Re: Things Formulaic


"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8zOge.30564$fI.26567@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Al wrote:
>
> <I'll reply to the below because you don't seem to know how to
> direct and format replies appropriately to newsgroups; it'll come
> eventually. I'll even show you how it might look>
>
> > There seems to be a misunderstanding. I do not think that maths is bad;
> > maths is neutral, its the use to which it's put that is bad. There is
> > nothing wrong with science per se, its the ham fisted way it is used.
>
> <The single indent means you wrote the immediately above text>
>
> "Ham-fisted" usually indicates a lack of consideration of some
> factor(s). Which factor(s) did you have in mind?
>
> > When I speak of dehumanisation I mean the quantifying of us.
> See below
> Look, whether you like it or not, people have characteristics
> which are quantizable (not that it's been done to the last decimal
> place yet) and thus subject to _statistical_ modelling.
>
> > Psychology has decided to lick the ass/arse of science and reduced us
all to
> > statistical nonentities.( This includes you also) The reason for this is
> > because science has pointed the finger and accused psychology of having
a
> > murky past. This is only true in a scientific sense.
>
> Yep, and what other "sense" is worth considering?

> It's like speaking to someone under hypnosis. All you can hear is the
hypnotists voice, with a vague notion of something else going on.
He says dance and you dance, although you don't know why.

> >> "Mathematics is used to quantize the elements of problems in order
> >> to make predictions about previously-unseen combinations of those
> >> elements;
>
> <The double indent means I wrote the immediately above text; your
> newsreader program may display things a bit differently>
>
> > "Making 'predictions'" is the operative word Mark.
>
> Yep, it sure is. Previous versions of psychology have failed
> utterly precisely because they used "murky" methodologies. Do you
> have a problem with your behaviors being made predictable?
Yes

Do you
> actually believe that "predictable" in this case means "inhuman"?
Yes mass control is what it is all about.
It
> doesn't, you know. Psychology will simply never be able to reduce
> _individual_ human behavior to the same level of predictability
> Physics has for individual fundamental particles for reasons that
> ought to be blatantly obvious to you; that people's minds have many,
> many more "quantum states" available to them than do say hadrons,
> and can transition between them without warning not to mention
> existing in two or more of them simultaneously. Nor is the word
> "stable" applicable to humans except in the context of a given
> sociopolitical venue.

People don't have quantum states, they have thoughts, ideas, creativity
>
> However, it's fairly easy to observe which state(s) is/are
> predominant in a given population sample at a given time and tailor
> inputs to get a given response; ask any rabble-rousing politician.
>
> See, I predicted (but didn't mention) that you'd have the precise
> reaction you've exhibited because you're actually a wannabe Mystic
> who thinks that there's some ineffable aspect to humans that
> separates them from "Physical reality". That mindset comes from a
> very shallow understanding of what "Physical reality" means.
What is reality? I'd be very interested to know.
>
> >>"You seem to
> >> have a serious bug up your ass about "higher
> >> mathematics" being a tool used to exclude those who don't understand
> >> any of it from being taken seriously when discussing subjects where
> >> it's applicable".
>
> > Absolutely. It's used to pull the wool over the eyes.
>
> Horse***. Learn the math used, and then challenge the
> discussions. You consistently use hostile terminology when talking
> about math; did you run up against some personal ability to absorb
> it? Get over it; I got stuck at Beginning Calculus, but have managed
> to slowly slog my way deep enough into it to be able to
> differentiate (pardon the pun) between real results and handwaving
> bull***.

When you have stood in front of a class of seventeen/eighteen-year-olds
you don't flinch at insults. Wasting your time.
>
> > I'm talking about the consequences of telling lies to the public and
> > bull*** maths when the poor 'masses' hang on every word that science
> > utters.
>
> How about the purely emotion-based lies told daily by
> politicians, aimed specifically at those on the low end of the bell
> curve? Are those OK with you?
> The subject is scientists
> > Have a look at what Michael Crichton( Well known sci fi writer)
> > http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html ) has to
say
> > about his early faith in science and how he became disillusioned. I feel
> > just the same.
>
> And... Crichton is your hero because he's finally come out as a
> neoLuddite? Surprise, he always was.
> No I haven't read any sci fi for years. No time. I'm too busy following
the mess our great minds are making.

> Mark L. Fegrerson
Regards
Al
>



.