Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q42,34: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
← Older editNewer edit →
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
15,745 edits
m String theorists are not suppressing dissent
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
15,745 edits
Not All String Theorists
Line 27: Line 27:


{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=STM / string theory|Q=42,60|Q2=4260}}String theorists are not suppressing dissent / String theorists are <em>not</em> creating localized [[E:There are millions of Spanishness Offices|Spanishness Offices]] which become more about cliques and socially-linked groups of people protecting each other than actual objective standards of science  ->  oh boy. one of those questions where I don't like having to talk about it because I know the parties are talking past each other and not even talking about the same thing. when Sabine Hossenfelder and Jim Baggott or people like that allege that string theorists are suppressing dissent, they mean inside individual specific institutions such as a university or a journal. they don't mean nationwide. what The Hossenfelder or The Baggott or The Science Trotskyite is saying is that there is a process that takes hold <em>sometimes</em> inside particular institutions where some particular individual or Filament of individuals takes over them and if you don't fit into that limited local countable culture of scientists and play by exactly the rules it wants then it doesn't let you play the game. while it can be true that Not All String Theorists do it, the accusation itself is that it's an undesirable process that happens spontaneously somewhere without recourse and so it feels like anybody anywhere can "get Gramsci'd". and here's how it historically goes in each of these cases of people complaining about "suppression": when you get Gramscianized or musical-chairs-attacked you start to feel paranoid like all the Stalinists across the Soviet Union or all the string theorists everywhere across all of Germany or all of the United Kingdom are joining together to find you and kick you out — whether such a statement is accurate or not. whereas, the claim that string theory has been improperly accepted across all of Germany is a claim of much greater scope than anybody is practically intending to make. the problem The Science Trotskyites are talking about is less a science problem and more of a social problem of localized countable cultures of people meshing badly and failing to share localized institutions such that the group of people has to divide and each countable culture has to aggressively secure its own territory. really not a problem that has much to do with the scientific method.
{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=STM / string theory|Q=42,60|Q2=4260}}String theorists are not suppressing dissent / String theorists are <em>not</em> creating localized [[E:There are millions of Spanishness Offices|Spanishness Offices]] which become more about cliques and socially-linked groups of people protecting each other than actual objective standards of science  ->  oh boy. one of those questions where I don't like having to talk about it because I know the parties are talking past each other and not even talking about the same thing. when Sabine Hossenfelder and Jim Baggott or people like that allege that string theorists are suppressing dissent, they mean inside individual specific institutions such as a university or a journal. they don't mean nationwide. what The Hossenfelder or The Baggott or The Science Trotskyite is saying is that there is a process that takes hold <em>sometimes</em> inside particular institutions where some particular individual or Filament of individuals takes over them and if you don't fit into that limited local countable culture of scientists and play by exactly the rules it wants then it doesn't let you play the game. while it can be true that Not All String Theorists do it, the accusation itself is that it's an undesirable process that happens spontaneously somewhere without recourse and so it feels like anybody anywhere can "get Gramsci'd". and here's how it historically goes in each of these cases of people complaining about "suppression": when you get Gramscianized or musical-chairs-attacked you start to feel paranoid like all the Stalinists across the Soviet Union or all the string theorists everywhere across all of Germany or all of the United Kingdom are joining together to find you and kick you out — whether such a statement is accurate or not. whereas, the claim that string theory has been improperly accepted across all of Germany is a claim of much greater scope than anybody is practically intending to make. the problem The Science Trotskyites are talking about is less a science problem and more of a social problem of localized countable cultures of people meshing badly and failing to share localized institutions such that the group of people has to divide and each countable culture has to aggressively secure its own territory. really not a problem that has much to do with the scientific method.
{{li|I=S2/STM|tradition=STM / string theory|Q=42,60|Q2=4260}}Not All String Theorists / In a hypothetical anecdote, Bryan the misogynist kicked out quantum field theorists in a string-theorist dominated journal as well as a few women, but because other journals didn't do that, no string theorists across Germany are actually suppressing dissent  ->  yeah, in fewer words, this is the problem. a few people are really upset because of what Bryan did, but then everybody ignores Bryan, so they continue to be upset.<br/>
<s>(I'm sorry if your name is Bryan and you have {{em|not}} been pushing women out of social circles and institutions. That's just the totally arbitrary name I picked to make the motif sound more concrete.)</s>


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 36: Line 39:
this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works.<br/>
this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works.<br/>
it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact {{i|ontologies can form stereotypes}}, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to [[Ontology:Q2970|avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive]], and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they {{em|will}} use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which [[E:Q3667|intends to use]] all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".
it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact {{i|ontologies can form stereotypes}}, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to [[Ontology:Q2970|avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive]], and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they {{em|will}} use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which [[E:Q3667|intends to use]] all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".
</li></ol>
== Bureaucracy versus pseudo-medicine ==
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S1/PT|tradition=IV, Zv|Q=42,62|Q2=4262|h4= doctors hate him! }}  ->  the moment this motif popped up in advertising everybody started laughing at it. I feel like there were very few people who took it seriously. but it can tell you a lot if you look deeper into where exactly it came from. the kinds of people peddling the stuff that "doctors hate" are probably pretty similar to "science Trotskyites", trying to shortcut the overall concept of medical knowledge and present the existence of markets as inherently better than doctors just because there's a lower barrier to entry. and this would be why doctors hate them. markets transform society into a hazardous ecosystem of potentially poisonous substances you practically need a field guide to navigate, [[E:Mushrooms are edible|just like the world was before there were any businesses at all]], while honestly what really transformed society into modernity was the oh-so-accursed experts of particular domains. Stalin really wasn't that bad, markets destroy everything, it's a million Stalins that truly create modern society and not the markets. we have everything backwards.


</li></ol>
</li></ol>

Revision as of 03:15, 12 June 2026

Main entry

  1. they purged members of the scientific community [1] / Stalin's government purged members of the scientific community -> this really begins to show what the increasing usage of the word "community" everywhere actually means. it implies some kind of unbreakable whole where for unclear reasons it's a huge violation to remove people who are asserted to be causing harm to the rest of the people in the whole. why? why would it be that people are more closely bound together by applied science than by republican society itself?
    the scientific community + Stalinism (corruption) = this.
  2. they purged members of the scientific community (Trotskyism)

In the First World

Zealous anti-pseudoscience

  1. the science bureaucracy
  2. science Trotskyites -> the non-fictional motif that there are people who oppose established structures of science purely for their failures without thinking about their successes. this could be a good thing or a bad thing. some people could have legitimate complaints that universities are stagnating and churning out a lot of papers that do very little. other people are Alexander Unzicker and sound comically similar to The Revolution Betrayed in that their criticisms sound like facts but in context do not even make any sense. [2]
  3. Academic science is a planned economy [3] (7:37) -> Sabine Hossenfelder's somewhat pitiful attempt to justify why science in an environment of chunk competition across the spatial slot hierarchy carefully modifying behavior to conform to selection pressures and survive is somehow the wrong way to operate in that environment. very bad choice of words because you've literally described capitalism.
  4. Academic science is capitalism (meta-Marxism) / Academic science is an undesigned system which creates selection pressures and where the science that gets produced operates on the logic of assembly theories such that scientists are obligated to join socially-linked countable cultures in order to survive expulsion from the environment as opposed to thinking for themselves as individuals ->
    it'll throw some people off that this claim is violet, but it's using the particular meta-Marxist definition of capitalism as a social-darwinist struggle between countable cultures which each individually would otherwise be the proletariat in the time of a workers' state. I abbreviated it to "capitalism" because in the end saying "it's capitalism" is a nicely equivalent, easily recognizable, and shorter statement.
  5. Academic science is capitalism (mainstream Marxism-Leninism; sense)
  6. String theorists are not suppressing dissent / String theorists are not creating localized Spanishness Offices which become more about cliques and socially-linked groups of people protecting each other than actual objective standards of science -> oh boy. one of those questions where I don't like having to talk about it because I know the parties are talking past each other and not even talking about the same thing. when Sabine Hossenfelder and Jim Baggott or people like that allege that string theorists are suppressing dissent, they mean inside individual specific institutions such as a university or a journal. they don't mean nationwide. what The Hossenfelder or The Baggott or The Science Trotskyite is saying is that there is a process that takes hold sometimes inside particular institutions where some particular individual or Filament of individuals takes over them and if you don't fit into that limited local countable culture of scientists and play by exactly the rules it wants then it doesn't let you play the game. while it can be true that Not All String Theorists do it, the accusation itself is that it's an undesirable process that happens spontaneously somewhere without recourse and so it feels like anybody anywhere can "get Gramsci'd". and here's how it historically goes in each of these cases of people complaining about "suppression": when you get Gramscianized or musical-chairs-attacked you start to feel paranoid like all the Stalinists across the Soviet Union or all the string theorists everywhere across all of Germany or all of the United Kingdom are joining together to find you and kick you out — whether such a statement is accurate or not. whereas, the claim that string theory has been improperly accepted across all of Germany is a claim of much greater scope than anybody is practically intending to make. the problem The Science Trotskyites are talking about is less a science problem and more of a social problem of localized countable cultures of people meshing badly and failing to share localized institutions such that the group of people has to divide and each countable culture has to aggressively secure its own territory. really not a problem that has much to do with the scientific method.
  7. Not All String Theorists / In a hypothetical anecdote, Bryan the misogynist kicked out quantum field theorists in a string-theorist dominated journal as well as a few women, but because other journals didn't do that, no string theorists across Germany are actually suppressing dissent -> yeah, in fewer words, this is the problem. a few people are really upset because of what Bryan did, but then everybody ignores Bryan, so they continue to be upset.
    (I'm sorry if your name is Bryan and you have not been pushing women out of social circles and institutions. That's just the totally arbitrary name I picked to make the motif sound more concrete.)

Critical theory / moral vanguard theory

  1. science Tories (critical theory, center-Liberalism) -> the non-fictional motif that people should be presumed to not actually be knowledgeable about science because they "Are Actually Part Of The Right". (examples: Richard Dawkins, Sabine Hossenfelder.)
    this isn't really correct on a factual basis. somebody can be an absolutely horrible person and still understand science and create an informative book or video about science which is educational to people of all ideologies. in such a case, the work becomes valid through death of the author and other people reappropriating the work, exactly as with fictional works.
    it is also possible that misconceptions about science will lead somebody into Toryism, or that facts or models will become misinterpreted through Toryism into models that don't actually make sense. but this happens for reasons that a lot of center-Liberals don't want to think about: people form ontologies to comprehend the world, they strain everything through ontologies, sometimes the ontologies are inaccurate, sometimes the ontologies are accurate. in recent decades people really hate the notion of ontologies because of the fact ontologies can form stereotypes, so they want to smash all ontologies, but that's a bad plan when all countable Cultures and marginalized religions and things they want to protect bring ontologies, so smashing ontologies is an easy way to let people get away with forced assimilation, the opposite of the goal. there is such a trend to say reality can't be predicted and people can't be predicted to try to encourage people to be open-minded, but it never really works because people need to form ontologies to avoid catastrophes in their lives and physically survive, and if you don't give them objectively accurate ontologies of how to successfully survive and build society they will use stereotypes for the same purpose, taking down notes to avoid "all men" or "all Black people" just to have a better day-to-day experience with less pain in their individual lives. back to science-Tories: science-Tories are the motif that people form countable Cultures of Toryism and then they do science for the "Tory ethnicity", and you have to root them out of science because the Tory people-group is an evil malicious people-group which intends to use all pieces of the Tory machine to eliminate the center-Liberal people-group so all pieces of the Tory machine are bad. even if this is true... do you see how there are undercurrents in this which indicate some nasty biases or fallacies of some kind? not in the sense of "Tories could be good", but more in the sense of "nations must be adversarial to the extent of internal imperialism and there's nothing we could have done to prevent this, we've just gotta divide and fight a civil war one day because that's the only way countries can be".

Bureaucracy versus pseudo-medicine

  1. doctors hate him!

    -> the moment this motif popped up in advertising everybody started laughing at it. I feel like there were very few people who took it seriously. but it can tell you a lot if you look deeper into where exactly it came from. the kinds of people peddling the stuff that "doctors hate" are probably pretty similar to "science Trotskyites", trying to shortcut the overall concept of medical knowledge and present the existence of markets as inherently better than doctors just because there's a lower barrier to entry. and this would be why doctors hate them. markets transform society into a hazardous ecosystem of potentially poisonous substances you practically need a field guide to navigate, just like the world was before there were any businesses at all, while honestly what really transformed society into modernity was the oh-so-accursed experts of particular domains. Stalin really wasn't that bad, markets destroy everything, it's a million Stalins that truly create modern society and not the markets. we have everything backwards.

Related

  1. The Revolution Betrayed (Trotsky 1936) -> the book that Jim Baggott and Alexander Unzicker weirdly sound like.

Ideologies or fields

  • (none)
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q42,34&oldid=43977"