Knowledge From Practical Experience

[j.]

This is something that really doesn't make any sense to me. Epistemology should be, in my opinion a central subject in science education. I had to study it on my own and I don't think it's reasonable to do 'science' without it.

If it's studied properly, there would be billions in losses for products that'll stop being bought. So there might be some opposition.

Not that I'm really hopeful. Unlike you, I do see academics as very stupid people.

 

[CellularIconoclast]

If it's studied properly, there would be billions in losses for products that'll stop being bought. So there might be some opposition.

I agree, if people started thinking critically our society would change significantly.

 

[j.]

I agree, if people started thinking critically our society would change significantly.

I'm not that ambitious, as to demand that people do something as hard as thinking. I think it'd dramatically change just if vegetable oils are demonized and coconut oil and ghee are considered health foods in the public mind. That will help them to think as well.

 

[Such_Saturation]

You gotta understand the "practical experience" means the things we see with our eyes, but not just that. An emotion would be experience, an idea would be experience, how the self is changed by an experience is experience, interaction with someone else who has had an experience is experience, even the failure of a rational deduction is experience.

The poetic mind can identify with another being and not only access infinitely more data, but experience the difference and the similarity with the being.

The scientific method is just a pretty idea, and imagination has been the hidden link between our great discoveries and our great minds. Blake knew that, and Popper saw that.

Ray Peat is a beacon of science in a dark age, a flaming sun that burned through the bull**** that gets flung around every day. He has had to carefully attract all the good ideas that were cast aside by our logic of repulsion, and elaborate them doing the work of a hundred people.

This is why we appear dogmatic on these forums. We welcome other ideas but the point here is to show how covering and extensive a man's theory can be, if he just lets his mind work a little bit.

 

[Kasper]

This is why we appear dogmatic on these forums. We welcome other ideas but the point here is to show how covering and extensive a man's theory can be, if he just lets his mind work a little bit.

I don't really get what you are trying to say here.

 

[Such_Saturation]

This is why we appear dogmatic on these forums. We welcome other ideas but the point here is to show how covering and extensive a man's theory can be, if he just lets his mind work a little bit.

I don't really get what you are trying to say here.

I think the big obstacle to most scientists is that their work is overly compartmentalized, and they can't really integrate different information or spot incoherences. Ray Peat leverages his biology knowledge, but he is also a science historian, a painter... In this context it is easy for us forum-goers to be overwhelmed by the explanatory capacity of his ideas, and seem not very open to different topics. There is much to talk about as it is!

 

[j.]

I think the big obstacle to most scientists is that their work is overly compartmentalized, and they can't really integrate different information or spot incoherences. Ray Peat leverages his biology knowledge, but he is also a science historian, a painter... In this context it is easy for us forum-goers to be overwhelmed by the explanatory capacity of his ideas, and seem not very open to different topics. There is much to talk about as it is!

I think I read twice people don't understand you for some reason, while for me the meaning was already clear before the second explanation.

 

[Kasper]

I think the big obstacle to most scientists is that their work is overly compartmentalized, and they can't really integrate different information or spot incoherences. Ray Peat leverages his biology knowledge, but he is also a science historian, a painter... In this context it is easy for us forum-goers to be overwhelmed by the explanatory capacity of his ideas, and seem not very open to different topics. There is much to talk about as it is!

I think Ray Peat ideas has much explanatory capacity. If you step in the Ray Peat tunnel, suddenly everything makes sense. On the other hand, there are also so many things in that tunnel that doesn't align with my experiences, that I rather accept the chaos of reality, and hope someone will ever build a tunnel that fits me better.

 

[j.]

Reality isn't chaos; it's perfect harmony of everything with everything.

 

[Kasper]

Reality isn't chaos; it's perfect harmony of everything with everything.

haha, you surely live in a tunnel

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think the big obstacle to most scientists is that their work is overly compartmentalized, and they can't really integrate different information or spot incoherences. Ray Peat leverages his biology knowledge, but he is also a science historian, a painter... In this context it is easy for us forum-goers to be overwhelmed by the explanatory capacity of his ideas, and seem not very open to different topics. There is much to talk about as it is!

I think Ray Peat ideas has much explanatory capacity. If you step in the Ray Peat tunnel, suddenly everything makes sense. On the other hand, there are also so many things in that tunnel that doesn't align with my experiences, that I rather accept the chaos of reality, and hope someone will ever build a tunnel that fits me better.

Ray Peat got where he is by building the OPPOSITE of a tunnel. You really think reductionist thinking gets you any further? There is no such thing as a chaos.

 

[Kasper]

Ray Peat got where he is by building the OPPOSITE of a tunnel.

What I meant with the ray peat tunnel, is his model that he proposes.
I don't think it is bad to build a model, but I do thing it is bad to confuse a model for reality.

There is no such thing as a chaos.

How do you know ?

 

[Such_Saturation]

Reality is a grammar... A language. A self-configuring, self-processing language. If something acted completely independently, unconnected and unsolicited (???), how would you know it exists? Experience its "chaos"? Cognition runs the universe. As such, when you build an accurate and sound model of the universe, that model kind of IS the universe.

 

[Kasper]

I think we are going too much off-topic here.

Cognition runs the universe. As such, when you build an accurate and sound model of the universe, that model kind of IS the universe.

But you can never know if your model is accurate and sound. Like Einstein said:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

 

[Philomath]

I agree - everyone looks for scientific studies to prove their points. Sadly, as Dr. peat and others have pointed out, science is faulty, subject to bias and sometime bought and paid for. So you can find whatever studies you need out there! What separates Dr. peat is that he pulls data from the present AND the past. If something was proven in 1890, 1930 and again in 1999, I'm more likely to believe it.
The difference is that most Doctors, like Mercola, don't fully understand the science. They are trained practitioners, with scientific knowledge and training that is limited, dated and woefully inadequate. I would trust them to cut me open or sew me shut, but I don't trust their nutritional advice. If they can't save themselves, why should I listen to them? They're in it for the money - Follow the money!! Good lord I'm cynical ;-)

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think we are going too much off-topic here.

Cognition runs the universe. As such, when you build an accurate and sound model of the universe, that model kind of IS the universe.

But you can never know if your model is accurate and sound. Like Einstein said:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.
Albert Einstein

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
Albert Einstein

To know is nothing at all; to imagine is everything.
Albert Einstein

Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.
Albert Einstein

Your model is equal to the universe when it is built upon tautologies. A supertautology. Logic is undeniable, it is part of the universe you are describing.

 

[Kasper]

They're in it for the money - Follow the money!! Good lord I'm cynical

I honestly don't believe Mercola is only in for the money. I don't believe that if people make money with their ideas, that those people can't be trusted.
I mean, this is just an argument that both sides always can say. For example, that is what people will have said about Danny Roddy when he asked 60 dollar for his book.

@such_saturation

Imagination is a powerfull tool, sure, to derive new knowledge.

“The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.”
Albert Einstein

Your model is equal to the universe when it is built upon tautologies. A supertautology. Logic is undeniable, it is part of the universe you are describing.

That is impossible. Logically, what you are saying is impossible. Every logical reasoning begins with axioms (hypotheses). Without axioms you can't deduce anything. Einstein builded his theory on only 2 axioms, which is absolutely phenomenal, but nobody can prove those 2 axioms, and it is possible that we will find out one day, that those axioms are not true. Most scientist don't believe that, but maybe that is a lack of imagination.

 

[Such_Saturation]

They're in it for the money - Follow the money!! Good lord I'm cynical

I honestly don't believe Mercola is only in for the money. I don't believe that if people make money with their ideas, that those people can't be trusted.
I mean, this is just an argument that both sides always can say. For example, that is what people will have said about Danny Roddy when he asked 60 dollar for his book.

@such_saturation

Imagination is a powerfull tool, sure, to derive new knowledge.

“The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.”
Albert Einstein

Your model is equal to the universe when it is built upon tautologies. A supertautology. Logic is undeniable, it is part of the universe you are describing.

That is impossible. Logically, what you are saying is impossible. Every logical reasoning begins with axioms (hypotheses). Without axioms you can't deduce anything. Einstein builded his theory on only 2 axioms, which is absolutely phenomenal, but nobody can prove those 2 axioms, and it is possible that we will find out one day, that those axioms are not true. Most scientist don't believe that, but maybe that is a lack of imagination.

You are being illogical, you are explaining axioms by some means which are external to reality which is impossible, or by an infinite regress of some kind.

"As we have already seen, the Reality Principle says that reality contains all and only that which is real. As defined by this statement, the predicate reality is primarily a linguistic construct conforming to syntactic structure, where syntax consists of the rules by which predicates are
constructed and interpreted. In this sense, reality amounts to a kind of theory whose axioms and
rules of inference are implicitly provided by the logical component of the conceptual syntax in
which it is expressed."

We cannot prove some axioms? Some day we will find they aren't true? We would be using the concept of truth which is based on the integrity of the logic of our perceptions, which are part of our universe.

 

[Kasper]

You are being illogical, you are explaining axioms by some means which are external to reality which is impossible, or by an infinite regress of some kind.

If you think I'm illogical, then I doubt if you have seriously studied logic.

Axioms are a part of logic, and I don't try to explain any axioms, axioms are statements that are assumed to be true.

As we have already seen, the Reality Principle says that reality contains all and only that which is real. As defined by this statement, the predicate reality is primarily a linguistic construct conforming to syntactic structure, where syntax consists of the rules by which predicates are
constructed and interpreted. In this sense, reality amounts to a kind of theory whose axioms and
rules of inference are implicitly provided by the logical component of the conceptual syntax in
which it is expressed.

Do you get your ideas from Christopher Michael Langan ? I never really studied his theory because he uses such isolated terminology. And I naturally doubt anyone that think he is able to prove the existence of god.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I do suggest you read the CTMU as well as any given Ray Peat interview before making those statements!