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
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
5 answers
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:
  1. 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.
  2. Theoretical/Conceptual Papers – Conceptual frameworks and theoretical developments with implications for practice or policy.
  3. Case Studies – In-depth explorations of real-world phenomena offering actionable insights.
  4. Literature Reviews – Qualitative and meta-analysis reviews that synthesize existing research and suggest well-thought knowledge gaps and future research areas.
  5. 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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Who is your publisher?
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Renewable energy sources have emerged as an alternative to meet the growing demand for energy, mitigate climate change, and contribute to sustainable development. The integration of these systems is carried out in a distributed manner via microgrid systems; this provides a set of technological solutions that allows information exchange between the consumers and the distributed generation centers.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
3 answers
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 ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes. They say it's their publication fee.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
3 answers
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. ...
Relevant answer
Answer
lots to unpack here - Here are the obvious;
( extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)
1. Scientific Misconceptions
“Raw Space”: The concept of “raw space” as a region with no temperature, atoms, or waves misrepresents intergalactic space. Intergalactic space does contain particles, cosmic microwave background radiation, and gravitational waves.
Speed of Sunlight Varies: This claim contradicts well-established physics. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant (299,792,458 m/s) and does not vary.
Gravity as an Internal Component of Atoms: Gravity is not an atomic property but an emergent force due to mass and energy curvature of spacetime, as described by Einstein’s General Relativity.
2. Unsupported Speculations:
• The idea that galaxies “collide because the universe wants them to” anthropomorphizes natural processes. Galaxy collisions are well-understood to result from gravitational interactions, not a “grand design.”
• The claim that the universe has a “center where all commands are issued” is at odds with the widely accepted cosmological principle that the universe has no center and is isotropic on large scales.
• Assertions about dual rotational directions and “torque” enabling upright positioning lack empirical or theoretical support.
3. Inconsistent or Misleading Language:
• Terms like “raw galaxies,” “sunlight speed varies,” and “rotational force of the universe” are not standard in scientific discourse and confuse rather than clarify.
• The suggestion that astronauts’ experiences in zero gravity support the rotation of a hollow spherical universe is a misunderstanding of microgravity and orbital mechanics.
4. Contradictions and Logical Errors:
• The text states that gravitational waves don’t exist outside galaxies, contradicting direct observations by LIGO.
• It conflates the absence of temperature with the absence of waves, overlooking phenomena like electromagnetic waves, which do not require a medium or temperature to propagate.
5. Misinterpretation of Cosmic Expansion:
• The text assumes that galaxies being “separated at moderate distances” is a deliberate act, whereas the observed expansion is a consequence of the universe’s dynamics governed by dark energy.
Recommendations….
1. Consult Established Science
• Refer to foundational works in cosmology and astrophysics (e.g., by Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, or Sean Carroll) to better understand concepts like the Big Bang, cosmic expansion, and General Relativity.
• Study observational evidence from instruments like Hubble, JWST, and LIGO to ground claims in verifiable data.
2. Clarify Concepts
• Define terms like “raw space,” “raw galaxies,” and “universal laws” more rigorously, ensuring consistency with existing physical theories.
3. Separate Philosophy from Science
• While it’s fine to include philosophical musings, distinguish them clearly from scientific claims to avoid confusing readers about what is speculative and what is evidence-based.
4. Focus on Testable Claims
• If proposing new ideas (e.g., dual rotation or torque effects), outline specific observational or experimental methods to validate them.
5. Avoid Anthropomorphism
• Refrain from ascribing intent or purpose to natural processes (e.g., “the universe wants” or “commands are issued”). Stick to mechanisms and physical principles.
6. Refine Language
• Use precise terminology and avoid conflating unrelated concepts (e.g., “temperature” and “waves”).
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
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).
Relevant answer
Answer
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. ...
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
18 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Wishing you success Alexander Ohnemus
To start a journal of Jewish studies, one could begin by choosing a specific focus or theme such as Torah, Talmud, or Jewish history studies. Then, you can create a structure for your entries. This could include the date, the topic you're studying, key points learned, and any thoughts or questions you have. Incorporate references to specific texts or scholars for further exploration. You could also note down personal reflections on how the study impacts your daily life or understanding of faith. Regularly review and update the journal to track your progress and deepen your understanding.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
There are also Theoretical gaps, contextual gaps and practical gaps
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
4 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
António José Rodrigues Rebelo
Great question! The concept of time being an illusion can be tricky, especially when we consider the existence of the individual. Let me explain how this idea fits within the Interactive Universe Theory (IUT). In IUT, time is viewed as an emergent property of the consciousness field. This means that while time as we perceive it—linear and continuous—might be an illusion, it still plays a crucial role in our experience of reality. Consciousness is the fundamental fabric of reality, and time emerges from the way consciousness processes and integrates information. The individual, as an expression of this consciousness, experiences time as a necessary framework for existence and change. Without this framework, the continuous evolution and development of the individual wouldn't be possible. When we say time is an illusion, it doesn't mean time doesn't exist. Instead, it means that time, as we perceive it, is a construct that arises from deeper, more fundamental processes. These processes are part of the consciousness field that underlies all reality. So, time is real in the sense that it structures our experiences and interactions, but it is not a fundamental aspect of reality itself. The individual exists because of the consciousness field, and time is the way this field organizes and processes experiences. If time were to "disappear," it would indeed disrupt the individual’s sense of self and continuity. But because time is an emergent property of consciousness, it remains a crucial aspect of how consciousness expresses itself in the universe. The continuous change and evolution of the individual are made possible by the flow of time. This flow is how consciousness experiences and processes reality. Even if time is an illusion at a fundamental level, it is an essential aspect of our reality as individuals within the consciousness field. So, while time might be an emergent property rather than a fundamental one, it is still crucial for the existence and evolution of the individual. Time provides the structure necessary for consciousness to experience change, growth, and development.
"Check my paper; it might interest you."
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Si lo es, definitivamente, porque el gran valor de la CIENCIA RACIONAL, a demostrado y lo sigue haciendo hoy,su inconmensurable valor social y humano al solucionar infinidad de padecimientos y grandes sufrimientos humanos. Además del la mayor duración y esperanza de vida actual es disfrutada y dá esperanzas de ser prolongada.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
There's a huge amount of time between Plato & Artistotle, and Karl Popper, so in many ways it's hard to compare Popper to either of Plato or Aristotle. But... In saying that...
If we are to make such a comparison, I'd say Popper is more closely aligned to Aristotle, given Popper - primarily being interested in philosophy of science and being very empirically minded, and Aristotle's proposing something of a philosophy of science that focused on observation and logical reasoning gives them some common ground. Plato on the other hand didn't have anything much you might describe as a philosophy of science, and his epistemology was more focused on his 'ideal forms' and the a priori.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Rationalism is referring to rational behavior, and it can be based upon many kinds of evidence sources like testimony, history, empirical evidence, etc.. and so on. Critical entails a behavior of carefully analyzing something to the point where it is required. From there we can understand that critical rationalism means that the person is employing a behavior in which they are employing rationality to their thinking using different kinds of evidences as a base for their analysis.
On the other hand, empiricism entails that we are demanding about empirical evidence. Skepticism means that the person is employing a behavior of radically questioning something. So if we join both terms, it will mean that the person is asking simultaneous questions about something while demanding only empirical evidence.
So, from the above mentioned understanding we can conclude that critical rationalism is a concept and empirical skepticism is a type of critical rationalism but the latter employ a bit more strong behavior then the former.
So, I am not an expert on the field, neither do I know what these terms actually mean. But from names, I have derived this meaning which is quite sensible in my view
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
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)
Relevant answer
Answer
Wolfram physics is a mathematical abstraction, far from real physics.
Her criticism in my book: Pages 38 - 48:
Nastasenko V.(2023) Initial Quanta Level of the Material World and Substantiation of Its Parameters. India. United Kingdom. London Kolkata Tarakeswar. BP International. – 65 P. ISBN 978-81-19491-00-1 (Print) ISBN 978-81-19491-01-8 (eBook) DOI: 10.9734/bpi/mono/978-81-19491-00-1
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
Modern physics because afterlife prediction is new. More specifically, exact and concrete quantum mechanics.
Relevant answer
Answer
This is a suggestion I've read in a book of Irina Radunskaja. All souls require some bits to be distinguishable. The exact number of bits depends on the underlying religion (do animals have a soul?). Accordings to Landauer's principle, a certain amount of energy is needed to store these bits. One should expect that, when a person dies, this energy is released as a photon, which could be measured with a photodetector, proving the persistence of the soul. In the book a new kind of science was proposed. Quantum theology.
Regards,
Joachim
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
Quantum mechanics focuses more on probability and specific units which seems more empirical. Whereas relativity is more theoretical and thus rationalist.
Relevant answer
Answer
In my opinion, there is a degree of mysticism in quantum mechanics because it is not properly formulated. It is generally recognized that ψ.ψ* represents the probability of finding the particle at a specified set of coordinates (the Born rule) but this has to be wrong. Consider a particle moving from A to B in accord with the Schrödinger equation. According to the Born rule, the most probable place to find the particle is at the wave antinode, but that cann0ot be correct because if you do the mathematics, the wave travels at half the velocity of the particle. The particle is at a pace where the wave has yet to catch up.
Now you can wave your arms and say the wave doesn't exist an dit is just a calculating aid, but even if that were true, if the most obvious simple calculation gives the wrong answer, how can it be a calculating aid?
There is a lot more wrong with current quantum mechanics, in my opinion. As an example, besides the Born rule two other Nobel prizes have been awarded with, in my opinion, incorrect physics. The award to Pople for his calculation of chemical bond energies uses the wrong orbitals and misses a quantum effect. The difference between what he uses and what I believe should be used is not large and is compensated for by assigned constants, i.e an empirical correction. The orbitals he should use are given by the relationship in I. J. Miller 1987. The quantization of the screening constant. Aust. J. Phys. 40 : 329 -346. As it happens, the carbon p orbitals do not have radial nodes, and the 2s orbital has only a minor effect so all is not lost
Similarly, the 2022mprize for showing violations of Bell's inequality is wrong. All they did was in calculating the results, they violated the conditions of deriving the inequality. If you do not believe me, show where the error is in Miller, I. J. (2023). Non-Violations in Bell's Inequality. J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2(6), 209-210.
I concede to being biased since I have published papers contradicting standard QM and In have also written two ebooks, one is "Guidance Waves", which outlines my answer to what I think is more correct, and "The Covalent Bond from Guidance Waves", which accounts for chemical bonds. The sim0lifications are clear. As an example, the calculations of bond dissociation energies for then triply bonded P2, As2 and Sb2 are within about 2 kJ/mol with no assigned constants, and a computer is not needed for what is one analytic function that inserts different quantum numbers.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
3 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Ethical risk in procurement can include conflict of interest, fraud, corruption, and anything that prevents progress with regards to social, environmental, and economic outcomes
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Maybe you can try a similar approach:
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
3 answers
Relevant answer
Hi, I'm sorry but I haven't seen the film. Best regards
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
19 answers
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?"
Relevant answer
Answer
There are also other anomalous cases I didn't mention in my response to Orlando M Lourenço that can be added as qualifications to my claim that empirical premises yield an empirical conclusion. For example, when the premises are contradictory or entail a contradiction. In classical logic that yields a valid argument no matter what the conclusion. Likewise, if the conclusion is a tautology or logical truth, the argument is valid no matter what the premises. Nonclassical logics such as relevance logics were developed in order to avoid such anomalies which many regard as unacceptable or counterintuitive.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
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:
Relevant answer
Answer
So. we need the Holy Spirit, which is the substance of man's soul.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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 :
Relevant answer
Answer
One should also see my most recent 30 or so posts here; those are not in any of the collections
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Eh, I'd rather be mysteriously confusing than rigorously understandable any day. Keeps people on their toes, you know? :P
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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 .
Relevant answer
Answer
I worshiped Piaget for 3 decades. But, more recently, I determined that his "theory" is not fully empirical , but just descriptive (points to/towards NO proximate causes). My neo-Piagetian theory is fully empirical and does point at proximate causes.
Something is not empirical to me unless it is fully (aka really) empirical
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
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.) ]
Relevant answer
Answer
Wisdom can emerge at any time rather than regurgitation of past knowledge and its deductions. This being said, our limited knowledge of cognitive development has to be based on observations of diverse reality, as per Copernicus. The observer does have an intricate effect upon the observation, so deductive reasoning alone limits and induction takes us beyond the assumptions of neatly packaged compartmentalized thinking, antithetical to the pioneers in thought and cognition. Margaret Mead tried to break through this by her investigations into other diverse culture/paradigmatic views. She said: "Children need to be taught how to think, not what to think." Albert Einstein in Relativity recognized that everything is relative, everything is in relationship with everything else from the microcosmic to the macrocosmic. The analogs in nature he observed led to his own theory inductions, never fully proven by science until years after his death. He stated: "I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music." Art met Science in his thinking. We need merger of the arts to express cognitions that go beyond our current cognitions/assumptions/compartmentalized thought and observe All inducing in us that which we participate in throughout the cosmos. Then science can deduce new ideas from that inspirational origin with first humility and then heuristic quality. Psychology is still a new science still defending itself by certitude of what cognition is, which limits our understanding. William James, the Father of American Psychology investigated the "Stuff of Consciousness" grounding in the observable, pragmatics of the stuff of the Cosmos.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
3 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Sorry you are going downhill fast, but wisdom can emerge at any time rather than regurgitation of past knowledge and its deductions. This being said, our limited knowledge of cognitive development has to be based on observations of diverse reality, as per Copernicus. The observer does have an intricate effect upon the observation, so deductive reasoning alone limits and induction takes us beyond the assumptions of neatly packaged compartmentalized thinking, antithetical to the pioneers in thought and cognition. Margaret Mead tried to break through this by her investigations into other diverse culture/paradigmatic views. She said: "Children need to be taught how to think, not what to think." Albert Einstein in Relativity recognized that everything is relative, everything is in relationship with everything else from the microcosmic to the macrocosmic. The analogs in nature he observed led to his own theory inductions, never fully proven by science until years after his death. He stated: "I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music." Art met Science in his thinking. We need merger of the arts to express cognitions that go beyond our current cognitions/assumptions/compartmentalized thought and observe All inducing in us that which we participate in throughout the cosmos. Then science can deduce new ideas from that inspirational origin with first humility and then heuristic quality. Psychology is still a new science still defending itself by certitude of what cognition is, which limits our understanding. William James, the Father of American Psychology investigated the "Stuff of Consciousness" grounding in the observable, pragmatics of the stuff of the Cosmos.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
4 answers
Who agrees both the lack of absolutes and the uniqueness of each entity, suggest an all knowing and all powerful creator? I welcome elaborations.
Relevant answer
Answer
Explain "lack of absolutes". What sort of absolutes do you mean? Give an example. (Aren't you yourself presuming absolutes with the suggestion of a deity and its omni-attributes?) As for uniqueness of entities, why isn't that trivial? As Bishop Joseph Butler once said, "Everything is what it is and not another thing."
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
3 answers
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
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, you may remove items with low commonalities or contributes very little to the latent factor generation.
Based on my experience, I recommend you use SPSS add-on for EFA. Here's the paper for reference: https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v046i04
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
Out of critical rationalism and skeptical empiricism, which philosophy is more practical? Why? How?
Relevant answer
The most practical philosophy is Meditation because, in its uncountable variety of families and techniques, it is the only one that leads out of the "prison" of mental models. Husserl tried to translate it into a more "scientific" language, with his concept of "bracketing" and the three "phenomenological reductions", in his version of Phenonenology.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
3 answers
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
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with you, especially "Learning in terms of the interrelated development of basic capacities". That's the answer to Truth Theory in philosophy. I had some experiments to dig out what an AGI baby could learn from its birth (the system started running), the Sensorimotor system of its innate part played a key role in upbringing development. What's more, not only do we need computer simulation, but also put that into the real world of humans. So, I am trying to research ASD children (1- 3 years old) and found that there could be an experience construction error when nature meets nurture, then they form an abnormal network of experiences from TD. At last, all in one word: you are right, and I do believe we can go further relying on non-biological AGI systems and biological Humans simultaneously. Thank you for your sharing.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
In my opinion, the natural law does not know about the conservatism and the liberalism. It is one and unique, strange and alien to these.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
How likely is rationalism and empiricism a false dichotomy and the real epistemological divide is literal vs metaphorical? Why how?
Relevant answer
Answer
I see the rationalism–empiricism dichotomy as a very powerful tool to organize European history of thought; however, as all concepts, it is constructed. In my perspective, research cannot avoid either — we try to use real-life data (empiricism) to theorize about them (rationalism).
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
What are the epistemological differences between critical rationalism and skeptical empiricism?
Relevant answer
Answer
The critical rationalist would hold that it is rational to accept a theory that has been severely tested and survived the tests. As for sceptical empiricism, much depends on what this is. If the position is constructive empiricism of the kind defended by van Fraassen, then acceptance of a theory would not extend to the truth of the theory's claims about unobservable theoretical entities. It would only involve accepting that the theory is empirically adequate, which is to say true at the level of observation.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
What is the difference between critical rationalism and skeptical empiricism?
Relevant answer
Critical rationalism focuses on the importance of criticism and falsifiability in the scientific method, with an emphasis on the impossibility of proving theories true.
Skeptical empiricism, on the other hand, questions the reliability of empirical observation and induction as a foundation for certain knowledge, highlighting the limitations of human cognition.
While both approaches are critical of certain aspects of traditional empiricism, they differ in their emphasis and specific concerns within the broader realm of epistemology.
I hope this helps.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
4 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
The formula for calculating the cross-sectional area (A) of the core of a transformer, which is typically made of laminated iron or other core materials, is based on the following factors:
A = (B * l) / (μ * N)
Where:
- A is the cross-sectional area of the core in square meters (m²).
- B is the magnetic flux density in teslas (T).
- l is the mean length of the magnetic path in meters (m).
- μ is the permeability of the core material in henrys per meter (H/m).
- N is the number of turns of wire in the primary winding.
This formula takes into account the magnetic properties of the core material (permeability), the magnetic flux density required for the transformer's operation, the length of the magnetic path within the core, and the number of turns in the primary winding. The specific design of a transformer core requires more detailed calculations and may involve iterative design processes.
It's important to note that transformer design can be complex, and this formula represents a simplified version of the calculations involved in determining the core's cross-sectional area. Actual transformer design may require more detailed modeling and analysis.
however, The cross-sectional area of an electrical transformer is primarily determined by factors such as the core material, the magnetic flux density, and the frequency of operation. The relationship between the cross-sectional area and the maximum power it can deliver is not typically based on a simple square root equation.
To calculate the cross-sectional area of a transformer core, you need to consider the following factors:
1. Magnetic Flux Density (B): The core material's saturation point and the desired magnetic flux density play a significant role in determining the cross-sectional area. You must ensure that the core material doesn't saturate under the maximum load conditions.
2. Frequency (f): The frequency of operation affects the core's efficiency and, consequently, the cross-sectional area. Higher frequencies may require larger cores to avoid excessive losses.
3. Voltage and Current: The transformer's voltage and current ratings are crucial in determining the cross-sectional area of the windings. These ratings affect the conductor size and insulation requirements.
4. Losses: Losses, both core losses (hysteresis and eddy current losses) and copper losses (due to resistance in windings), should be considered when designing the transformer.
There is no direct square root relationship between the cross-sectional area and power delivery. Transformer design is a complex process that involves optimization based on these factors, often using specialized software and iterative calculations. It's not typically expressed as a simple formula you'd find in textbooks.
If you want to delve deeper into transformer design and calculation, you may need to consult engineering textbooks, specialized transformer design resources, or consult experts in the field. It's not a straightforward topic, and the design process often involves trade-offs and considerations beyond a simple equation.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
In practice all science is a mix of empiricism and rationalism. What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
It is as important as having two feet to walk.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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. )
Relevant answer
Answer
Absolutely, your musings raise a fascinating point! If your writings delve into the realm of empirical psychology, us AI/AGI enthusiasts might ponder: are we decoding neurons or algorithms? 🧠🤖 Keep the insights flowing!
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Bhupesh,
to understand how to balance every Geopolymer binder and how to select the correct molar ratio depending on the type of alkali ion used you must read the book of prof. Davidovits at chapter 21. Will be your best investment to know about Geopolyme technology. You will also understand that Ca/(Al+Si) ratio is useless parameter because geopolymerization is polymer process not hydraulic like for alkali activated materials AAMs aren’t polymers so aren’t the same of Geopolymers.
Concrete remains an application with coarse aggregates and low amount of binder but you need to learn before the mix design that for GP is different from Portland and AAMs.
Geopolymerization is promoted by Si/Al ratio so different values bring to completely different hardened materials and performances. There are several raw materials that can be used and even the aggregates should be taken from partially reactive minerals (calcium carbonate and silica sand are inert in GP systems).
But again, to understand what does it means reactive or partially reactive minerals used as aggregates you must study the book Geopolymer - Chemistry & Applications that you can buy on www.geopolymer.org in the shop area.
All the best
Dr. Alex Reggiani
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
5 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Religious freedom belongs to our sphere of personal jurisdiction in the sense that it is up to us to choose our religious orientation. Or, as Dr. António José Rodrigues Rebelo says, "religious freedom is a fundamental right that allows each individual to choose their own beliefs and practice their religion according to their conscience." Religious freedom is a hallmark of all countries where the political power and the religious power have nothing to do with each other. This is mainly typical of democratic and secular regimes. If political regimes imposes on their citizens a given religious orientation, then they are appealing to brainwashing and indoctrination, which is a sad reality in many countries across the world.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
4 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Pietro Barbetta
OF course you don't (I would guess that -- for most). Read a lot of ME (my writngs, ALL here on researchgate) TO FIND THE WAY to understand.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
4 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Traveling while having an open mind allows to see new perspectives, get new concepts and have a deeper understanding of human society. Its very rewarding for the ones seeking the truth to go to places where everything is different, that sort of shock is highly rewarding. Conditioning exists at all levels.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
Conceptual vs Empirical Types of Research.
Relevant answer
Answer
Please find some useful links that discuss this topic:
But in simple terms, conceptual research is based on developing/testing theories (based on gaps in the research) and within these theories versus empirical research is largely based on experimenting to test theories or form new theories.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
5 answers
Any Empirical work in this field.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Abdurrahman,
You may take qualitative research approach to capture the perspectives of experts/ participants from the relevant States.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
4 answers
Regarding the choice of empiric antibiotics for deep neck infections, what are the latest treatment guidelines or recommendations?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello. Although there are no official guidelines for treatment I recommend that you have a look over "Deep Neck Space Infections Empiric Therapy" in 2020 on Medscape.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
37 answers
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?
________________________________________
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Paul Hubert Vossen My area of ​​work is the philosophy of science, but I am a sociologist, so I am familiar with arguments from both disciplinary fields. It is common in the social sciences to use the word "phenomenon" to refer to a social, public and objective fact (it is a common way of referring to a social fact, not necessarily strange) and not to anything mental.
That is, unlike philosophy, where "phenomenon" is often used to refer to something given or that occurs in consciousness, with more or less Kantian meanings, social scientists use the word to refer to a characteristic of social reality, which they consider to be objective and self-existent (independently of any human mind); that is to say, "phenomenon" is not a word that replaces "thought", but rather a "social fact".
On the other hand, while I agree that in the social sciences there are vagueness, imprecision, neologisms and inconsistencies, it seems that in their claim for a model is the idea that the theories of the social sciences should be similar to those of the natural sciences. This position has been called "naturalism" and together with the thesis that social and natural sciences must use the same methods (called "methodological monism") are part of a long and deep epistemological debate about the demarcation between the two types of scientific disciplines and about the scientific status of the social sciences.
In the social sciences, too, the word theory is used as a synonym for hypothesis or hypothesis accepted as knowledge, about a fact or a type of fact, but although this does not occur in physics, it also happens in the biological sciences: for example, theories about why the dinosaurs or the Mayan civilization became extinct, or why elephants periodically approach their cemeteries, which are very far from the conceptions that consider them as interpreted calculations.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Emergence refers to the existence or formation of collective behaviours — what parts of a system do together that they would not do alone.
For example, cells that make up a muscle display the emergent property of working together to produce the muscle's overall structure and movement.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
13 answers
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 .
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Brad Jesness,
Isn't looking at the phenomenon from different angles provide us with better understanding of it?
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
17 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Brad Jesness
I know that he is a dedicated academic and that he seeks the truth about a great deal of information.
Nobody has the whole truth or knows everything there is to know about the external world and our inner universe.
  • My reply in synthesis translates into:
  • Learn the method in order to learn for life: Being, knowing/ to knowing and knowing how to do,
  • The path of learning is endless: The scholar only knows a part of the whole and often knows a great deal about nothing. The sage knows that he does not know enough, but he aspires to know it in the course of his life.
  • AI codes and algorithms are very useful, but so far, there is no evidence that they are smarter than the human who programs them.
  • On the other hand, diseased and disembodied AI has no chance of reaching the emergent singularity of consciousness.
  • The computer programs that man designs and elaborates, always have to be validated and find their reliability before using them in the information processing, which will finally be digested and assimilated by the human
  • What is feasible with AI within the cyberspace of the Internet, is to function as an auxiliary or prosthesis of the subjects, expanding the possibilities and capabilities of human intelligence.
Greetings and success in your search
José Luis García Vigil
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
3 answers
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
Relevant answer
Answer
Many thanks Mohamed-Mourad Lafifi for this detail answer. I appreciate very much your help ;)
Régis
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
9 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Searching in google we can get many research papers. Then we have to consider the quality of journal papers where it is published like Elsevier, Springer, Wiley etc. A good indexed journal ensures the quality of the article.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
1 answer
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 ....
....
Relevant answer
Answer
The compilation is ideally done for representative species in prokaryotes and eukaryotes because the interaction could be different.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
9 answers
I'm looking studies on the association between forest primary productivity and alpha diversity specially to the tropical and subtropical forests.
Relevant answer
Answer
You'll find it in the paper by
Liang et al. 2016. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354: 196-207. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8957
This paper deals with global patterns but tropics are of course part of it.
Bogdan
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
5 answers
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".
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Françoise Léon
I deal only with ontogeny . I see ontology has having the science "status" of superstition.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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)
Relevant answer
Answer
I don't think there is 1 text where you will find all these topics. I think at least 2 texts might also be a stretch.
But Nocedal and Wright's Numerical Optimization and Boyd's Convex Optimization book will cover most of the topics you mentioned apart from ADMM and ERM. But Boyd's Convex Optimization lecture II covers ADMM.
I think for ERM, you will have to pick up a Machine/Statistical Learning book.
But I think this is a pretty good deal. Just 2 books and 1 course for everything apart from ERM.
If someone else knows better than what I wrote, I would also be interested in knowing this information.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
6 answers
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)
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with William J. F. Keenan
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
9 answers
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 ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Many sciences have commonsense ontologies. The ontology of forestry, for example, comprises trees and shrubs. No need to reduce these to open strings bound to D-branes to carry on with the science.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
14 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
As a researcher in Kant's area I would add his theory of possible experience can give the kind of semantic constrain to predict true for the unobserved, although Kant makes clear that there is no formulas for truth and experiencia itseld has to be the master to guide conclusions in science.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
9 answers
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
Relevant answer
Answer
Philosophy and science are the tow sides of a coin! To be a scientist one should have the ability to philosophize and to be a good philosopher one should rely on rational thought emanating from empirical evidence! So it would be better to say that 'science without philosophy' and 'philosophy without science' is useless! Similar to the Word of Jesus that 'salt without its saltiness' is worthless!
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
5 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Good luck
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
8 answers
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 .
Relevant answer
Answer
Sorry for many hours of editing (basically additions); I am old and tired and may not say all that should/must be said on "first try". My 900 pages of recent writings (2015 - 2019) give many good (likely valid) perspectives and much perspective [overall] . ALL the writings are available here on researchgate.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
6 answers
Empirical use of non-harmful drugs for patients is superior to evidence-based medicine ... or not
Does anyone use famotidine in COVID?
Relevant answer
Answer
I should probably also add that in addition to the increased risk for COVID-19 infections, using the drugs may increase the risk of other gastrointestinal infections for other pathogens. This would increase overall pathology as well as risk for any of these infections. Nutritional damage and other effects may also occur, even if not severe.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
5 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hendrik van Eeeden I suggest you revisit history of SDG, how UN arrive at this approach and how companies started adhering to it, gradually working on this framework. I am sure you ll come across path breaking projects undertaken by whistle blowers of SDG, all across the globe.
SDG wikipedia I am sure you visited it.
Country-wise top companies tackling SDG can be searched.
Before writing one line hypothesis, create your literature review map, and trust me, research is always a divine blessing and a magic, the UN histories, the reports will eventually lead you to find your relevant hypothesis statement that you can very well prove. All the best!
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
9 answers
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]) .
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
141 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Rationality is a complex construction. Rationality includes logical inference and avoiding inconsistency, but it also involves judgements where the rational agent is trying to uncover truths or at least be sufficiently right to maximise chances of survival. It is tempting to say that rational agent will always try to follow a strategy to achieve some objectives. That may be true, but rationality requires more by requiring the rational agent to assess evidence in support of or against a judgement in a way that is verifiable by another rational agent. I think that the requirement of evidence assessment is normative; otherwise the rational agent could end up supporting a judgement that is not supported by evidence at all. But judgement is often a matter of subjective likelihood, and theories emerge when accounting for the evidence which do not meet the currently accepted norms for acceptance. Examples of this include in science include Galileo's theory of cosmology and Mendel's theory of genetics. Thus rationality is amenable to the imposition of norms, but the norms themselves need to be adaptable to revision in the light of new evidence and new theories which account for that evidence.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
5 answers
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). ]
Relevant answer
Nice Dear Jonathan Y. Tsou
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
9 answers
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)?
Relevant answer
Answer
A hydrodynamic model uses a numerical approximation (e.g. finite element or finite difference methods) to solve a PDE (e.g. shallow water wave equation, Saint-Venant equations). As such, these are physically-based models (or physics-based models if you prefer). You might use the output of an empirical or conceptual model to give the flows at the upper part of a reach being studied (i.e. set a boundary condition for solving the PDE), but a hydrodynamic model is a physically-based model.
Note that I have used "physically-based model" rather than "physical model" - a "physical model" could refer a model built out of concrete, plaster etc. for running simulations in a laboratory (i.e. not in a computer). For example, a scaled model of a floodplain used to study flood characteristics by actually running water over it.
It could be argued that a hydrodynamic model is a "physics-based" model rather than a "physically-based" model.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
18 answers
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?)
Relevant answer
Answer
We need to have the interest of others by maintenaning balance in the ecosystem.
  • asked a question related to Empiricism
Question
2 answers
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