapsed clouds of hydrogen", to start out with a giant cloud of hydrogen, and then perform the experiment of waiting a few billion years for it to form a star."
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-experiment

>your original point was that astronomy doesn't use the scientific method because 'it doesn't manipulate time' is still broken though
My original point was that astronomy does not follow the scientific method as it is commonly accepted because it does not perform experiments as they are commonly defined. Everything I posted above explained that more in detail. Also, >>10557196 seems to be right.

>>10555685

>>10557240
Communication between individual subconsciousnesses. Totally contingent on their unique and individual backgrounds.

Jung believed there was literally an actual thing out there that he called the collective subconscious that all people universally connected to from birth

>>10555685
>yfw Peterson threads almost always get 100+ replies and never get taken down
really makes you think

>>10557253
I should clarify myself here. I didn't mean to say that astronomy is not following the scientific method as its commonly accepted. I meant to say that it is not adhering to a major part of what other fields of science include in their scientific method which is meant to demonstrate that there is no common scientific method between all fields. Some fields in science can perform experiments and some could not and they are both considered science despite not having the same method.

Your picture here >>10557206 says as much when it says you can gather data from observations OR experiments. Meaning that all of that text does not apply to all fields.

>>10557280
Why should be taken down. For better or worse he's an author

>>10557286
it really does though, your pedantics about spacetime-based experiments being invalid methods of making observations and doing experiments is simply incorrect

the common consensus on the scientific method says nothing about 'direct manipulation' being a hard criteria, there is nothing in the wiki article on the scientific method that suggests it as a hard requirement, your link to the experiment wiki simply explores the philosophy of experimentation methods

>says as much when it says you can gather data from observations OR experiments

there's a reason they used OR instead of AND

another thing, that you've spent so much time defending a single flimsy case that you claim admits a degree of uncertainty in a single principle of the scientific method instead of finding another science that violates multiple criterion blatantly is a testament to the weakness of your original argument that science is not defined by the scientific method

>>10557267
no he didn't. he thought of it as essentially the source code we all share. its the instinctual nature we all share and it can be understood intuitively through symbol and allegory. its collective in the sense that everyone has it i.e. collective DNA would would be the gene for having two eyes.

>>10557253
https://www.teachastronomy.com/textbook/How-Science-Works/The-Scientific-Method/

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Astronomy/The_Scientific_Method

http://www.astronomycast.com/2008/05/ep-90-the-scientific-method/

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~eferrara/astr288c/A288C-6A.pdf

you're being retarded

>>10557317
>it really does though, your pedantics about spacetime-based experiments being invalid methods of making observations and doing experiments is simply incorrect
I never said that using space and time in experiments is invalid. I said that space and time can't manipulated by the researchers when studying most of the subject matter of astronomy. And both articles I linked agreed with me that experiments are not possible in astronomy. Only quasi-experiments are possible, which means they do not involve the manipulation of variables, they only contain control variables which are not manipulated. You never refuted that.
>the common consensus on the scientific method says nothing about 'direct manipulation' being a hard criteria, there is nothing in the wiki article on the scientific method that suggests it as a hard requirement, your link to the experiment wiki simply explores the philosophy of experimentation methods
I agree with all of that. That is my point, some fields of science use experiments and some don't. There is no common method between all fields.
>there's a reason they used OR instead of AND
And that reason is that there is no common method.
>you've spent so much time defending a single flimsy case that you claim admits a degree of uncertainty in a single principle of the scientific method
1. you only asked for one case
2. I don't see how it is flimsy
3. I never admitted there's any uncertainty about this
>instead of finding another science that violates multiple criterion
Because you kept denying my example. Why would I change topics before making you understand what I'm saying?
>blatantly is a testament to the weakness of your original argument that science is not defined by the scientific method
I'm getting the exact opposite reaction here. It seems like we both agree that there is no common method shared by all sciences. We're both on the same page that experimentation is a thing in some sciences but not others. That is what I was talking about by having no shared method.

>>10557361
>linking a hundred pages of material without posting a single quote referring to what you disagree with me on
you're being retarded

>>10557197
You're such a fucking newfag it hurts

>>10557375
>It seems like we both agree that there is no common method shared by all sciences

No, the scientific method is that method. Yes there are different tactics to apply the scientific method, but the heuristic procedures of "Observation, Experimentation, Data collection, Reproduction, Theory production etc etc" remains the same, and there is no science with a status that is uncontroversial as a Science, like astronomy, that blatantly violates even just one of those practices.

>>10557375
>That is my point, some fields of science use experiments

if you are continuing to imply astronomy doesn't use experiments:

https://www.space.com/36307-5-most-ingenious-experiments.html

the experiments used in physics to figure out astrophysics in astronomy are also experiments used in the scientific method in the course of the development of astronomy

>>10556402
Nice!

>>10557197
I know it's bait, but I don't see how you can say Peterson is doing this for money when he's been posting videos of his lectures for years, not to mention his book is almost 20 years old.
He's only been monetizing his stuff since he got famous, and there's nothing wrong about that when he preaches the same stuff he's always talked about.

>>10557397
>babby got his fee-fee hurtz :( :( :(

Back to sewer you came from, you unoriginal nigger.

>>10557206
>>10557361
everyone should take note of how the diagrams of the "scientific method" are different in these two posts.

>>10557404
I'll move away from the astronomy example because you don't seem to be grasping my point.

>Yes there are different tactics to apply the scientific method
You talk as if the tactics are just minor details. The actual way that your heuristic you mentioned is carried out is what is important
>the heuristic procedures of "Observation, Experimentation, Data collection, Reproduction remains the same and there is no science with a status that is uncontroversial as a Science, like astronomy, that blatantly violates even just one of those practices.
To illustrate what I said above lets consider astrology. There is observation, experimentation, data collection, and reproduction in astrology. According to your criteria it should be considered a science. However, it is considered a pseudoscience by people. Why is that if your criteria call it a science? My answer: its because the details are what make the method, not your simple heuristic.

>>10557448
If you followed all of what I said you should have interpreted what I said more generously. I said that much of the celebrated advances in astronomy did not involve any manipulation of variables and that would qualify it as a quasiexperiment to the standards of other fields like physics which rely on manipulation of variables by the experimenter.

>>10557470
>reproduction in astrology
no there isn't, that's why it's not a science

>did not involve any manipulation of variables
>time and space aren't variable

OH BOY HERE WE GO AGAIN!

>>10557352
You're wrong. Jung was a nutjob who believed in actual magic

>>10557480
>no there isn't, that's why it's not a science
Experiments have been reproduced in astrology. It is a science according to your criteria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect

>OH BOY HERE WE GO AGAIN!
You're just strawmanning now. I never said time and space aren't variables. I said that researchers can't manipulate the time and space of the objects being studied by them in many cases.

Holy fuck is this discussion on science still going on

>>10557456
Of course its not just about the money, he's a narcissist that got a serious messiah complex. And while he preaches "always tell the truth!" , he disingenously avoid to answear honestly a very serious question , like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56UmHs_6Cfs

>>10557518
>Experiments have been reproduced in astrology

>"later attempts to validate the data and replicate the effect have produced uneven results, chiefly owing to disagreements over the selection and analysis of the data set. Since the phenomenon in question depends upon the daily rotation of the Earth, the availability and accuracy of time and place of birth data is crucial to such studies, as is the criterion of "eminence". Later research claims to explain the Mars effect by selection bias, favouring champions who were born in a key sector of Mars and rejecting those who were not from the sample"

>"he CFEPP stated that its experiment showed no effect and concluded that the effect was attributable to bias in Gauquelin’s data selection, pointing to the suggestions made by Gauquelin to the Committee for changes in their list of athletes."

>>10557538
>>10557518
furthermore there's nothing about the flawed study you've provided that has yielded further legitimate results about other astrological claims

>>10557521
Never underestimate the power of autists in a discussion

>>10557538
>I'm going to conflate the words reproduce and replicate and there's nothing you can do to stop me
The experiments have been performed many times. That is replication. The actual results have been reproduced on some occasions and not reproduced on some occasions. This means there has been a lot of replication in astrology and there has been some reproduction in astrology. It looks like we have to get into the DETAILS like I said about your heuristic in order to determine if this is a science or not. It seems like now you're saying there needs to be not just replication shown but it has to happen repeatedly and consistently. Does that mean you need to add consistency to your heuristic? Or is that just a detail?
>>10557550
>furthermore there's nothing about the flawed study you've provided that has yielded further legitimate results about other astrological claims
that has nothing to do with your original heuristic. If you think that studies must also lead to other results about other claims in the field then it looks like you have to add that on to your original heuristic.

>>10557404
>"Observation, Experimentation, Data collection, Reproduction, Theory production etc etc"
A new challenger approaches: history

>>10557576
>The experiments have been performed many times.

by one person

>The actual results have been reproduced on some occasions and not reproduced on some occasions.

= not actually reproducible

> It looks like we have to get into the DETAILS like I said about your heuristic in order to determine if this is a science or not.

no there the idea of reproducability and replicability have a commonly understood meaning the scientific community, which you are neglecting

>If you think that studies must also lead to other results about other claims in the field

this is part of reproducible results + theory generation, and most representations of the scientific method show a circular arrow flow

>>10557588
history = data collection + experimentation

>>10557588
>history involves experimentation and reproduction
Brainlet detected.

>>10557593
>by one person
Not at all and you should already know this. In your last post you quoted other people performing the experiments. That is replication of experiments by other people.
>= not actually reproducible
Details. ;)
It has been reproduced. You need to add on consistency into your heuristic if you think that matters.
>no there the idea of reproducability and replicability have a commonly understood meaning the scientific community, which you are neglecting
Says the person that just conflated the terms. Reproducing an experiment is performing the experiment again. Replicating an experiment is performing the experiment again and getting the same results.
>this is part of reproducible results + theory generation, and most representations of the scientific method show a circular arrow flow
Reproducing an experiment and generating new theories doesn't have to be about other claims in the field. If the claims in a field are all compatible with the new theories then nothing changes about the results of those other claims.

Jordan peterson is a fraud

>>10557593
>history = data collection + experimentation
>>10557595
>>history involves experimentation and reproduction

So the person on stop says history includes data collection and experimentation. The person on bottom says history includes observation, data collection, and theory generation. So the only thing you guys both agree on is that history involves data collection. The only thing you guys both agree that history does not involve is reproduction. This means either one of you or both of you guys are wrong. It's clear what I think (both of you guys are wrong. since the only thing you guys both think isn't in history is reproduction then let me jut refer to you dating techniques in history used to determine the time of events and objects. The results of that needs to be reproduced by experts.

>>10557593
>by one person
oh it looks like we have another thing to add to your heuristic. reproduction and replication must be carried out by more than jut one person apparently.

As a neutral observer I hereby declare based no-such-thing-as-a-scientific-method bro to be the winner of this debate. Let his posts never be forgotten and may his family enjoy a long and prosperous life.

>>10557715
a giant with a place alongside thinkers such as Feyerabend

>>10557531
I haven't clicked it, but I'm going to guess it's the do you believe in God question, in which case you are not only a newfag, but a brainlet.

>>10555736
Any actually good books on alchemy?

>>10556030
And that it isn't really defined so it tends to just mean commercial spirituality: self-help books and crystals

>>10557909
That and spiritual entities literally don't exist and its all bullshit

>>10557862
I can't believe I'm responding to this blatant bait, anyway here's a pic for other anons who saw the link I've posted .Take the redpill everyone,before it's too late.

>>10555736
>continuation
It's not a "continuation", it's a reformulation of the same message (to be found in the New Testament and especially, I think, the Gospels, as well as the Gnostic books discovered) of original Christianity reformulated in a slightly esoteric version for a different time.

>>10557929
Oooooh so you're one of those people obsessed with da joos! That would have been my second guess. Anyway, you know what that has to do with JBP and his body of work? Not a God damn thing.

>>10557929
I hope this is ironic otherwise it's just pathetic

>>10557267
>>10557352
I think in a more objective qualified sense it's not totally ridiculous. If you take some basic axioms -- the average human being throughout history has to deal with such things as having a mother and a relationship to them, having a father and having a relationship to them, changing from being a sincere and spontaneous child to a more repressed and artificial adult, sex and romance, experiences with the "numinous" (the extremely aesthetic, the awe-inspiring, the terrible, the religious, etc.), and also had to deal with/be the different types of personalities throughout all of human history --- the sage, the temptress, the fool, the tyrant, etc... Well, the syntax of that sentence got fucked up, but, basically, while Jung may have gone over the deep end into a barely subtle insanity by assigning a genuine reality to them, the basic idea that all these things are based on/create psychological archetypes in us doesn't sound that kooky.

For instance, let is say there is a certain type of female personality we could call the "femme fatale", the temptress, seductress, etc. This would account for all the representations of them throughout art, fable, and mythology throughout history. The existence of repeating similar personality traits throughout people throughout humanity, which may point to perhaps some traits hardwired in our brain/psyche.

>>10557941
>his body of work

You mean self help books and youtube vids?

>>10557948

Why is it pathetic? Are you triggered lil buddy?

>>10558052
>maps of meaning
>self help book
In that sense every book is self help. You disingenuous fuck!

>>10557957
The categories create their own recognition that's the problem with them.
You can categorize any given person into a wide variety of such descriptors and each descriptor in turn can be broken down into sub-descriptors. There is the mother, but then there's good mother's and bad mothers, stern good mothers, disinterested bad mothers etc.
After a certain point all you're doing is describing the world in the most ordinary every day sense. The problem with Jung in this recognition is in how he arbitrarily reifies certain descriptors to suit a certain mythology he fancies while having no serious justification for doing so.

>>10558062
He's talking about the literal self help book he's publishing retard

>>10555794
Brainlet belief

>>10558083
One book does not a body of work make. He is a very successful, published academic. That is the bulk of his work, not the self help /YouTube stuff.

>>10557927
On the same basis you could equally call Christianity bullshit

>>10558131
Yeah you could

>>10555685
seriously reactionary and extremely pedantic and boring

>>10558110
God you sound like such a queer

>>10558144
Stop subvocalising and it won't be a problem, pleb.

>>10558110
>He is a very successful, published academic.

Yeah that's correct , I wonder if it has anything to do with his highly estimated (((friends))).
I also wonder why he never talks about the other Solzhenitsyn book, "200 hundred years together". Hmmmm

>>10557896
Maps of Meaning
Jung Red Book

>>10557929
>a jewish writer financed by jewish bankers
He was Austrian-Japanese. His real last name was Eijiro. His mom was Japanese and his dad started writing an anti-Semitic treatise until his research caused him to change his views.

>>10558148
You win this day Anon...

>>10555775
Did you unironically spend 80 bucks on Jordan fucking Peterson?

>>10555794
>psychology is not a legitimate science
i mean Peterson agrees with this, he compares psychology to engineering or medicine because you set out a goal from the beginning in psychology that is the well-being or mental health of the patient, and you accept theories as long as they advance towards that goal, but you don't just investigate abstract truth like in the case of physics

>>10555685
Can Peterson posting finally stop? I thought everyone here hated self help books.

>>10555685
This guy is such a meme. He argues that identity politics has become a problem in society whilst appearing on alt-right talk shows,

>>10556065
it's not edgy if you are an ascetic, but yeah most of the occult is countercultural modernist garbage

>>10558630
>alt-right talk shows
like what?

>>10558627
this. everybody start molymeme posting instead

>>10558633
dave rubin, the gay jew alt-righter

>>10557634
He's not a fraud he's just concerned with the optics.

>>10557503
Nope. He says it's all speculatively. He's pretty clear in being unable to just believe "I must have proof".
Sure, what he sees as proof is more lenient.

>>10558638
If I had to choose between the two I'd go with Molymeme anyday
He's not a crying bitch for a start

>>10557503
>>10558646
i know nothing about Jung, does he unironically believe in magic, or is it more that synchronicity or whatever should be taken seriously inside the real of human meaning even though it's just simple statistical chance in the real material world?

just like the Freudian thing, where if you for example feel guilt about something you are still guilty even though objectively you may not have any fault? And you should still work through the guilt instead of negating it

similar thing with Jung but using meaning instead of guilt

>>10558652
he is good at begging for NEETbux though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HBuUmRbfQ

>>10558659
>one
>dollar

>>10558624
>he compares psychology to engineering or medicine
applied science is still science.
if you dont believe that psychology is science at all you must leave the discipline as its known to this day. because the bond is too close.
>that is the well-being or mental health of the patient
>well-being
>mental health
the psychology is based on this abstract ideals and they still want to be part of the grandeur of scientific approach.
on the other part, the science wants and need an arm to "study" the human mind and give a total legitimization of his procedure and his capacity of explaining everything.

.

>>10555685
Peterson himself is unhappy with it though, isn't he?

>>10558633
RebelMedia

Also, he´s incredibly defensive of his own supporters (as anyone would be), so he tends to give some of them a free pass when they employ identity politics while stigmatising "The Left" as if the latter were a uniform group.

I'm not saying he doesn't have some good arguments but for the most part he is just as much a proliferater and profiteer of identity politics in his thought than the people he claims are dangerous to society.

>>10555736
>he thinks alchemy was a spiritual practice and not protochemistry
Oh sweetie

>>10558722
>RebelMedia
>alt-right
>literal jew running the company

>>10558697
>if you dont believe that psychology is science at all you must leave the discipline as its known to this day
Professional tip: it's only science if it has a testable mathematical model that makes predictions.

Psychology isn't science.

(That said, neither are a whole bunch of other things, like biology including the whole theory of evolution. Conversely, linguistics and sociology are bonafide sciences.)

>>10558736
>he thinks material allegories weren't just bait to put plebs on path of self-realization

>>10558736

>he thinks the spiritual roots of science don't nourish themselves on the dreams of the alchemists

>>10558740
>Jews can't be alt-right
>Thinking the alt-right movement is anti-semitic

>>10555952
Mathematics, medicine, psychology, engineering and computer science are all not science.

>>10555758
Could you elaboate on this?

>>10558742
>it's only science if it has a testable mathematical model that makes predictions.
Pleb definition
>there is not one single mathematical model in all of biology
At least be consistent /b/ro

>>10558780
>Pleb definition
It's the only definition, numbskull. It's a science only if it uses the scientific method, and the scientific method requires math models that make testable predictions.

>At least be consistent /b/ro
Did you miss the word "testable"?

>>10557896
Jungs collected works 9p2, 12, 13, 14
Marie-louise von franz Alchemy: An Introduction To The Symbolism And The Psychology and Alchemical Active Imagination

>>10558765
>Mathematics, medicine, psychology, engineering and computer science are all not science.
without medicine, mathematics and engineering anybody would give a fuck of science. if the "scientists" say categorically
mathematics medicine engineering and computer science is not science.
everybody end thinking "science" is a nonsense mumbo jumbo "theory of life"

>>10558742
>it's only science if it has a testable mathematical model that makes predictions.
Prove it with this method.

>>10558765
>math
>science

>this thread

>>10555685
Jordan Peterson wrote it. He is a vapid intellectual. It's not him that is a psued, but his ideas.
I lost all respect for him after watching a video of him positing hiearchial power structures are natural.
His example was
>Get some kids to race
>They will compete to win first place
>Thus a hiearchy emerges.
Conflating the idea of competition with domination, and the idea of sequence as stratified levels of organization. Not only is this nothing like a social hiearchy. It bears no relationship to actually hiearchial organization, as in biosystems which have stratified levels of organization but no authority.(even this is discordant in hiearchy theory)

>>10559460
Anon, you are embarassing yourself, Humans are in fact the same as *lobsters*.

>>10559460
Dumb commie. Just admit that you hate hirarchies because youre beta als fuck.

>>10559579
>if I like hierarchies I must be alpha

Psychology of the Memerson brainlet

>>10559620
>you have to be at the top to respect hierarchies
the absolute state of the left

>>10559634
>hierachies exist

>>10559634
I literally just stated your own logic you fucking idiot

>>10559674
>implying i'm not above you in the spelling hierarchy

>>10559674
Let's be clear in this regard. There is no single human hierarchy.
Obviously some people are rich, some people poor, some people are attractive, some taller and so on. But in the end of the day unlike with something as stupid as a lobster where there is only one clear factor of sexual value every single human on Earth has their own conception of personal worth. Some people value money more, some people value looks of a certain kind more, some see certain races as higher, some value intelligence and job status.
You can be a Chad in Harvard but then walk into some Nigger ghetto and all you are there is a little bitch. The same can happen even between two people within the same sub-culture.
Language and culture simply makes human life too complex to reduce to evo-psych

>>10559702
so you are saying there are many hierarchies, that seems only to strengthen the concept of hierarchy

>>10559460
>Conflating the idea of competition with domination
domination happens when an individual refuses to compete, anon

>>10559722
A multivariant nexus of hierarchies contingent on any given context and individual perspective and consequently subject to their own choice of reaction to it yes

>>10559761
>>Conflating the idea of competition with domination
but you are not negating the hierarchies. only saying they are not totally effective. wich i agree.

>>10559761
There's a dominant lens by which society is viewed, and that's the hierarchy Peterson is concerned with. I hardly think he's arguing an ontological position

>>10557204
You’re obviously wrong about the consensus. Read something, anything, about philosophy of science. You’re operating on an elementary school level.

>>10559818
>There's a dominant lens by which society is viewed

Is there? I don't see reason to believe so, its more like a collection of general tendencies which coincide into a cloudy semi-linear relationship but ultimately with some major breaks and non-insignificant outliers.
I just don't see the term hierarchy as useful to describe this state of affairs in a general sense

>>10559818
memes aside, memerson doesn't belive in 1 main hierarchy, memerson in maps of meaning argues that this was solved by the egyptians, he agrees that there are many different hierarchies in human society and that those hierarchies change all the time

so he does some magical shit like:
- pyramids = hierarchies
- osiris = king = top of the hierarchy
- set = corruption = destroys hierarchies when they get old and corrupt
- osiris = birdie flying above the pyramids (hierarchies) = that which regenerates the hierarchy when it gets corrupt = vision = attention

>>10559861
>- pyramids = hierarchies
>- osiris = king = top of the hierarchy
>- set = corruption = destroys hierarchies when they get old and corrupt
>- osiris = birdie flying above the pyramids (hierarchies) = that which regenerates the hierarchy when it gets corrupt = vision = attention

Sounds retarded as shit

>>10559872
that's because it is

>>10558770

>>10560045
using twitter halves you iq so that's forgivable

>>10555758
There's no discussion of Godel anywhere outside that one tweet

>>10560045
Does he mean that it is human nature to seek or create proofs, and that the ability to have the necessary leap of faith towards any axiom at all is essentially the concept of faith in God?

>>10560235
I would lean towards the latter, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that Gödel's theorems have nothing to do with it.

>>10555773
Calm down, Mr. Blake.

>>10555776
> There is simply no collective subconscious
> The[s]e structures are mere imaginary constructs

You literally beg the question, and simply declare your belief.
From whence your imagination, pleb?

Belief is the hallmark of a weak mind.

>>10560045
I don't know where he's coming from with "Faith in God" as prerequisite for all proof, but Faith itself is prerequisite for all proof, all decision-making...

>>10558962
>you can't differentiate things without a value judgement
Top brain/lit/

>>10560424
Imagination is a facet of cognition. The ability to form representations of reality from concepts intuited from sensory experience.
Have you read Kant?

>>10560505
Reddit-tier garbage post.
Keep your shit off of /lit/

>>10560517
Still you misunderstand.
Assert metaphysical truths at your own peril.

>>10560528
Please, what I speak of is a necessary fact for our capacity to be speaking at all

>>10560541
Another round of question-begging from our resident tautologist.

>>10560518
t. brain/lit/

>>10560560
A pat on the head a biscuit for trying.
Run along now.

>>10555685
>yfw this thing is going to hit post limit and this is going to happen another 300 times in the next 6 months because /lit/ fags are cowardly, spineless rats and /pol/ users are relentless dogs

>>10560544
Fair enough but you're not exactly doing much different yourself are you?
Its a poor game to piss in the lake just because you have no other defence for a concept

Buy my rug.

>>10560577

>>10560587
I still can't fucking believe he actually did that

>>10560588
He's on /lit/ yet cannot even use words to insult.
Bitter irony.

>>10560583
I agree, and that's my point.
You originally assert a belief without any proof.
Why the need to push the lever all the way to belief or non-belief? Why run from uncertainty?

>>10560600

>>10560610
Rather telling that he keeps so many of these images, isn't it?

>>10560615
You know how this goes, you must have had similar interactions hundreds of times on this website (or more likely reddit). You want the last word so badly that you'll keep posting your terrible replies and in turn I'll post another brain/lit/ image and the thread will be ruined. Is that really what you want?

Well the idea of synchronicity in general is bordering on woo-woo. I like the idea, and it happens to me quite often too, but I try to be skeptical.

Besides, both Jungs and Peterson's writings are more practical and pragmatic than esoteric, and they should be read as such if you ask me.

>>10560631
You're right. Let's end this.
Respond to this post in any form to indicate your surrender.

>>10560609
Because while we may not have certainty of what IS reality that does prevent us from excluding what we can deduce is NOT reality

>>10560639
That is flawed reasoning, and I hope you can see why.

>>10560636
>You're right.
I know.

>>10560597
I like his clean your room philosophy but beyond that he's a hack.

>>10558786
>mathematics model
In psychology it's called statistics, bro.

>>10558655
Jung believed that the scientific method should attempt to understand paranormal experiences without going in with an assumed score to settle.

>>10560390
Go and actually read some of Godel. He was a philosopher who related mathematics to ontology as a way of describing the nature of reality. Stop dismissing interpretations of his theorums to posteur like a fucking pseud. Godel would have been excited to discuss the philosophical implications of his models. He would have enjoyed Petersons attitude much more than yours.

>>10559872
Thats because the anon got it wrong.

Does he actually advocate Christianity or does he merely analyze it?

>>10561015
I'm only familiar with Gödel's mathematical output, including his incompleteness theorems. That being said, did Gödel prove that proof requires axioms in any of his philosophical work? He certainly didn't prove it mathematically, since that assumption is fundamentally underlying all modern mathematics. Unless I'm missing some philosophical work Gödel did on this subject, Peterson's tweet doesn't make a great deal of sense.

>>10561247
Basically both as far as I know.

What he has said is that true believers have to exist, because they keep the dogma and traditions alive when nobody else wants to, but the liberal and more tolerant part of the religion also has to exist so it doesn't become stagnant and authoritarian.

>>10561288
So does he advocate the slave values of Christianity? Does he believe in the superstitious part or interpret it in a Jungian way?

>>10560655
> tfw you played yourself

>>10558148

>>10556236
that's the point

>>10555685
>mfw reading Peterson's new book
>he literally cites youtube views and Quora likes and uses smiley faces to introduce himself

>>10555766
>Your body is the temple of God
What do you take me for?

>>10555759
T. Close minded brainlet.

>>10561851
>waiting 3 hours, 52 minutes and 18 seconds out of sheer cowardice
C'mon anon you're better than that.
Concession accepted though

>>10561249
What the incompleteness theorum suggests is that you cannot generate a logical system that is complete and consistent by its own laws. To have a complete system therefore means you need to accept a statement that is NOT provable by the laws of that system. In other words, an act of faith, and you can call that God a deity or a claim of materialism, but it will be an unsupported axiom that is true "just because".

>>10562610
You walked right into it, really.

>>10562823

The logical system has to contain basic arithmetic. People often forget the incompleteness theorem applies only to a very specific context, but because it is so fashionable and mysterious they refer to it in any context they'd like.

>>10562882
But again, if you are a mathematical Platonist, as GODEL HIMSELF WAS, you then extend these mathematical models to their ontological implications because you believe that mathematics underscores the nature of reality.

>>10562882
All mathematics depends on axioms.
Even basic arithmetic requires assumptions that can never be proven.