Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Leo Gura]

You guys understand what a body of work is?

Of course I am building my own body of work which I expect to be superior to the existing body of academic work. That's not a bug.

Why would I promote the old paradigm I am working to replace?

The premise of Actualized.org is that I believe I can make a better paradigm than anything that exists.

Edited 14 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The premise of Actualized.org is that I believe I can make a better paradigm than anything that exists.

That paradigm will be worth trillions of dollars for those who value the right things in life.

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys understand what a body of work is?

Of course I am building my own body of work which I expect to be superior to the existing body of academic work. That's not a bug.

Why would I promote the old paradigm I am working to replace?

The premise of Actualized.org is that I believe I can make a better paradigm than anything that exists.

 How can a body of work from one individual be better than an academic body of work that involves thousands of people testing it across tens of thousands 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

How can a body of work from one individual be better than an academic body of work that involves thousands of people testing it across tens of thousands 

One integrated Mind is more powerful than a thousand divided minds.

Edited 12 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

One integrated Mind is more powerful than a thousand divided minds.

One of the biggest weakness of actualized.org goes back to the point about language and a lack of shared precise vocabulary and the lack of falsifiability ( and here im only talking about weak falsification, where the only criteria is that there can be evidence against your view, not necessarily that your view can be shown to be false).

 

1) When you have a bunch of vague undefined or ill-defined terms, sure you can dodge most criticisms that comes in your way because you can claim that they miss the target. However, even good faith and good critiques will almost necessarily miss and your work cant benefit from the antifragility that comes from receiving good faith, good quality critiques from multiple different perspectives and angles, because people dont know what and where the target actually is.

This is why most academic arguments are much easier to undermine, because given how the arguments are structured, and given that there is a shared vocabulary the premises are easier to target and the inferences are easier to undermine - which is actually good in the sense that the easier it is to receive attacks the faster you can adjust your inferences and premises.

 

 

2) Some of your criticisms that you apply to science is applicable to your work as well, given how it is structured. Your work isn't really receptive to paradigm change and you rely on needing to provide ad-hoc reasoning to account for the data that goes against your work.

You tell others to test the things you say, but when someone does that and ends up with a different conclusion than you, from that you never ever infer that something is wrong with your conclusions and you always only infer that something was wrong with the person or with their method.

You are completely paradigm locked there, because there isn't any test that can be done in principle that would undermine your conclusions, because you can infinitely use ad-hoc reasoning to maintain your paradigm.

 

------------------

Maybe there are arguments that can be given why even weak falsifiability isn't a good approach or why it is a limited approach, but in that context it becomes unclear how your work is superior to any other work who uses the exact same methodology and reasoning as you and ends up with different conclusions than you.

Like you can always ask this question "Why cant that other guy mirror your justification and response and with that justify his own unique conclusion"?

 

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

U on that brain training? (😂)

I wish

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Stick]

Do you mean that you are doing something other than science?
Or are you building a different method of doing science?
will you paradigm be able to engineer a plane or a computer?

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

When you have a bunch of vague undefined or ill-defined terms

What terms that I use don't you understand?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Stick said:

Do you mean that you are doing something other than science?
Or are you building a different method of doing science?
will you paradigm be able to engineer a plane or a computer?

I am not replacing science. I am pointing out errors within the epistemics and metaphysics of science.