Science topics: Philosophy Of ScienceEmpiricism
Science topic
Empiricism - Science topic
One of the principal schools of medical philosophy in ancient Greece and Rome. It developed in Alexandria between 270 and 220 B.C., the only one to have any success in reviving the essentials of the Hippocratic concept. The Empiricists declared that the search for ultimate causes of phenomena was vain, but they were active in endeavoring to discover immediate causes. The "tripod of the Empirics" was their own chance observations (experience), learning obtained from contemporaries and predecessors (experience of others), and, in the case of new diseases, the formation of conclusions from other diseases which they resembled (analogy). Empiricism enjoyed sporadic continuing popularity in later centuries up to the nineteenth. (From Castiglioni, A History of Medicine, 2d ed, p186; Dr. James H. Cassedy, NLM History of Medicine Division)
Questions related to Empiricism
Call for Papers, Editors, and Ad Hoc Reviewers for GEMS
Areas: Marketing, International Business, and Hospitality
Aims and Scope of the Journal
Managed by Chief Editor Associate Professor Dr. Chanthika PORNPITAKPAN (PhD, University of British Columbia, Canada; listed among the top 2% scientists of the world by Elsevier and Stanford University every year since 2019), Global Empirical Marketing Studies (GEMS) is a new open-access journal dedicated to advance research and scholarship in the fields of marketing, international business, and hospitality. Our objective is to foster a dialogue between academics and practitioners to enhance the understanding and practice within these dynamic sectors.
GEMS seek to publish high quality, peer-reviewed articles that contribute to the understanding of consumer behavior, marketing strategies, international business dynamics, and hospitality and tourism management practices. We invite both academic-oriented and practitioner-oriented submissions of the following types:
- Empirical Research Papers – Original research employing quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method approaches. In particular, GEMS welcome descriptive and predictive studies, as well as validly conducted studies that replicate and extend extant research in order to understand the boundary conditions and the external validity (i.e., the extent to which the results of a study can generalize to other people, places, situations, stimuli, and times) of existing studies. Theoretical foundation/development is certainly a plus but not necessary in empirical research papers.
- Theoretical/Conceptual Papers – Conceptual frameworks and theoretical developments with implications for practice or policy.
- Case Studies – In-depth explorations of real-world phenomena offering actionable insights.
- Literature Reviews – Qualitative and meta-analysis reviews that synthesize existing research and suggest well-thought knowledge gaps and future research areas.
- Perspective/Opinion Articles – Thought-provoking commentaries on contemporary issues in the journal’s focus areas.
Please visit this site for more details. Thank you very much for your interest.
e-mail: GEMS2025@yahoo.com
The management of renewable energy projects is inherently complex due to the presence of uncertain variables such as fluctuating resource availability, dynamic market conditions, regulatory constraints, and evolving technological advancements. Traditional decision-making approaches often struggle to optimize performance in such uncertain environments, necessitating the integration of advanced uncertainty modeling techniques. Two widely recognized methodologies—stochastic decision models and fuzzy logic-based approaches—have demonstrated significant potential in improving decision robustness, risk mitigation, and adaptive project planning.
While stochastic models excel at capturing probabilistic uncertainties and quantifying risk distributions, fuzzy logic provides a structured framework for handling imprecise, qualitative, and expert-driven information. The integration of these two paradigms has been proposed as a means to enhance decision-making accuracy and project efficiency in renewable energy systems. However, a fundamental research gap remains in determining the “Upper Bound on efficiency gains” when employing hybrid stochastic-fuzzy decision frameworks in renewable energy project management.
This raises several critical academic and methodological questions:
1. Efficiency Metrics and Performance Bounds
- What are the theoretical and empirical performance benchmarks for integrating stochastic and fuzzy models in renewable energy decision-making?
- How can efficiency be rigorously quantified in terms of computational scalability, decision accuracy, cost savings, and project resilience?
- Are there inherent computational trade-offs that constrain the upper bound of achievable efficiency gains?
2. Hybridization Strategies for Maximizing Decision Performance
- What are the most effective techniques for coupling stochastic models (e.g., Monte Carlo simulations, stochastic programming) with fuzzy logic-based approaches in renewable energy project planning?
- Can hybrid models achieve synergy, or do they introduce conflicting complexity that limits practical adoption?
- How does the interaction between probabilistic uncertainty modeling and linguistic decision reasoning influence overall system performance?
3. Empirical Validation and Industry Relevance
- Have empirical studies or real-world case studies demonstrated measurable improvements in renewable energy project outcomes when employing stochastic-fuzzy hybrid models?
- What are the challenges in implementing such models at scale, particularly in large infrastructure projects with multi-stakeholder decision environments?
- Can these methodologies provide a competitive edge over traditional optimization and AI-based decision support systems in renewable energy management?
4. Computational Complexity vs. Interpretability
- To what extent does the complexity of integrated stochastic-fuzzy models impact real-time decision-making capabilities in renewable energy projects?
- How can these models be designed to balance computational efficiency with interpretability for industry practitioners and policymakers?
I invite researchers and practitioners specializing in renewable energy optimization, decision science, uncertainty modeling, AI-driven project management, and hybrid computational intelligence to contribute insights, empirical findings, and theoretical advancements on:
- The fundamental limits of efficiency gains when integrating stochastic and fuzzy decision frameworks.
- Comparative studies or case studies evaluating the real-world impact of hybrid models in renewable energy project planning and risk management.
- The feasibility and scalability of stochastic-fuzzy integration, considering industry adoption challenges and computational constraints.
- Alternative or hybridized approaches that may surpass current stochastic-fuzzy methodologies in optimizing decision-making for complex, uncertain energy systems.
Can anyone please share their feedback or review on the journal - Empirical Economics Letters (ISSN 1681 8997)? Can anyone confirm its authenticity and metrics? The articles published by the journal look really unstandardized, and their website looks questionable. I have also tried seeing their previous issues published only some have doi? is this journal predatory ?
How does the universe manage all these galaxies?
The cosmic energy (mastermind or grand design) of the universe is showing us, with the strongest evidence, that grouping all the galaxies at a moderate distance from each other and separating them with a special space, called raw space, makes it difficult for galaxies to interact or interfere with each other unless the universe wants them to for a specific reason. The colliding of galaxies is meaningful for the universe and moving them around has its own principles that men will never be able to understand. It is obvious that when the universe was born, it was very small; and by the nature of its growth to get to its current size, it went through billions of these collisions and movement of galaxies.
The raw space between galaxies is a very clear space with no temperature, which makes it impossible for an atom to survive, which means that even sunlight does not exist outside the galaxies. In simple terms, it makes it impossible for us to travel between galaxies because anything that is made of atoms needs temperature to survive. This scenario is one of the characteristics of the universe. Thus, since there is no temperature, there is no wave either based on the physics that we know; therefore, nothing is moving between galaxies, not even wave or gravitational wave as LIGO is claiming.
The separation of galaxies is hard evidence that sunlight is exhausted on the rim of a galaxy. Logically sunlight’s speed varies through its traveling. However, there is no spot in any galaxy without temperature (we communicate with our instruments in space through wave-temperature) . This significant evidence proves that the speed of sunlight cannot be a constant phenomenon as traditionally science has persuaded and impressed upon us. Sunlight travels at different speeds throughout its galaxy only. Therefore, communication in the galaxy is possible but not outside the galaxy where there is no wave-temperature. Here should mention that artificial light (flashlight) is different from sunlight.
When we come into a galaxy, each galaxy has a precise movement that is coordinated with the universe’s rotation, and each solar system is coordinated with the speed of the galaxy. Furthermore, each planet is following the solar system’s laws and movements. In general, there are a lot of things going on in each galaxy, and it needs a well-built organization to put all these planets on the right track in the limited space of a galaxy.
As you can imagine, all the elements in the universe are connected, like a tree. Every building block—from the smallest element of an atom to the largest element of the universe, space—and the universe itself must work together in fine-tuned unison.
The center of the universe is where all the commands are issued, but what kind of power is actually running the universe is a mystery. But this huge organization needs a center to run it. From the universe’s current size, each time when the volume is increased, more new raw galaxies are born. As the universe is rotating, the raw galaxies become independent of each other and slowly spread apart and dive into the universe. It is a mystery as to how the universe manages all these new galaxies and separates them at moderate distances from each other, or maybe on some occasions, it makes one galaxy out of two. All my intuition is explicit in that the universe is a smart entity and feeds itself from the outside. That is why it is working accordingly.
There is the possibility that as the universe is rotating, it is creating tremendous noise; but due to raw space, the noise cannot be transferred. Yet all the large elements in a galaxy make noise that we
can detect due to friction with space, which means it is not black holes as some believe.
Therefore, through the experiments that we have at hand and the science that we are practicing and with the astronaut’s experimentation in space, many more things are becoming transparent. Analyzing this evidence brings us to several conclusions:
1) The universe is not infinite because infinite does not have an inside or an outside to create a movement. Infinite, to our standard, is relative; but an absolute infinite is static and has no movement to create the law of action-reaction.
2) The shape of the universe must be spherical and have such rotation to make all the planets spherical. The only reason that all the planets are spherical and the unification of atoms and molecules in space is circular is that they are coming from the rotational force of the universe. There is no other explanation for this phenomenal shape. It is impossible for a flat universe to duplicate this effect.
3) The rotation of the universe makes zero gravity in space. This phenomenon is supported by scientific evidence as in the astronaut’s experiment.
4) Gravity must be an internal component of atoms, not an external of mass. Science knows that the most common elements in space are hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Empirical evidence shows the spherical unification of these elements in intergalactic space.
5) The rotation of a hollow spherical universe makes all the galaxies have polarities of north/south. Cosmology has proven that our solar system is in this line, and Earth is also located on this line, for same reason Earth has polarity.
6) The rotation of the universe is making the galaxies inside the universe weightless, and the weightlessness of the galaxies must have an opposite rotation from the universe’s rotation to keep the universe weightless as well based on the duality principle.
7) This phenomenon of opposite rotational directions makes any object on any planet in any galaxy stand upright on the surface of that planet due to the torque (i.e., humans can walk on the moon, the rover on Mars can maneuver, and we on Earth are the best evidence of this occurrence).
8) The rotation of the universe is situated in such a manner as to manage these several hundreds of billions of galaxies all around the universe depending on the size of the galaxies and how they are situated in the universe. Evidence shows that galaxies have two different spinning rotations. This remark is showing that the universe must have polarities as well.
9) The spherical shape of the universe is allowing us to analyze an unlimited number of stars and galaxies of a three-dimensional horizon in the space of the universe according to our standard of infinite. But imagine, if the universe is flat, we could not see all these galaxies because of a limited horizon. This is another way to say that the universe is not flat.
10) Since all the scientists observed and agreed that the universe is expanding, it means that the three dimensions of space increase at the same rate, and it makes the distance of each galaxy spread away from each other and stretches the edge of the universe away from the center.
11) Each galaxy has diverse rotation with various speeds based on where they are located in the universe. The south side galaxies have reverse rotation/somersault/positioning from the north side.
12) The universal law is the same everywhere. Thus, there is no locality or non-locality exist in this complete entity of intrinsic universe (all the chemical in the universe must be the same and act the same).
Jakub Jagielski added a reply:
1. There is no "raw space" or pure vacuum. At extremely low density, intergalactic medium still carries matter.
2. Electromagnetic wave ("sunlight") propagates in vacuum, between galaxies.
3. Speed of light is constant in vacuum.
4. Atoms do not "survive". Atoms do not need temperature to exist.
5. There is no evidence for rotating universe.
6. There is still no evidence regarding shape of universe.
7. There is no evidence for galaxies "polarity"
8. Universe as a "smart entity": This is a non-scientific, metaphysical claim without empirical support.
9. ...
10. ...
How does the universe manage all these galaxies?
The cosmic energy (mastermind or grand design) of the universe is showing us, with the strongest evidence, that grouping all the galaxies at a moderate distance from each other and separating them with a special space, called raw space, makes it difficult for galaxies to interact or interfere with each other unless the universe wants them to for a specific reason. The colliding of galaxies is meaningful for the universe and moving them around has its own principles that men will never be able to understand. It is obvious that when the universe was born, it was very small; and by the nature of its growth to get to its current size, it went through billions of these collisions and movement of galaxies.
The raw space between galaxies is a very clear space with no temperature, which makes it impossible for an atom to survive, which means that even sunlight does not exist outside the galaxies. In simple terms, it makes it impossible for us to travel between galaxies because anything that is made of atoms needs temperature to survive. This scenario is one of the characteristics of the universe. Thus, since there is no temperature, there is no wave either based on the physics that we know; therefore, nothing is moving between galaxies, not even wave or gravitational wave as LIGO is claiming.
The separation of galaxies is hard evidence that sunlight is exhausted on the rim of a galaxy. Logically sunlight’s speed varies through its traveling. However, there is no spot in any galaxy without temperature (we communicate with our instruments in space through wave-temperature) . This significant evidence proves that the speed of sunlight cannot be a constant phenomenon as traditionally science has persuaded and impressed upon us. Sunlight travels at different speeds throughout its galaxy only. Therefore, communication in the galaxy is possible but not outside the galaxy where there is no wave-temperature. Here should mention that artificial light (flashlight) is different from sunlight.
When we come into a galaxy, each galaxy has a precise movement that is coordinated with the universe’s rotation, and each solar system is coordinated with the speed of the galaxy. Furthermore, each planet is following the solar system’s laws and movements. In general, there are a lot of things going on in each galaxy, and it needs a well-built organization to put all these planets on the right track in the limited space of a galaxy.
As you can imagine, all the elements in the universe are connected, like a tree. Every building block—from the smallest element of an atom to the largest element of the universe, space—and the universe itself must work together in fine-tuned unison.
The center of the universe is where all the commands are issued, but what kind of power is actually running the universe is a mystery. But this huge organization needs a center to run it. From the universe’s current size, each time when the volume is increased, more new raw galaxies are born. As the universe is rotating, the raw galaxies become independent of each other and slowly spread apart and dive into the universe. It is a mystery as to how the universe manages all these new galaxies and separates them at moderate distances from each other, or maybe on some occasions, it makes one galaxy out of two. All my intuition is explicit in that the universe is a smart entity and feeds itself from the outside. That is why it is working accordingly.
There is the possibility that as the universe is rotating, it is creating tremendous noise; but due to raw space, the noise cannot be transferred. Yet all the large elements in a galaxy make noise that we
can detect due to friction with space, which means it is not black holes as some believe.
Therefore, through the experiments that we have at hand and the science that we are practicing and with the astronaut’s experimentation in space, many more things are becoming transparent. Analyzing this evidence brings us to several conclusions:
1) The universe is not infinite because infinite does not have an inside or an outside to create a movement. Infinite, to our standard, is relative; but an absolute infinite is static and has no movement to create the law of action-reaction.
2) The shape of the universe must be spherical and have such rotation to make all the planets spherical. The only reason that all the planets are spherical and the unification of atoms and molecules in space is circular is that they are coming from the rotational force of the universe. There is no other explanation for this phenomenal shape. It is impossible for a flat universe to duplicate this effect.
3) The rotation of the universe makes zero gravity in space. This phenomenon is supported by scientific evidence as in the astronaut’s experiment.
4) Gravity must be an internal component of atoms, not an external of mass. Science knows that the most common elements in space are hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Empirical evidence shows the spherical unification of these elements in intergalactic space.
5) The rotation of a hollow spherical universe makes all the galaxies have polarities of north/south. Cosmology has proven that our solar system is in this line, and Earth is also located on this line, for same reason Earth has polarity.
6) The rotation of the universe is making the galaxies inside the universe weightless, and the weightlessness of the galaxies must have an opposite rotation from the universe’s rotation to keep the universe weightless as well based on the duality principle.
7) This phenomenon of opposite rotational directions makes any object on any planet in any galaxy stand upright on the surface of that planet due to the torque (i.e., humans can walk on the moon, the rover on Mars can maneuver, and we on Earth are the best evidence of this occurrence).
8) The rotation of the universe is situated in such a manner as to manage these several hundreds of billions of galaxies all around the universe depending on the size of the galaxies and how they are situated in the universe. Evidence shows that galaxies have two different spinning rotations. This remark is showing that the universe must have polarities as well.
9) The spherical shape of the universe is allowing us to analyze an unlimited number of stars and galaxies of a three-dimensional horizon in the space of the universe according to our standard of infinite. But imagine, if the universe is flat, we could not see all these galaxies because of a limited horizon. This is another way to say that the universe is not flat.
10) Since all the scientists observed and agreed that the universe is expanding, it means that the three dimensions of space increase at the same rate, and it makes the distance of each galaxy spread away from each other and stretches the edge of the universe away from the center.
11) Each galaxy has diverse rotation with various speeds based on where they are located in the universe. The south side galaxies have reverse rotation/somersault/positioning from the north side.
12) The universal law is the same everywhere. Thus, there is no locality or non-locality exist in this complete entity of intrinsic universe (all the chemical in the universe must be the same and act the same).
But some scholars talk about a practical gap as well. Is there any book or article to refer to get to know more about this clarification pls?
Yes because critical rationalism recognizes substance, parsimony and identity(adjusts premises upon contradiction), while skeptical empiricism believes all results from impressions. Skeptical empiricism also believes the self is an illusion.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Karl Popper". Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Popper. Accessed 23 June 2024.
Meinwald, Constance C.. "Plato". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Plato. Accessed 23 June 2024.
Kenny, Anthony J.P. and Amadio, Anselm H.. "Aristotle". Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle. Accessed 23 June 2024.
Critical rationalism respects the law of identity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381469939_Critical_Rationalist_Physics
I don't know.
1)
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 14 June 2024.
2)
Modern physics because afterlife prediction is new. More specifically, exact and concrete quantum mechanics.
The afterlife is so unpredictable, empiricism is more accurate than rationalism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381108355_Quantum_mechanicsmore_exact_would_predict_the_afterlife_more_accurately_than_relativity_more_theoretical
Quantum mechanics focuses more on probability and specific units which seems more empirical. Whereas relativity is more theoretical and thus rationalist.
Violating [(tradition)' = (risk analysis)' = (skin in the game)'] = ethics has many risks.
1)LONG-term higher SELF.
2)Morality is more about concrete empathy than the abstract kind.
3)Criminals risk A LOT.
4)More parsimonous, given the law of identity, and time is an illusion, the individual is more likely eternal than abstract ideas are.
5)We probably realize, upon death, time is an illusion.
6)People evolved to be more easily bored by the abstract than concrete. So, applied mathematics may help teach math.
Several models have been used to estimate rice yields spatially, including empirical, semi-empirical, and process-based crop models. Empirical models, or correlative or statistical models, are typically used over larger spatial scales such as the country or regional scale.
My best strategy is to make my body of work on metaphysics so big and rigorous that, people will ponder "how would he have done this without a doctorate?"
1)
Data Metaphysics BA
2)
Data Metaphysics MA
3)
4)
Data Metaphysics PHD
5)
No because a human without a soul is only material(lacking free will, not having the fundamental choice to reason) thus cannot enjoy whatever the soul was exchanged for. To elaborate, without one’s soul, one is cells of the human body and cannot enjoy anything through lacking senses and missing identity.
Sources:
Are you a full-fledged empiricist and see a totally empirical Psychology?
Maybe if you don't see that you will after reading about 1000 pages of my writings :
When full empiricism seems to have a foothold and more is sought (no compromises sought) then in the psychological, biological and the social : the Age of Reason may begin .
Another try to make progress in eliminating ignorance/delusion and arrogance and conceit in behavioral SCIENCE.
For science , for empiricism (and for AI (<-- to enlist, YET eventually dispel, the greed motivator)) : the truly empirical behavioral scientists, those who ARE empirical in studying behavior PATTERNS (SO: just and only all the involved overt behavioral PATTERNS will do, when looked at developmentally, for ALL explanation), must work in a way to come to see that THE MAJOR TYPES OF LEARNING (and these occur during ontogeny) ___ ARE ___ found (discovered, like the naturalist) to BE major kinds/types of INDUCTION (as is true of all other developed organisms). We cannot be that different for it to be otherwise.
As true factual and empirical as classical and operant conditioning (and habituation, etc.) ARE, THESE ARE the extreme trivial details. [ AND, one must realize : "Social leaning" is a farce, for such a vague concept looses the individual organism as the ONLY true empirical unit-of-analysis -- which it IS (MUST be, that's biology, friends). ] MY system of understanding, in my two major papers, OUTLINES what one should find concretely IN OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (and never leave the word "patterns" out ) -- reflecting the major types/kinds of induction.
[ And, though big on induction, the proximate causes are [ attentional / ] perceptual shifts . (I hate to say it, but one can reason-out the necessity of this being the case.) ]
Starting with this attitude and outlook, only then can we find (AS IS NECESSARY for ALL good reasons and science) the was-ness in the is-ness ( i.e.; previous grand well-developed units as THE units, or portions as part-units, USED IN more advanced inductive reasonings). This all (all the above) is absolutely the shortest way of saying what we MUST realize (<-- not "just subjectively" at all) ). AND: one cannot argue an excuse, or THAT ITSELF is THE VERY damning premature hypothetico-deductive "reasoning" , the very essence of arrogance and conceit AND that which necessarily derails science -- that being the necessary consequence of "jumping the gun" on prediction .
Any questions? I am 70 years old, so one will find further true leads / clues (or that which will result in true leads IN my WORK (science essays and the theory outlines)) , I have introduced before in my writings, beginning 40 years ++ ago.
[ FOOTNOTE : the descriptors provided by researchgate ARE GROSSLY INCOMPLETE and INADEQUATE. Just one example : NO "inductive reasoning" ! : this is the premature know-it-all stance that has been, and is, destroying science (AND us). ALSO : no "innate action pattern" !! No : "hypotheses" -- enabling THAT to be a SUBJECT itself ! Come on ! It's sickening -- and NOT the way to make progress, but the way to fail. (One used to be able to add non-existing descriptors, but THAT is gone, obviously WAY TOO SOON.) ]
Ethogram Theory and the Theories of Copernicus "et al" : beyond analogy, but a real similarity
Back in the 1500s, Copernicus "stepped back" and looked at more and more carefully. He gave us a reason to think that, indeed, everything does NOT revolve around the Earth.
In the next century, Galileo Galilei and Keplar gave us more reasons to think this way. Keplar described orbits of the planets as elliptical and Galileo showed that OTHER non-Earth objects had things going around them (e.g. Saturn -- the moons). Finally, with Newton's work, the orbits of the planets were mathematically described.
Now, I firmly think Ethogram Theory is more than an analogy to that above, but has REAL similarity. Ethogram Theory "steps back" and looks at more (and more carefully as well). Ethogram Theory looks at cognitive development in a way like Piaget, but Piaget's theory is merely just descriptive and puts forward nothing like proximate causes; thus, in a way Ethogram Theory, with regard to Piaget's particular theory, is only an analogy to Piaget's, with Ethogram Theory empirical and totally investigateable ; the weakness is not with Ethogram Theory but with Piaget's. Ethogram Theory, like Piaget's , reckons cognitive development as central to most major developments in Psychology. Ethogram Theory yet sees way to see similar stages, not only with Piaget's. but phenomenology described by other major stage theorists. Some of these stage theories, Piaget's in particular, actually have good evidence of universality among peoples (despite being only descriptive); such is seen in all cultures tested. But, by being just descriptive, Piaget doesn't NOT even point us at proximate causes, AND to totally empirical things that could be empirically investigated -- exactly verified or amended, totally INVESTIGATABLE with modern eye-tracking technology.
This is what Ethogram Theory does. If you are familiar with Ethogram Theory, indeed : material, empirical, actual, directly observable phenomenon are cited for the cognitive stage transitions. These are perceptual shifts, often attentional/perceptual shifts (in what the subject looks at, and seeks to see better and more of).
I would argue that something like these shifts is necessary. Nothing except something like Ethogram Theory stages, points clearly to anything fully empirical.
Finally : The productive thinking about Ethogram Theory would be BY FAR mainly inductive processes. And, in fact, inductive processes ARE the very main way [ at least ] ALL other mammals process information and learn. I firmly think that the major types of learning in humans are via such inductive processes, in both child and adult -- for most processing of information both for advanced scientists and babies. [ There are qualitatively different types of inductive learning, varying with the stages. ]
I am going downhill hard and fast (related to age and me); I would guess this is my last post.
Who agrees both the lack of absolutes and the uniqueness of each entity, suggest an all knowing and all powerful creator? I welcome elaborations.
Hi.
The goal of factoring was to explore the items that were more relevant for the target population and unobservable (latent) variables that are reflected in the observed manifest variables (Watkins, 2018). I have 40 variables and 234 participants.
The EFA1 (SPSS, PAF, OR) had 40 items, which combined into three factors. After the Empirical Kaiser criterion and screen plot, a three-factor structure would be an appropriate factor solution. Three factors that explain 35.8% of total variance (F1 = 17.4%, F2 = 12.4%; F3 = 6%,The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)=0.76 𝜒²(780) = 2304.58, p < .001) The EFA4 yielded the expected 2 factors, which together accounted for 47.1 per cent of the variance in the 18-item set F1=30%, F2 =17.1%. KMO was 0,86. and Barlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 1269.17, df = 153, p < .001).
Thank you in advance
Out of critical rationalism and skeptical empiricism, which philosophy is more practical? Why? How?
Since my confidence is growing that many will not figure out what I have done, I will tell you : the 1st FULLY empirical philosophy (& it's science) & a clear guide to a true empirical [real science] Psychology (up to now, from any holistic or integrated and real standpoint, such science has been non-existent). : Go To : http://mynichecomp.com/key_content
In addition to the essays/posts I have in zip files, read my newer posts (not that many) here on Researchgate
Is conservatism or liberalism more in line with natural law? Why? How? Liberalism is more in line with natural law because of the emphasis on reciprocity and harm avoidance instead of an equal attention on those two moral variables, plus purity, authority, and in group loyalty. For humanity to survive they must realize that a universalist Christian heaven, exists beyond a reasonable doubt and if such an afterlife does not exist then we are all going to eventually die anyway and that is most comforting, parsimonious and biblically consistent afterlife(if Jesus did not say it in the bible then it is up for debate, see John Fuglesang). With those metaphysics, epistemology should be skeptical empiricism(with objective reality independent of perception). Thus returning to a universalist Christian ethics and anti-racist liberal politics.
How likely is rationalism and empiricism a false dichotomy and the real epistemological divide is literal vs metaphorical? Why how?
What are the epistemological differences between critical rationalism and skeptical empiricism?
What is the difference between critical rationalism and skeptical empiricism?
I have a question about the relationship between the cross-sectional area of an electrical transformer and the maximum power it can deliver. Empirically, the area is calculated by the square root of the transformer power, but I have not seen the basis for this equation in textbooks or literature. If anyone has references where this topic is discussed, I would appreciate it if you would inform me.
In practice all science is a mix of empiricism and rationalism. What do you think?
Has it occurred to any of you AI/AGI people, that if my writings are of a science of truly empirical psychology , even if just an outline with just clear or clear-types needed for such ... !!!!!
... If you make that input central whenever it is (would be) relevant, that would be good material for a Generalized Artificial machine.
Also see my Answer (to this same Question) below for more stimulation of insight ! (Click the Question's title to see it and my answer. )
How to calculate a,b, c coefficient using si/al and ca/(si+Al ) ratio?
Example-
ca/(si+al) ratio are 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 also si/al ratio are 2.5,3.0,3.5,4.0,4.5
"a" coefficient are 9.06,3.24,-2.58,-8.4,-14.22 respectively.
Having god-beliefs, and thus NOT taking all the responsibility you can and should, supports premature hypothetico-deductive thinking (incl. "theorizing")(kind of ironically) -- which nearly always is bad (bad, unless you are VERY, VERY LUCKY) .
Freedom from religion . I am a lifetime member of such a Foundation.
I DO MEAN : much of psychology should be reconsidered in order to have CLEAR EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS, FOR ALL NECESSARY CONCEPTS -- for concepts to clearly correspond to some demonstrably important directly observable phenomena (like in all true sciences; another way to say this is : THE SUBJECT DEFINES ALL). This does NOT mean throwing findings out, but putting them in better contexts. Likely empirical realities (including possible observations of a concrete nature; i.e. such , at times, showing as clear OBSERVABLE bases , in clear, agreeable and reliable ways, and seen by the relationships to established PATTERNS : valid; and, that is, in really HARD FACTS -- the concrete bases at least SEEN at some points in ontogeny) . SUCH phenomena have not been discovered and are not sufficiently represented in Psychology (AND nothing much is even "begging" for what is needed, showing needed thought is not being given (in the dictatorships of the universities)).
And, they will not be as long as the group or grouped stuff (know it by p<.05 etc) is thought to be meaningful FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM (THE unit-of analysis , always -- if you want a science). AND NOW IT IS NOT clear that THAT is, in the essential ways, usual (when such clear connections are not made and clear justifications (in THAT empiricism) cannot be given). In fact, it is totally clear that the essential features are NOT THERE.
On the positive side, I do like quite a lot of the Memories research, because some good "chunk" of it does fulfill the needed empirical foundations.
Again, as some have seen me say before, another way you can tell that most "psychology" is "OFF", is by the failure to see BEHAVIOR **_PATTERNS__** PER SE as a type of BIOLOGICAL (organismic) patterning. If behavior is not seen as Biological in nature, it is not seen well.
Psychology People :
I have a hard time believing that , in effect, few (if anyone) believes there might be a bit of "conditioning" to see a new perspective and approach. (Reflect on the fact that Buddha needed to use much repetition (and that in several different contexts) for people to "see" what he was talking about -- that is a fact.) See my next post (Discussion) for more.
Conceptual vs Empirical Types of Research.
Any Empirical work in this field.
Regarding the choice of empiric antibiotics for deep neck infections, what are the latest treatment guidelines or recommendations?
The original meaning of the word "theory" comes close to "view", or even "world view". As such it has already been used by the ancient Greek philosophers, e.g. Aristoteles or Plato. Over the centuries, its meaning has become more and more precise, culminating in a well-defined logical notion of the correspondence between a part of the (outer) real world and the (inner) symbolic world we use to think about or describe it.
In more popular parlance, Wikipedia summarizes it in the statement: "A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon or the results of such thinking." *) Of course, what is meant with "phenomenon" (also an ancient Greek word) is typically left unspecified: it may be a very specific class of objects or events, or it may be something as big as our universe (as in "cosmological theory").
Over the years, I have observed a gradual inflation of the technical term "theory" as defined and used in scientific methodology. The (dualistic) notion of a correspondence between the real world on the one hand and the media we use to reflect about the latter (thought, language, ...) on the other hand seems to have been lost during the rise of empirical research with its strong emphasis on "phenomena" instead of "thoughts".
The result is that the technical term "theory" appears to have also lost its well-defined meaning of a bridge between our outer world "as we observe it" and our inner world "as we reason about it". For instance:
- In a recent paper (2021), the author (a well-known expert in a subfield of social science) promises to offer a theory (sic!) of a particular "phenomenon" in his subfield. As I am also much interested in the kind of phenomena he is doing research about, I of course hoped to find - at least - a worked-out theoretical model of those phenomena.
- Far out! Besides a simple flow-chart of (some of) the processes involved, what he presented was a large collection of more or less confirmed "empirical facts" together with simple "interpretations" (mostly re-wordings) and pointers to possible or plausible relationships.
- I didn't find any sign of the hallmarks of a good theory: a worked-out theoretical model of those phenomena, on the basis of which I (or someone else) could reason about those phenomena, look for inconsistencies between assumptions and facts, derive crucial hypothesis to be tested, etc.: !
My questions to you:
- What are your experiences with this type of inflated use of the word "theory" in scientific research?
- Do you believe that there is a difference in this respect between social sciences and natural sciences?
- How can we bring the "empirical approach" and the "theoretical approach" together, again?
________________________________________
Empirical observations show that Innovation dynamics, particularly in the South, do not follow the same path. Hence the difficulty in applying any form of unified and unique models. What matters is thr mode of emergence of these dybamics. Any contribution to this topic would be most appreciated.
When you set up an experiment, with "defined" "stimuli", these are the stimuli in YOUR imagination and/or YOUR model.
BUT: very often it is a matter of representation (from long-term memory) of the circumstance(s)/setting(s), AND the stimuli can only be understood in THAT context -- the context of the content of developed representation of such circumstances/settings (think, for example, of problem-solving). The Subject, in most significant settings, has her/his representation of such circumstances/situations/settings. THAT actually more than helps to properly define the stimuli , for such is often the MAIN THING for defining (recall that it is the Subject (surrounding behavior patterns) very often _THAT_ MUST, in science, be what allows any empirical or true definition of stimuli).
All this is outlined by, and fully consistent with, Ethogram Theory (see my Profile and, from there, read A LOT-- I do provide guidance on readings order). The Theory itself is internally , and likely externally, consistent and it is strictly empirical (in the grounding/foundation of ALL concepts -- i.e. ALL clearly linked to directly observable overt behavior PATTERNS); and thus, given all those characteristics, there are hypotheses that are clearly verifiable/falsifiable .
Is there reason to believe that data, available or possible, from eye tracking is far greater than what is utilized? YES ! :
Computer scientists tell us that ANY similar or exact patterning of visual perception or attention, with _ANY_ overt manifestations, can be captured. Unquestionably much develops from input through the eyes (the MAJOR example: ontogeny); plus, behavior IS PATTERNED (as would be true for any significant biologically-based functioning (and ALL behavior is)). AND, ALL such could/can be found/identified using eye tracking and computer assisted analysis. ANY/ALL. Thus, it would be useful for psychology to capture any/all such. (It would be more constructive to start with analysis including most-all subtle behavior patterns; that avoids at least most unfounded a priori assumptions (actually: presumptions).)
Unlike modern assumptions, little is likely just random; and YET ALSO, for-sure, little is just statistical. (Nature doesn't play dice.)
True, this is self-serving (for me, for my definitely empirical theory) BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE.
Dear all,
would you have some references about the link between a reference price effect and cyclical pricing in general (both theory and empiric)? Also, in particular, do you know some references from dynamic optimization (optimal control and the like)?
Many thanks for your help ;-)
Best,
Régis
I have completed a Systematic Literature Review(SLR) paper focused on the Finance field and planning to submit it in the Q1 or Q2 journal. Are there any differences between the submission of the Empirical paper and the SLR paper?
Anyone who has examined protein structures in complex with RNA and compiled which amino acid tends to physically interact with which base in RNA? The desirable result would be something like:
AA A G C U
R x1 x2 x3 x4
K ....
....
I'm looking studies on the association between forest primary productivity and alpha diversity specially to the tropical and subtropical forests.
Can you realize "top-down" and "bottom-up" ARE [ or certainly can, if not MUST, be ] THE SAME THINGS at important junctures IN ONTOGENY (child development)?
This Question is NOT addressing YOU (the "self"), your social relations and activities, NOR your language. This question is about the biological processes SHOWN IN BEHAVIOR PATTERNS _PER_ _SE_ of the organism (aka "just 'behavior' "), DURING ONTOGENY, and beginning in overt and observable ways. As words are tools, to express certain things, sometimes (and even and especially at some critical times) the words used will seem contradictory or an oxymoron ,(e.g. it is hard to truly well-imagine a case of perception beginning thought). This cannot be viewed as a real problem. SO: at important key 'shift' points in development, what we CONCEPTUALIZE as "top-down", may have their actual key inception in what, in the highly [overt] behavior-related processes, may fundamentally have to be seen as "BOTTOM-UP". Major (if not THE major) shifts in behavior PATTERNS during cognitive development (of emerging seemingly qualitatively different stages/levels) may certainly have their inceptions in BASIC perceptual shifts (actually seeing new things or some things in a significantly new framing perspective AS new (or, in other words, the latter: "as seen anew")). [(THIS is seen as possible, if not necessary, if only by the reasoning processes of EXCLUSION -- if you are an empiricist/scientist.)]
With this perspective: the UN-defined bases of cognitive stages (equilibrium type 2, the balance between the stages and the point allowing for the stage shifts) is both more simple AND more researchable (with eye tracking) than anything conceived in academia heretofore. In short, this perspective is much more strictly empircial AND TESTABLE. [ Piaget clearly, yet ultimately, ONLY ever said one thing about such stage shifts: that they were "due to maturation" -- Piaget realized this was the most serious deficiency in his theory to the end of his days (explaining why his LAST BOOK was on Equilibration). Piaget was big on "formal logic", which inherently, as applied, results in embracing limited content -- for THAT (as applied) is OF our normative conceptual system, not of independent, actual real biological systems).]
To get more perspective of my view and approach, _start_ at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_an_ethological-developmental_theory_of_cognitive_processes_and_of_cognition and READ all the Answers (follow-ups) and "go from there".
Re: It seems a major sort of addition needs to be made to cognitive-developmental ontogeny theory (Ethogram Theory)
I have been out just to describe the developing very early processing and all the later hierarchical developments and processing, yielding the development and the progressing of the [grand/always-important] "outer container" (cognition). These are the levels of/stages of cognitive abilities being most of, and what's central to, guiding behavior: cognition, representation, abstract concepts and thinking, and actions. I NOW do believe something more is involved than I have yet ever indicated (something I avoided). For years and for decades:
I almost perhaps incredulously spoke nothing of emotions. Now I do; BUT, reservedly: I want to "add-in" and speak of just basic, early-on emotions that may be central to ALL cognitive development, per se: in particular it is those that are likely necessary to transfer a level of representation and thinking abilities from one domain (once established in an early domain) to another domain (this is sometimes known as transfer, sometimes as generalization -- neither which captures all that goes on with true hierarchical development with ontogeny).
I have long sought to make emotions (relatively simple response PATTERNS) something that can simply be added-in ("tacked on"), AFTER cognitive ontogenies are under way (which seemed esp. good for AL /AGI). But, the problem of humans (as well for AI / AGI) going from using a level of skills somewhere at first and THEN going from one domain to other domains for a new same sort of transformation THERE, i.e. to a essentially new similar level/stage of which he/she is capable THERE, has remained unclear. This matter is now, in much of mainstream psychology, explained hypothetically (or supposedly) based on obvious/common-sense contingencies of guidance (from others and language) _OR_ as using analogies or metaphor to find the similar structures (alignments) in the new domain. This does not often seem plausible and is not sufficient for the broad and quite precise applications for a new level of thinking. (It is too crude and contains irrelevancies.)
FINALLY NOW, I thought of my likely neglect in not providing sufficient impetus or motivation OR direction (or "self"-reward) for ontogenic shifts (at inception: BASIC perceptual shifts), then changes. Early on, and then later, given the representational context of past key developments:
Maybe SOME key emotions help direct the organism to take a closer look at things, actions, and events and with the simple general sorts of motivations GIVEN BY SOME truly basic emotions; if there is more "dwell time" and the organism will take a closer look, THEN he/she will find more, and develop a similar system of structure and understanding THERE (as well as in contexts where such a system was applied earlier).
For, after all, a number of notable emotions have been with us sentient beings since mammals and birds (evolutionarily speaking). Not using any, even for the development of the grand "outer" container no longer seems possible. They (some emotions) are there, and, if they give direction and impetus, why wouldn't the be used in cognitive stages key unfoldings (and making them more precise and reliable). These few particularly important emotions are THERE basically from birth. For me, now, NOT making use of a small set of basic emotions aiding cognitive development does not seem adaptationally likely OR even plausible (from the point of view of logic and soundness, as well as evolutionarily). The set of such basic emotions for cognition and cognitive ontogeny (throughout), i.e. for all major cognitive developments, can be likely understood as interest-excitement-anticipation and surprise and joy. (The combination, in the first 'hyphenated term' are in part(s) present in all modern theories of the basic emotions, while the last two are IN ALL such systems of understanding.) In short such emotions ARE THERE to provide major motivations to dwell on aspects of things, circumstances, and situations -- even situations, in later ontogeny, very much spanning instances (situations/circumstances) across times and space -- AND also facilitating the basic associative learnings -- so things "carry on".
Some present proposals which put forth that for "generalization" or "transfer" metaphors and/or analogies doing the bridging just do not work for me. This brings in irrelevant distraction elements and does not give you the needed precision or focus on new things or things seen-anew. Analogies and metaphors WITHIN a single stage may be helpful to the degree workable and appropriate in more minor learning regards.
1. Optimization
2. Convex optimization
3. Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM)
4. Loss function
5. Duality
6. Perturbation
7. Regularization
8. Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM)
Much of this is quoted from elsewhere, but I think deserves its own thread:
Kuhn, who I have always seen as having a only a partial (that is: just a "some-parts" understanding) of a paradigm, still seems at least in the direction of being correct in some noteworthy ways. According to Kuhn :
An immature science is preparadigmatic -- that is, it is still in its natural history phase of competing schools. Slowly, a science matures and becomes paradigmatic. (End of short summary of some of his views.) [ It will be clear I do not fully agree with these views, in particular: the " 'natural' history" part. ]
I would say that preparadigmatic is not yet science at all and characterized by flailing and floundering UNTIL a paradigm is found (and RATHER: actually, this should be done NOW and with any necessary efforts: FORMULATED). Preparadigmatic is nothing good, clear or even "natural"; it is a state of insufficiency, failing to provide for making for clear sustained integrated progress (and even, as indicated, I would say this situation is: unnecessary -- see my delineation of the characteristics of a paradigm * to see why this situation in Psychology is unnecessary and INEXCUSABLE, because clearly you MUST be doing paradigm definition the best you can, clearly and respectably). _AND_ we are not talking about progress in one vein (sub-"area"), but some interpretable, agreeable findings for the whole field -- a necessary condition of HAVING ANY sort of general SCIENCE AT ALL; obviously Psychology does not have that and should not be considered a science just because people in that field want to say that and supposedly aspire in that way [ ("aspire" somehow -- usually essentially mythologically, irrationally, and just "hoping beyond hope" (as people say)) ] In short: that state of preparadigmatic should not be tolerated; major efforts should be clearly going on to improve from this state immediately ("if not sooner", as they say -- i.e. this SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SOONER).
Since I think I DO KNOW at least many of the characteristics of a paradigm (presented elsewhere, for one: in the description of the "... Ethogram Theory" Project *) AND since mine is the only paradigm being "offered up", Psychology people should damn well take full note of that and fully read and come to a reasonable understanding of my perspective and approach -- all that leading to clear, testable hypotheses that, IF SHOWN CORRECT, would be of general applicability and importance and very reliable (in the formal sense) and , thus (as I say): agreeable. IN short, I OFFER THE ONLY FULL-FLEDGED GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY PARADIGM and if someone is in the Psychology field and really cares about science, they must take note (and fully assess it) (no reason for any exception): Minimally, all must "see" AND READ:
Barring any "competition", my paradigm should be studied and fully understood -- NO REASONABLE SCIENCE CHOICE ABOUT IT. It stands alone in Psychology, as a proposal for a NECESSARY "ingredient" for SCIENCE for Psychology.
* FOOTNOTE (this footnote is referenced-to twice in the essay above): The characteristics of a paradigm are presented the Project referred to: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY
(in particular, in its description)
Empirical science is on the rise and its methods are adopted to an increasing number of domains from psychology to education to economics. However, this method and epistemology is alien to commonsensual ontology (non-Aristotelian) and is often described as non-rational.
Although commonsense ontology is not widely accepted as a well-defined idea, it is a general agreement that this way of making conclusions is based on the Aristotelian categories of quantity and relation, the later meaning "talking about one thing with respect to another".
How does this affect their validity and scope ? What are the real drawbacks to this way of making conclusions ?
Philosophers such as Locke and Leibniz explain that it is a very important concept when we aim to understand the limits of philosophy. How is it connected to constructive empiricism?
The question I really wanted to "kick off" this thread:
Why would local (times/spaces) -- any number considered singly (or reflected on afterward and/or considered together in ways -- but still as they were, singly) -- ever to be thought to show what we ARE in terms of the Biology of Behavior?
One should not have such poorly contextualized thoughts but, as I will indicate, this is the nature of a lot of recognized and long-standing philosophy. Typical philosophy, not thoroughly guided by science.
I shall try to indicate how such normal experience could/should NOT be likely to reveal most-key behavioral development -- the core biological functioning of behavior.
[ FOR THIS ESSAY: Think in terms that philosophers most often think in, and a major and central kind of behavior psychologists think about: thinking itself; and, think of that specifically AS IT ADVANCES IN MAJOR WAYS, and thus specially in qualitative shifts leading to significant new ways to imagine and conceptualize. ]
The beginning question (at the top of the body of this essay) is basically to ask: can we conjure up the very nature of a major biological system, THAT BEING THE BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF OUR OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (as it unfolds with ontogeny)? Can we do this just by "force of will" or strong intent, finding exactly that which is key in experience (during ontogeny/development) as it emerges? I say, no. That would not be well-adaptive, for one thing; we don't want to rely on OUR precision, but rather our "body's" ability to HAVE precision: somehow "in" developing some CORE (key aspects) of behavior patterns which, specifically, are the core of new qualitative ways of thinking . Such important new aspects are likely possible because of some added precision (true discriminativeness and realized similarities) "reflected" in some memory capacities, as knowledge develops (or, more accurately, HAS developed). AND, THEN, as we, with our capacities are exposed to "more" , in key important situations/circumstances, those faculties 'see' more (we would say, in today's psychology terms: “more enters working memory”).
How have Western philosophers done on such matters? How have they addressed this?
Western philosophy: how could one criticize this? Here's a major general way: A major topic and abiding concern in that field is about thought, esp. thought about thought; but, this and other matters pondered, are characterized by precisely the LIMITED phenomenology of OUR thinking (and just what-all that does), AS DONE, IN EFFECT, "LOCALLY".
But what's the problem? What else do we have? Oh, the woe of those who do not know:
We have good knowledge of the nature of, AND limitations of, some central faculties (the Memories) -- good science data here; considering THAT, we have the ability to compare situations/responses looking for cross-situational/circumstances differences and cross-situational/circumstances similarities WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE AND PERSPECTIVE GUIDING US. This is NOW NOT the phenomenology of raw experience, though it is clearly related to such experience -- and MUST be related to such experiences -- but now to "track" or go "beyond" the phenomenology of local (times/spaces) experience. This gives us a way, and a legitimate way if we are fully empirically grounded (and know how to stay that way), to detect changes, NOT JUST those DUE TO regular ("local") experiences, but others related to, or due to, other behavior pattern changing, indicated by "clues" through/by/with our knowledge.
Why might this be important? Because: what we ARE, in/with our behavior patterns, may well be beyond any particular experiences AS WE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE THEM -- beyond the regular (ordinary, usual, normal) PARTICULAR local experiences. Sound strange?; it's not. Ask yourself:
Is there any reason we should expect that we are so smart that we can actually see or detect the ultimate mechanisms of the biology of behavior? I think NOT. But, with our abstracting, reflective abilities and good knowledge of major faculties/capacities (and of changes in the content, and in the organization, that occur there), we can get an idea of what species-typical or species-specific qualitative changes might well occur over ontogeny AT KEY POINTS.
That way, we can ask: what sort of changes in behavior patterns (think of: changes in thinking) are in accord with biological principles and consistent with the way biology is (or may be), AS IT COULD OPERATE, and those maybe contributing to aspects of behavior that WE, AS SENTIENT BEINGS, CANNOT DIRECTLY (wholely-as-it-is-relevant) "fully" experience, in our normal ways. YET I assert also, that the biology of behavior CAN be realized INDIRECTLY by making differentiations and comparisons across key circumstances (of thought -- when the topic is cognitive development, as it is here), SOMEHOW using what we do already know (from behavioral science, and often NOT from normal experience). If all is done in a correct way, we will generate the testable empirical hypotheses.
Though the whole phenomenon (that is, all aspects) of qualitative change may not all be something we experience explicitly (or, at least, as something that seems at all notable in thought), we could hypothesize mechanisms of the qualitative change in some of these very aspects of overt behavior . Again, these not fully obvious or obvious for what-they-are because some key aspects of the qualitative developments of thinking are not directly obvious that way (in regular experience): these are likely exactly some of (or some aspects of) those behavior patterns AT THE INCEPTION of the “new” which is central to and resulting in NEW developments and new cognitive abilities. THEN, the question should be: what aspects of behavior patterns could be involved which may well be sufficient but not disruptive?; are any of these not only overt, but detectable and in some way measurable, given our present technological prowess? I say yes, yes. Specifically here, I assert: "Perceptual shifts", BEING the innate guidance, as aspects of important learning-related experiences (but not typical learning), may be there and suffice. [ These "perceptual shifts" could well be the development of "time-space-capacity availability" (i.e. basically "GAPS" of-a-nature in visual-spacial memory due to development , i.e. with the integrations and consolidations THAT come with development and HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED). ]
This would result in "looking" at key aspects/parts and CONTEXTS in new ways (new real concrete 'parts' of situations or combinations of 'parts' of real concrete situations). BUT: "looking at" does not likely or necessarily REQUIRE that this immediately results in “seeing more", but just sets up an orientation, used again (and again) in similar circumstances to see "the more", when there is "the more" to see and we are not to much otherwise occupied to see it. [ Here, the "looking at" I am talking about, may seem to be of the scientist who is doing the studying. Though this may be, in some senses, similar, this paragraph is describing the developing Subject, at major points in ontogeny. ]
About one engaged in good developmental psychology science: While our new way of thinking about things now can be, in a sense, of an "non-local" nature, the relevant aspects of the environment (circumstances) are never as such, but rather that which is with us (the Subject) and before us (the Subject) in the concrete real world: either as important context OR that important context with newly important content.
[ Do not be surprised to see edits to this essay for a while.]
P.S. The above is what I am all about. If you want large papers and hundreds of pages of essay, related to this, see:
and
Editor/Co-author of my Collected Essays (on behavioral science) Needed
I have approximately 1000 pages of essays on new, more-empirical perspectives for Psychology (esp. General Psychology and Developmental Psychology -- but relevant and important for Psychology in general). It is all about BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (and associated "environmental" aspects, these _OFTEN_ broadly conceived) and a science of finding the further behavior patterning therein, and a patterning of those patterns, etc.; AND THAT IS ALL : In other words, the writings outline the discoveries likely possible and necessary for a true and full behavioral science of BEHAVIOR PATTERNS ("just behaviors") PER SE ("behaviors" then seen, as must be the case, as aspects of Biology (adaptation) unto themselves); it is much related to classical ethology perspectives and research. RELATED TO ALL THIS: There is an expressed great hope for some technology being the "microscope" of Psychology for good/closer/better and/or NEW observations; there are likely sets of adaptive behavior patternings and associated environmental aspects within quite-possible, if not VERY likely, SETS of situations (with the important "environmental" aspects/circumstances there, BUT the KEY environmental aspects will also be across KEY related/in-some-ways-similar -- and memorable -- circumstances). This is how/where related behavior patterns COULD COME TO BE OBSERVED in situ, AND even seen as they develop : even the subtle behavior patterns, etc., therein, truly-seen and clearly seen and truly and fully discovered _and_ seeing some key adaptive "operations" thereof. AND there is some detailed phenomenology described that allow one to arrive at testable hypotheses and then also indicating how this same basic sort of essential observations shall also naturally PROVIDE the actual ability to test these testable/falsifiable hypotheses.
I am looking for a skilled reader and editor to read/edit my written works AND THEN put them together in a most sensible manner. This person must know the field of Psychology as a whole and must understand possibilities of ontogeny. Also she/he should have a healthy respect and very high regard for KEY foundational observations (always such AS CENTRAL). Know of the Memories (all the sorts, now rather well-researched) as providing for phenomenological EXPERIENCE ITSELF and for connections, as indicated above.
Any one "fitting this bill" AND WILLING, and otherwise ABLE, I would gladly have. Doing such substantial editing/proof-reading/rearranging/publishing is enough for me to see you as a co-author and therefore I would put you as second author on all the book's covers. After publication, you (given details we shall decide upon well ahead of time) shall have a good and fair portion of any money reaped.
There is NO 'proximate' without absolute discovery.
Not a question for me (I've answered it with full, real, strict empiricism -- observational "anchors" ALWAYS, clear and INVOLVED -- for/in EVERY CONCEPT, ETC.). It is also not a discussion for me but, rather, for literally/practically EVERYONE ELSE (see previous sentence). You may well be only 900 pages away from knowing the what and the how. (At the same time, I will show you the best (and most real) PARSIMONY; it may be VERY hard for you -- it is hard to "escape" and grow up.)
Identifying a pattern simply and clearly DOES NOT GIVE SOMETHING CAUSAL STATUS (e.g. simple learning patterns -- yeh, they are THERE but in any specific important circumstance/situation do not DESCRIBE the real GROUND of WHAT IS (AND HAS) GONE ON -- they are simply NOT the full crux of anything (not the only thing involved in any crucial juncture); <-- Not, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, ANY THING LIKE A PROXIMATE CAUSE. hopeless, hopeless, hopeless If the simple "learning" explanations had been good, they would have "stuck" 40 years ago (e.g. with Charles Brainerd)) .
Over-generalization because of academia's permanent inability to connect with Reality (at any crucial point, WHICH WILL BE THROUGH DIRECT OBSERVATIONS). "It" maybe "is and ever shall be", but it is just crap (thinking doing too much of "the job" in some sick, but real, sense). [ P.S. I, too, see learning (NOT one type of thing) as always involved. ]
Here is the main guidance you need to start (the OTHER guidance noted is also necessary for specifics, for specific testable (verifiable/falsifible) HYPOTHESES): READ: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329428629_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory (basically a BOOK) and https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory (see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates.) ALSO, not among the 200 pages of major papers and 512 pages of essays in my "BOOK", above (which you already have been directed to), the following link gets you to 100 more pages of worthwhile essays composed after the 512 page BOOK: these are addenda: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf (you CAN find the pdf at this last link, though it may take a little careful looking). And, similarly, see the other 2 addenda .
Empirical use of non-harmful drugs for patients is superior to evidence-based medicine ... or not
Does anyone use famotidine in COVID?
I am currently writing my Master thesis w ith the tilte: Does sustainability correlate on the national and the company level? Empirical evidence from selected country cases.
I struggle to find any relevant literature to set up my hypothesis.
Would really appreciate some help.
If humans are so "complex", is it always harder to understand human behavior [patterns] than to understand similarly functioning patterns in other animals? NO !!
Of course not: we see as other humans see and, to some notable extent, what they see; we hear what they can hear; we smell what they can smell; we understand the types of things they are trying to understand and master; and we understand (roughly) what they are trying to accomplish at each stage of life ('stage' both in the strict sense, of the ontogeny that is child development, and otherwise). WITH RESPECT TO NO OTHER ANIMAL DO WE HAVE THESE COMMONALITIES TO USE AS PART OF OUR UNDERSTANDING.
Then, how is it that all this does not help us; I , for one, am not willing to believe that we are yet otherwise extremely complex to any point of not being able to come to understand humans (ourselves). [( In most cases, claims of complexity can be regarded as simply indications of confusion* (and ignorance) -- and not necessarily anything more. And, the confusions are often not necessary at all, even in the first place.)]
FOOTNOTE: Try the proposed word substitution ("confused/confusion" for "complex/complexity") and see.
Let me explain:
It is as if bad philosophy has put a "spell" (actually: blocks and limitations, over-generalizations and other wrongful mental behavior patterns, aka "thought") on us that incapacitate our moving forward, thinking along/upon more constructive lines such as (in small part) indicated above [(but much more clearly indicated, and then outlined, in other parts of my writings)]. We very much too often ask "what have the philosophers thought?" when, frankly, that hardly matters at all (they may have had some point sometimes at some junctures but, with their same body of philosophy, they commonly very much over-"define" (notably wrongly and falsely), and then overgeneralize their 'position' to make unsubstantiated CLAIMS -- yet these thought-out armchair claims are accepted!! BIG EXAMPLES OF THEIR WRONGFULNESS COME UP in statements beginning "ONLY Man can ... ". And this is in addition to THEM saying in other ways (which I am now characterizing in vague outline and obviously paraphrasing): only some 'this' or 'that' [way] will work or only some 'this' or 'that' can be the "way it is", as they "determined". They analyze any single words they choose (e.g. how we can supposedly "understand" our "will" or understand certain particular other things) as if any of these are well established concepts, when they are not; THEY then "define" other things and move on from there, both of these wrongful ways [further] making a fundamental breach with empiricism and then necessarily also with science (AND all this CAUSES CONFUSION (and it should be clear it is based on ignorance)).
Those large aspects of many, many of the philosophies are not only incongruent with science, but lead to unnecessary confusions (on larger "related" topics, like "consciousness" -- something they go on to develop ideas about, based on their initial "definitions", all that yielding the "complex" "understanding" and then also "finding" that which "cannot be understood" (e.g. the " 'hard problem' of "consciousness" " -- [a problem I see as nonexistent from another standpoint]) .
Rationality is itself an elusive term. There are debates on the definition and criteria of rationality. The primary assumption of the naturalized and non-naturalized rationality on normative conditions has been a puzzling issue.
Neither Naturalist nor non-naturalist able to provide universally recognized criterion like laws of physics.
With so many permutations of so many diverse "things": the only way to provide a general alternative better view AND APPROACH will be WITH a full-fledged paradigm shift:
What is offered must have a host of better characteristics and better ways, all related clearly to a better empiricism. [ SPECIFICALLY: I am speaking of/for PSYCHOLOGY -- the number of characters allowed in a title didn't allow for the inclusion of that full phrase (though the same type of thing may at times be required by other sciences) .]
A full-fledged PARADIGM CHANGE: Better assumptions; stricter & very established/agreeable and actual empiricism, well-defined, with a definition true for ALL sciences; better KEY BEHAVIORAL foundations/clear grounding (in terms of: behavior patterns) for all cognitive processes; clear NEW observations sought (i.e. major discoveries sought) VIA NEW observation methods; & with clear better-empirical verifiable/falsifiable HYPOTHESES . This is what I seek to offer with :
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY (see its major References and the Project Log (Updates) for this Project; the major References, hundreds of pages long, will provide you with a perspective and approach -- a "how-to" FOR all of that. Given its better empiricism, a concrete basis is also provided for General Artificial Intelligence -- all that is found and seen can be "mechanized", is programmable.)
[ This all is VERY serious "business"; it really is an all-or-nothing proposition. If you see major problems with large portions of Psychology throughout its history, you better "go with" what I present; otherwise the long-standing situation WILL remain the same; I think you may well be able to imagine how and why that could be true (all the various myths of how things [otherwise] could/will come together NOT WITHSTANDING -- these are true myths, not based on any empiricism). ]
There is a categorization for Hydrological Models which divides them into three groups: Empirical models, Physical Models and Conceptual Models.
The question is: Where exactly "Hydrodynamic Models" stand within this categorization?
Are those three types related to rainfall-runoff models and Hydrodynamic models are within a different group?
Or Hydrodynamic Models can be a combination of those three types (i.e. a combination of Empirical and Conceptual Models)?
With Climate Change and all, I will tell you what I think is a minimum needed for survival and that is: literally a completely, fully, entirely new outlook on life AND that being FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING and involving all our work-a-day pursuits -- a wholly new way of life (and "full-blown" way of action/work) and a source of wholesomeness and great actions and GOOD:
Every hour/day/week/month/year, etc. you wake up mindful, informed (and get more informed as ever needed to proceed ASAP), dedicated, and completely persistent and consistent in acting for the earth-life-dignity of your CAUSES and related CAUSES. Serious life as pursued will be nothing but your involvement and active-dedication to CAUSES (maintaining rational, workable consistencies, and AS MUCH IN ACTION as possible, to actually achieve or actualize the causes). Satisfaction will have nothing to do with "being easy-going" NOR with typical or traditional ideas (notions) of happiness, nor with any [supposedly] other way of (or toward, or for) "satisfaction" -- "rewards" of life many of you, much of the time, thought likely would come with "freedom" and "general happiness" (as historically thought about) but such will be clearly seen as blatant, flagrant, and shameful irresponsibility of old ways considered not worth even thinking about FOR ANY GOOD PURPOSE or any goal in the world (you will have plenty else to think about and with integrity and dignity AND FOR DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY)(plus, there is inherent irrationality in the old views: one way or others of expecting -- and basically even counting on -- MAGIC). BUT, now, all the old happiness/play/satisfaction/fun in-and-with any other "things" or activities will naturally and rationally and personally come to be seen as that which eliminates true dignity and integrity and any worthwhile (or even real) satisfactions -- now with you having the dignity and integrity of work on AND for your CAUSES. With this new way (for all we see for ourselves and for any decent folk we will associate with), SOON nothing else will will "do"; we will have a new way to real dignity, better understandings, and some true, real, good lasting, progressive satisfaction, and with greater loving kindness and equanimity (as we accept we do what we do and others do as their own best in the same vein). As indicated, the way is to operate (LIVE) IS ONLY in terms of CAUSES and inter-related or necessarily simultaneous or successive CAUSES. Developing and accomplishing (in action as much as possible and necessary) will be ALL for the CAUSES which will be your life -- the "all" of your life that matters or has any implications for yourself or others. And, this is also at least as all other decent human beings doing all major things of working life will know you, and that is how you will know them. This is all simply a commitment to understandings, and engaging in wholesome pursuits (which, AGAIN, will be in terms of CAUSES). The causes will be shared only as well, rationally, and wholesomely pursued through group action BUT may well be otherwise that which is done alone (individually), if that is how things are going to get done.
This is the formula for self-breeding of the species and for any real decency and for the survival of the species itself. I cannot imagine how anything else will be sufficiently adaptive; in fact, anything else breeds ignorance, confusion, chaos and irresponsibility (an easy logical and sound argument to make). (I want to live, I want humans who follow me to live; DO YOU?)
Quick answer : NO (and why on Earth would you expect we are? (or that we on ourselves, by ourselves, naturally would be? <-- sounds like old-time junk philosophy to me). And this will remain the case without good directed science -- and , as yet, some of the very most-central studies are not only yet to be done, but yet to be envisioned or accepted by our near-medieval present Psychology. ( [Some of] All that is modern can VERY WELL NOT be congruent with all-else that is modern.)
[ ( Title of this post intentionally made to mirror de Waal's book title: Are we Smart enough to know How Smart Animals Are? ) ]
See