What is really cool in such threads - you can calculate average opinions chess ratings.
@hal9k
So what are your observations in that respect? And what is your take on Wilber?
So what are your observations in that respect? And what is your take on Wilber?
If to summarize thread for now:
Supporters:
White_Taoist - 1586
osdeving8 - 1841
He is typical fake scientist:
hal9k - 1955
krasnaya - 2108 (good point that theory must predict)
Worth mention:
Celestial_Object (for mentioning Philip Glass)
Supporters:
White_Taoist - 1586
osdeving8 - 1841
He is typical fake scientist:
hal9k - 1955
krasnaya - 2108 (good point that theory must predict)
Worth mention:
Celestial_Object (for mentioning Philip Glass)
@hal9k
Thanks for sharing the data. I would be cautious about drawing conclusions though! By the way he can't be a fake scientist, because this assumes he claims to be a scientist which he doesn't. How could people with such high ratings make such a basic error? :)
Thanks for sharing the data. I would be cautious about drawing conclusions though! By the way he can't be a fake scientist, because this assumes he claims to be a scientist which he doesn't. How could people with such high ratings make such a basic error? :)
@hal9k, if you consider a dataset of four to be worthwhile as a basis for a theory, I'm not sure what to tell you, but I would't consider it scientific by any measure, even assuming a) chess rating as a reliable proxy for psychological and scientific knowledge and b) that all four had done enough research to have an informed opinion. (Not the case here it seems, though the most informed person here seems to be on the "pro" side, for what it's worth.) Also, it seems a bit rude to imply people are ignorant or stupid based on slightly above average combined chess ratings, don't you think? And why did you choose to take my second lowest chess rating out of 8 games, instead of something more representative like my average rating?
As for the scientific method and integral theory, presumably this is something that could be studied by seeing how people and organizations do after trying out KW's methods as compared to a control group of similar people in similar circumstances. If I had to guess I would guess that the data is out there somewhere if anyone cares to look for it, given how long KW has been writing and promoting his theories..
I could write more about truly scientific thinking vs. cynicism here, but I'm guessing those aware of the differences will figure it out on their own (no offence).
As for the scientific method and integral theory, presumably this is something that could be studied by seeing how people and organizations do after trying out KW's methods as compared to a control group of similar people in similar circumstances. If I had to guess I would guess that the data is out there somewhere if anyone cares to look for it, given how long KW has been writing and promoting his theories..
I could write more about truly scientific thinking vs. cynicism here, but I'm guessing those aware of the differences will figure it out on their own (no offence).
To exonerate hal9k: of course he said what he said in jest - there has been no "scientific" material brought here to seriously debate anything, just a lot of mumbo-jumbo about (by the way completely undefined) terms like "postmodernism", "green" and "orange". Just saying "Jacques Derrida" isn't making the term any more defined than it is - and it is not, for now.
On the side of "green" versus "orange" (whatever that may be, care to explain? Or have you just quoted those reams because it sounded good?) i'd like to take the side of black. Up to now i have just chosen logic and some epistemology 101 to dismantle what has been said about this "integral theory" - either you (that includes - i take your word for it - the local expert on this theory) are doing a very bad representation of this theory or it is that easy to dismantle by some philosophical ignoramus like me. If the former you don't know what you are talking about, if the latter you might want to quote better theories.
@White_Taoist said:
> As for the scientific method and integral theory, presumably
> this is something that could be studied by seeing how people
> and organizations do after trying out KW's methods as
> compared to a control group of similar people in similar
> circumstances.
Not really. You see, the flight of a thrown ball can be described by a parabolic equation including force of thrust, angle of thrust, gravitational force, etc.. Now there might be conceivably other competing theories about how the flight comes to pass, including angels not wanting the ball to fall down ("intelligent falling", look it up) and so forth. Which of these competing theories is correct will not be decided by which person advocating the respective theory can throw the ball the farthest. "seeing how people do" is not scientific, it is called "anecdotal".
> If I had to guess I would guess that the data is out there
> somewhere if anyone cares to look for it, given how long
> KW has been writing and promoting his theories..
Now, this is a a logical fallacy and if you had actually read Schopenhauer, on whose studies the local expert claimed the theory is based upon, namely the "Eristische Dialektik", you would have known that. It is called "appeal to authority" and it goes like this: is the defendant guilty or not? I don't know, but he probably is, or why would he stand trial otherwise?
Just because someone writes for a long time doesn't make what he writes better or worse or correct or incorrect in itself. For centuries ancient greeks have written book upon book about how to correctly worship Zeus - makes that Zeus any more real?
> I could write more about truly scientific thinking vs.
> cynicism here
Yes, you could - would cynicsm be used here. In fact it is not, but a stylistic device called "sarcasm". First, that you don't know the difference is tragic, but in this case i will tone it down. Sorry, but when i enter an intellectual fight i don't automatically assume my opponent to be defenseless.
Second, "science" is a method of gathering knowledge by several means: observation, logical reasoning, etc., not to forget a heuristic system to organise the found knowledge. "cynicism" is simply not relevant to scientific thinking, neither as an opposite like you imply, nor in any other way. The font being used to write a formula is not relevant to the formula being correct or not either.
Ahh, one last thing, nothing of significance:
> And why did you choose to take my second lowest chess rating
Because he took the blitz rating from everybody as his base data. Maybe it is the only rating we all have, maybe it is the rating he thinks is most relevant, maybe he has some other reason. But since i lost 30 points at blitz today my argument is probably on the brink of being invalidated...
krasnaya
On the side of "green" versus "orange" (whatever that may be, care to explain? Or have you just quoted those reams because it sounded good?) i'd like to take the side of black. Up to now i have just chosen logic and some epistemology 101 to dismantle what has been said about this "integral theory" - either you (that includes - i take your word for it - the local expert on this theory) are doing a very bad representation of this theory or it is that easy to dismantle by some philosophical ignoramus like me. If the former you don't know what you are talking about, if the latter you might want to quote better theories.
@White_Taoist said:
> As for the scientific method and integral theory, presumably
> this is something that could be studied by seeing how people
> and organizations do after trying out KW's methods as
> compared to a control group of similar people in similar
> circumstances.
Not really. You see, the flight of a thrown ball can be described by a parabolic equation including force of thrust, angle of thrust, gravitational force, etc.. Now there might be conceivably other competing theories about how the flight comes to pass, including angels not wanting the ball to fall down ("intelligent falling", look it up) and so forth. Which of these competing theories is correct will not be decided by which person advocating the respective theory can throw the ball the farthest. "seeing how people do" is not scientific, it is called "anecdotal".
> If I had to guess I would guess that the data is out there
> somewhere if anyone cares to look for it, given how long
> KW has been writing and promoting his theories..
Now, this is a a logical fallacy and if you had actually read Schopenhauer, on whose studies the local expert claimed the theory is based upon, namely the "Eristische Dialektik", you would have known that. It is called "appeal to authority" and it goes like this: is the defendant guilty or not? I don't know, but he probably is, or why would he stand trial otherwise?
Just because someone writes for a long time doesn't make what he writes better or worse or correct or incorrect in itself. For centuries ancient greeks have written book upon book about how to correctly worship Zeus - makes that Zeus any more real?
> I could write more about truly scientific thinking vs.
> cynicism here
Yes, you could - would cynicsm be used here. In fact it is not, but a stylistic device called "sarcasm". First, that you don't know the difference is tragic, but in this case i will tone it down. Sorry, but when i enter an intellectual fight i don't automatically assume my opponent to be defenseless.
Second, "science" is a method of gathering knowledge by several means: observation, logical reasoning, etc., not to forget a heuristic system to organise the found knowledge. "cynicism" is simply not relevant to scientific thinking, neither as an opposite like you imply, nor in any other way. The font being used to write a formula is not relevant to the formula being correct or not either.
Ahh, one last thing, nothing of significance:
> And why did you choose to take my second lowest chess rating
Because he took the blitz rating from everybody as his base data. Maybe it is the only rating we all have, maybe it is the rating he thinks is most relevant, maybe he has some other reason. But since i lost 30 points at blitz today my argument is probably on the brink of being invalidated...
krasnaya
- The terms were pretty well defined in my extensive quotation of the article I think, i.e. “green” as postmodern” and “orange” as modern, as per my quoted passage:
“green (postmodernism) first began to emerge as a major cultural force, and it soon bypassed orange (which was the previous leading-edge stage, known in various models as “rational,” “reason,” ... and “progress” - in short, “modern” in contrast to green’s “postmodern”)”
- The “expert” (or more accurately the only one with any seemingly plausible claim of knowledge of KW’s work) here is clearly not me, but osdeving8.
- Yes, “science” is a method of gathering knowledge by several means as you note. It also happens to require a degree of open-mindedness and fair/deep investigation to work properly, and often the challenging of deeply held assumptions (for example with paradigm shifts - i.e. the greatest leaps in scientific knowledge). You claim to champion the scientific perspective here, yet you have not demonstrated any real knowledge of the ideas at hand, nor the degree of IRL impacts as might have been studied scientifically thus far. Instead you opened by proclaiming the topic “bullshit” and “nonsense” and that “Newton and Leibniz are both spinning in their graves” (#6) while suggesting my suggestion that data (for or against the theory) might already be out there is a “appeal to authority” and a “logical fallacy”. As KW is making a living as an author of numerous books promoting these ideas over 30 years now it is hardly implausible that they might have been tested in some reasonably scientific manner by various groups over this time frame.
I suppose I could be called guilty of some unintended rudeness and derailing by my misinterpretation(?) of the ratings comment (my apologies to hal9k if so, I await his clarification), but by the same measure you would have to be accused of much more of the same with your general rudeness and dismissiveness of the topic.
My simple suggestions here are that a) rude dismissals of ideas without proper investigation are not conducive to productive conversations, and b) KW’s theories very plausibly could be (and perhaps have been) tested in a somewhat scientific manner - at least as much as can reasonably done in the “soft sciences” of psychology and sociology (which are admittedly a mess at present). Has the serious adoption of postmodern ideas among certain groups lead to narcissism and nihilism (and the associated ill effects) in those groups as KW suggests? Do trainees/practitioners of his ideas achieve better IRL indicators of mental health and life success after implementing his ideas, as compared to control groups? Do businesses and other groups achieve better profitability, longevity, employee retention, etc. after implementing his ideas? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but for you to rudely dismiss the ideas out of hand without evidence is little better than the opposite (blind acceptance) IMO.
“green (postmodernism) first began to emerge as a major cultural force, and it soon bypassed orange (which was the previous leading-edge stage, known in various models as “rational,” “reason,” ... and “progress” - in short, “modern” in contrast to green’s “postmodern”)”
- The “expert” (or more accurately the only one with any seemingly plausible claim of knowledge of KW’s work) here is clearly not me, but osdeving8.
- Yes, “science” is a method of gathering knowledge by several means as you note. It also happens to require a degree of open-mindedness and fair/deep investigation to work properly, and often the challenging of deeply held assumptions (for example with paradigm shifts - i.e. the greatest leaps in scientific knowledge). You claim to champion the scientific perspective here, yet you have not demonstrated any real knowledge of the ideas at hand, nor the degree of IRL impacts as might have been studied scientifically thus far. Instead you opened by proclaiming the topic “bullshit” and “nonsense” and that “Newton and Leibniz are both spinning in their graves” (#6) while suggesting my suggestion that data (for or against the theory) might already be out there is a “appeal to authority” and a “logical fallacy”. As KW is making a living as an author of numerous books promoting these ideas over 30 years now it is hardly implausible that they might have been tested in some reasonably scientific manner by various groups over this time frame.
I suppose I could be called guilty of some unintended rudeness and derailing by my misinterpretation(?) of the ratings comment (my apologies to hal9k if so, I await his clarification), but by the same measure you would have to be accused of much more of the same with your general rudeness and dismissiveness of the topic.
My simple suggestions here are that a) rude dismissals of ideas without proper investigation are not conducive to productive conversations, and b) KW’s theories very plausibly could be (and perhaps have been) tested in a somewhat scientific manner - at least as much as can reasonably done in the “soft sciences” of psychology and sociology (which are admittedly a mess at present). Has the serious adoption of postmodern ideas among certain groups lead to narcissism and nihilism (and the associated ill effects) in those groups as KW suggests? Do trainees/practitioners of his ideas achieve better IRL indicators of mental health and life success after implementing his ideas, as compared to control groups? Do businesses and other groups achieve better profitability, longevity, employee retention, etc. after implementing his ideas? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but for you to rudely dismiss the ideas out of hand without evidence is little better than the opposite (blind acceptance) IMO.
Some short basic corrections (krasnaya took care of most of subjects):
> he claims to be a scientist which he doesn't
Why then he doesn't name things properly - "Ken Wilber's "Integral Religion", "Spiritual Dynamics Witnesses"? Because if he created just another "this time it definitely will be correct" religion then there is no problem at all, nor anything worth talking about.
> if you consider a dataset of four...
> it seems a bit rude to imply people are ignorant or stupid based on
...etc
Thought such things are too evident and not worth mentioning.
And indeed important point here - any test religion can pass is invalid. If you want to prove Wilber's thoughts worth much - prove it on test on which religion fails.
"could be studied by seeing how people and organizations do after trying out KW's methods as compared to a control group of similar people in similar circumstances" - exactly example of wrong test
> he claims to be a scientist which he doesn't
Why then he doesn't name things properly - "Ken Wilber's "Integral Religion", "Spiritual Dynamics Witnesses"? Because if he created just another "this time it definitely will be correct" religion then there is no problem at all, nor anything worth talking about.
> if you consider a dataset of four...
> it seems a bit rude to imply people are ignorant or stupid based on
...etc
Thought such things are too evident and not worth mentioning.
And indeed important point here - any test religion can pass is invalid. If you want to prove Wilber's thoughts worth much - prove it on test on which religion fails.
"could be studied by seeing how people and organizations do after trying out KW's methods as compared to a control group of similar people in similar circumstances" - exactly example of wrong test
@krasnaya
You have not dismantled anything, instead you have just shown your ignorance. "Postmodernism" is only undefined in your mind because you lack the relevant education. The fact that such concepts are not amenable to mathematical precision doesn't mean they are nonsense nor that they are undefined.
The hard sciences tackle simple and idealized processes that can be tackled rigorously because of their simplicity. But it would be foolish to only tackle such things, because our collective stakes rest also on complex things like society, history, wars, religions, community, morality, etc. Taking all talk about such things as "nonsense" because it is not a theory in the sense you understand, namely in the sense of Newton's laws of motion, is frivolous. You feel very strong and consistent, ready to dismantle everything, but that feeling is caused by your ignorance, not by your actual intellectual capacities. The world still seems extremely simple to you because your mind is still almost empty :)
You have not dismantled anything, instead you have just shown your ignorance. "Postmodernism" is only undefined in your mind because you lack the relevant education. The fact that such concepts are not amenable to mathematical precision doesn't mean they are nonsense nor that they are undefined.
The hard sciences tackle simple and idealized processes that can be tackled rigorously because of their simplicity. But it would be foolish to only tackle such things, because our collective stakes rest also on complex things like society, history, wars, religions, community, morality, etc. Taking all talk about such things as "nonsense" because it is not a theory in the sense you understand, namely in the sense of Newton's laws of motion, is frivolous. You feel very strong and consistent, ready to dismantle everything, but that feeling is caused by your ignorance, not by your actual intellectual capacities. The world still seems extremely simple to you because your mind is still almost empty :)
@hal9k
> Why then he doesn't name things properly - "Ken Wilber's "Integral Religion"
Well, I listened to the video and didn't get the impression that he postured as a scientist, did you? In fact it's a dialogue with a Buddhist guy, as you may have noticed. It is evidently on the philosophical/religious side. But instead of a religion that says that we must worship a dead Jewish prophet, it is one that tries to identify stages in our collective and personal development.
> Why then he doesn't name things properly - "Ken Wilber's "Integral Religion"
Well, I listened to the video and didn't get the impression that he postured as a scientist, did you? In fact it's a dialogue with a Buddhist guy, as you may have noticed. It is evidently on the philosophical/religious side. But instead of a religion that says that we must worship a dead Jewish prophet, it is one that tries to identify stages in our collective and personal development.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.