Carl-Richard

They also don't let children into bars ;D

It focuses on context awareness, which starts becoming prominent at Green: the humans being is understood not by its individual qualities alone but by its relations to contextual factors (economic, social, cultural etc.). However, there is limited construct awareness (but generally higher than most of the hard sciences): in fact, contextual approaches were discovered by critiquing the individualistic constructs of the status quo (e.g. critical psychology), but it doesn't go much further than that. Construct awareness rises the more you dive into metaphysics and epistemology, which happens more in fields like philosophy/history of science, philosophy of mind and cognitive science. In other words, it's true that sociology is the study of systems, but it focuses more on real systems (e.g. social systems) rather than abstract systems (e.g. the structure, function and origin of concepts, models, theories, paradigms etc.), thus it's mostly context awareness but less construct awareness. On the other hand, one reason why for example SD is Yellow is because it more directly explains the relationship between real systems (social systems, individual development) and abstract systems (worldviews, ideology) on a meta-theoretical level (grand narratives).

And I just made a mockery of that point.

Oh god I read that as "The Loophole Snake", and I thought "ah! – what has Nahm got in store for us today?" I think it's time for me to sleep ?

If you can see something that other people can't see, have you lost your mind or are you a genius?

Please elaborate. I generally have a hard time reading your words.

You can only get so far by engaging them at their level. The main solution is more education. That is what makes an expert after all. One way you can turn yourself off from Flat Earth is by reading the history of science and making an inference based on a well-established pattern. Historically, it's been the case that those who challenged and eventually toppled the mainstream paradigm were generally experts in their field; people with world-class understanding of the paradigm they're criticizing. They also weren't met with praise from either the scientific establishment or the public in general without years of intense struggle. It's a silent movement of dedicated, fringe experts who work their asses off to improve their field. Flat Earth is not that. It's a loud and obnoxious movement of uneducated laymen and grifters. It's public contagion, not academic advancement.

I knowingly walked into it. I just didn't care that I did.

Basically, flat earth is like claiming that the Earth's core is cold: you explain away volcanoes by saying that they only draw lava from local pockets of magma, and that you don't believe the scientists who have measured how the temperature rises as you descend down Earth's crust, and that plate tectonics is "only a theory" or "fake science" just like climate change. You also might want to look at images from space on Google images.

You can call it a type of intuitive, meta-cognitive, post-rational or holistic ability. It might be why women tend to be a bit more conscientious, because they're also more intuitive, verbally complex and emotionally attuned. After all, language, symbolic thought, human social bonds and nurturing capacity mainly evolved around the mother-child relationship. The voice of conscience is often felt like your mother telling you what you should do.

@DocWatts All of that seems to make sense. I believe I have an underlying intuitive understanding of it, but I'm kinda new to academic philosophy, so I just have to acclimate to that language. Two things: 1. How exactly does ontology and metaphysics differ? Or rather, in which cases does the distinction matter? 2. There are two other concepts that I've been a bit confused about recently but that I believe I have figured out (or rather one of them): "ontological reductionism" vs. "methodological reductionism." Ontological reductionism is the least problematic one for me: you explain something by reducing it to an ontological primitive. For example, if you're an idealist, then you can say that cars, dogs and humans are fundamentally just consciousness, while a materialist would say it's all just matter. In other words, you explain something by stating what it is. However, what exactly is methodological reductionism? Is it simply when you reduce things to some scientific model? Tell me if this is correct: Scientific models always have to rely on some ontology (like you said), but also like you said, only in so far as it can serve as a vessel for empirical investigation ("Newtonian mechanics tells us that nature behaves as if there's a Universal Law of Gravitation"). So it's not that ontology and science are dichotomies, but it's more like a 90%/10% respective split (i.e. "science" is really just "90% science" and "10% ontology" and vice versa). (I also got this impression while listening to Bernardo Kastrup; "ontology informs but doesnt settle science, and science informs but doesn't settle ontology"; so if you agree, then that's additional confirmation.) Anyways, so to call this process of explaining something using scientific models "methodological reductionism" simply refers to the fact that the "essence" of the scientific process is methodological/empirical (the 90%), or in your words, how it "behaves", and that the ontological aspect is just implied or taken for granted. For example, you can use the humanistic paradigm in psychology and say that self-actualized humans experience heightened levels of positive emotion, and because it's a scientific paradigm, it's an explanation primarily based on empirical observation (90%), and thus it primarily tells you something about how humans behave, not what humans are.

That is the video I'm talking about. I made a comment under it 3 years ago.

@DocWatts How would you pin these different paradigms along the categories you mentioned: the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm of science and the humanistic paradigm of psychology? I have trouble gauging the exact overlap between especially ontology and science when it comes to specific examples of models/disciplines/paradigms (but I know the theoretical distinction).

I can teach you ?

My roommate's cat

It literally isn't. I changed the title for you.

If we're talking about the same thing, I believe he discovered the voice of conscience, which is a powerful realization in its own right. It's the ability to distinguish between different qualities of thought rather than thought and no-thought.

Ramana Maharshi

You mean sue them and take them to court? Well, you see, if you want to be really technical about it, the legal system only enforces laws. It's not really about protecting "rights." Cmon, you know very well what I mean when I use the word "right." It's something that is fundamental to human flourishing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

Why are you not allowed to drive drunk? Depends on the situation. I don't have a strong stance for or against mandates. I'm just pointing out the other side of the equation, and like axiom, I say "make of that what you will."

Why does the CDC exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_health

Do I also have the right to good health and protection against disease?

Precognition.

I didn't say you were... Are you sure you're OK?