The Dataist Manifesto, part I

[Doktor Howl]

I didn't claim that autistic people are smarter, though...And the whole point here was that I have this neat little hypothesis that has never been tested, in a field in which I am not educated.

Maybe my english comprehension failed me a bit tbh; i think im only good at reading academia and news which is more straightforward than literature or essays.

I reread it and i think i understand now that it was merely an example of the types of reasoning and its limitations, rather than a correlation between Aristotles thought process and autism. 

Happens to the best of us.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

I personally dont think autism is caused by better nutrition and the associated brain development... some professionals see it as a variation of narcissistic configurations, but not narcissistic in the usual sense.

The narcissism spectrum denotes the investment and use of your attention and energies upon oneself and a lack of attachment and interaction with other human beings... the malevolent version of narcissism is what in common parlance is understood as plain "narcissist", then theres psychosis which is a non-investment and non-interest in reality (even up to an active avoidance of it)... then theres autism, which is close to psychosis, but not quite there yet, but it does show detriments to the relation not only with others but with everyday tasks and reality itself.

Now, are autists smarter? Its been argued that a lot of scientists and brainy people are in the autism spectrum, so it is a possibility.

This reminds me of a thought that I recently had concerning free will. Basically the freer an entity's will is, for certain values of "free", the more robotic-seeming it would paradoxially become. Specifically if we define "free" as its actions being determined from within rather than influenced by external factors; behaviors would become more stereotyped as the value of external stimuli shrank and the logical limit of this would be a form of solipsism

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

You know, eerily, the above thought came to me while trying to develop a balanced benefit+drawback type trait for a tabletop RPG, not from any consideration of autism or neurology or serious philosophy. Just the thought that if you ramped it up it would have benefits and drawbacks

EDIT:
Strike that, I just remembered that it actually started with the idle thought that the argument that punishment would be unjust and pointless if we didn't have free will (and would be just and effective if we did) is fallacious because if our will were truly free then we wouldn't be able to be intimidated and controlled by the threat of punishment and we'd just be locking people up to no good end.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

As for Aristotle, I think the problem is that he was an expert who more often than not spoke outside his area of expertise. IIRC he made a lot of legitimate progress in the field of pure logic and pure mathematics, which are the only places where you can argue from a priori knowledge (and even that's not absolute; some forms of mathematics require the practical experimentation/demonstration of a compass and straightedge). But then he tried to generalize those a priori techniques to real world applications and consequently wound up just making a lot of shit up.

[The Johnny]

This reminds me of a thought that I recently had concerning free will. Basically the freer an entity's will is, for certain values of "free", the more robotic-seeming it would paradoxially become. Specifically if we define "free" as its actions being determined from within rather than influenced by external factors; behaviors would become more stereotyped as the value of external stimuli shrank and the logical limit of this would be a form of solipsism

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

You know, eerily, the above thought came to me while trying to develop a balanced benefit+drawback type trait for a tabletop RPG, not from any consideration of autism or neurology or serious philosophy. Just the thought that if you ramped it up it would have benefits and drawbacks

EDIT:
Strike that, I just remembered that it actually started with the idle thought that the argument that punishment would be unjust and pointless if we didn't have free will (and would be just and effective if we did) is fallacious because if our will were truly free then we wouldn't be able to be intimidated and controlled by the threat of punishment and we'd just be locking people up to no good end.

I dont follow how being "freer" would make a person seem "robotical" or "stereotyped"... and depending on the use of the terms, endogenous factors and exogenous factors can mean the same thing as weird as it sounds, there was this influential hypnotists called Bernheim and he supposedly cites M. Ribot who respectively cites Spinoza:

"Our illussion of free will is nothing more but the ignorance of the motives that make us act." (or something like that, it has been translated from french to english, then to spanish, and back to english.)

And yes, despite RPG character creation and point assignments is nothing but pure fantasy its holds certain truth to human skills and abilities... you spend all day on the computer, doing experiments and reading? its not shocking youre not gonna be able to run a marathon or compete at Mr. Universe contest... with the exception that some people were dealt a good hand and have more "points" to allocate, while others were a dealt a bad one and have less "points" with nothing to take in exchange for their defficiencies.

[The Johnny]

And on-topic, a small note regarding hypotheses and research in general:

I was trained in the soft sciences to do qualitative research, so im biased in that sense... but i really think that hypothesis driven research is just stating a preconceived notion or prejudice and then trying to rationalize how this is a true enunciation. Hypothesis can poison the results before you even start doing the experiments.

I dont feel like getting too technical right now, but, i think that good science involves being extremely attuned to what the "field" is trying to tell you despite your preconceived notions or questions you began with, and ill try to create a fictional example to illustrate.

Imagine some scientist from the 19th or 20th century, that KNOWS that "negroes" are inferior, but since hes a superior being and the representative of truth, wants to present it as "scientific" he would ask in his research:

"Are negroes an inferior race?"

Before the work even begins, we can observe that its just a statement, with a "?" added to it at the end, the hypothesis is poisoned by his preconceptions and hes gonna try his darnedest to prove it correct, most likely ignoring all methods or results that say the contrary.

In other words, the "a priori" that guides the research and establishes the hypothesis can be so overbearing that the process is just refined sophistry and rationalizations, completely detached from what the "field" and reality is trying to tell him.

[Doktor Howl]

And on-topic, a small note regarding hypotheses and research in general:

I was trained in the soft sciences to do qualitative research, so im biased in that sense... but i really think that hypothesis driven research is just stating a preconceived notion or prejudice and then trying to rationalize how this is a true enunciation. Hypothesis can poison the results before you even start doing the experiments.

That's why your peers exist.  To publicly tear you some new orifices when they catch you at it.

Imagine some scientist from the 19th or 20th century, that KNOWS that "negroes" are inferior, but since hes a superior being and the representative of truth, wants to present it as "scientific" he would ask in his research:

"Are negroes an inferior race?"

Before the work even begins, we can observe that its just a statement, with a "?" added to it at the end, the hypothesis is poisoned by his preconceptions and hes gonna try his darnedest to prove it correct, most likely ignoring all methods or results that say the contrary.

In other words, the "a priori" that guides the research and establishes the hypothesis can be so overbearing that the process is just refined sophistry and rationalizations, completely detached from what the "field" and reality is trying to tell him.

And if you don't mind being ridiculed for the rest of human history, you do that.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

This reminds me of a thought that I recently had concerning free will. Basically the freer an entity's will is, for certain values of "free", the more robotic-seeming it would paradoxially become. Specifically if we define "free" as its actions being determined from within rather than influenced by external factors; behaviors would become more stereotyped as the value of external stimuli shrank and the logical limit of this would be a form of solipsism

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

You know, eerily, the above thought came to me while trying to develop a balanced benefit+drawback type trait for a tabletop RPG, not from any consideration of autism or neurology or serious philosophy. Just the thought that if you ramped it up it would have benefits and drawbacks

EDIT:
Strike that, I just remembered that it actually started with the idle thought that the argument that punishment would be unjust and pointless if we didn't have free will (and would be just and effective if we did) is fallacious because if our will were truly free then we wouldn't be able to be intimidated and controlled by the threat of punishment and we'd just be locking people up to no good end.

I dont follow how being "freer" would make a person seem "robotical" or "stereotyped"

Well, I was thinking free of outside influence. The far extreme of such a condition would be something resembling the broom from The Sorcerer's Apprentice that just keeps going about what it was doing regardless of attempts to dissuade it. Or one far extreme would be at any rate. The brooms were free of both outside and inside influence. If we add interior influences it becomes more complicated, but a consequence would be that strange or socially unacceptable behavior conceived by the interior factors would be acted out as they would not be blocked by the exterior factors

[The Johnny]

And on-topic, a small note regarding hypotheses and research in general:

I was trained in the soft sciences to do qualitative research, so im biased in that sense... but i really think that hypothesis driven research is just stating a preconceived notion or prejudice and then trying to rationalize how this is a true enunciation. Hypothesis can poison the results before you even start doing the experiments.

That's why your peers exist.  To publicly tear you some new orifices when they catch you at it.

Imagine some scientist from the 19th or 20th century, that KNOWS that "negroes" are inferior, but since hes a superior being and the representative of truth, wants to present it as "scientific" he would ask in his research:

"Are negroes an inferior race?"

Before the work even begins, we can observe that its just a statement, with a "?" added to it at the end, the hypothesis is poisoned by his preconceptions and hes gonna try his darnedest to prove it correct, most likely ignoring all methods or results that say the contrary.

In other words, the "a priori" that guides the research and establishes the hypothesis can be so overbearing that the process is just refined sophistry and rationalizations, completely detached from what the "field" and reality is trying to tell him.

And if you don't mind being ridiculed for the rest of human history, you do that.

The issue is that my example is clear cut because its ideological and racial, and at least we, now, can see its flaws from a mile away. But id venture to say that today science is distorted by capitalistic interest.

From what ive heard, this is common practice with "pharma R&D", they manipulate the results, not in the sense of presenting false results as true, but in modifying the tests and trials so the metrics are misleading and show what is required or convenient for them - for example, the construction of the "ADHD epidemic" and its treatment.

So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science, but could there be other areas where ideology would affect its legitimate process? and the outright lying and misleading that pharma does seems like a very niche case, but what other branches or variants of science get affected by capitalistic interest, i do wonder.

[Doktor Howl]

So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science,

Gonna argue that.

[Doktor Howl]

I can tell you that astronomy is just fine, but climate science has become a big bag of Exxon whores.

[The Johnny]

This reminds me of a thought that I recently had concerning free will. Basically the freer an entity's will is, for certain values of "free", the more robotic-seeming it would paradoxially become. Specifically if we define "free" as its actions being determined from within rather than influenced by external factors; behaviors would become more stereotyped as the value of external stimuli shrank and the logical limit of this would be a form of solipsism

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

You know, eerily, the above thought came to me while trying to develop a balanced benefit+drawback type trait for a tabletop RPG, not from any consideration of autism or neurology or serious philosophy. Just the thought that if you ramped it up it would have benefits and drawbacks

EDIT:
Strike that, I just remembered that it actually started with the idle thought that the argument that punishment would be unjust and pointless if we didn't have free will (and would be just and effective if we did) is fallacious because if our will were truly free then we wouldn't be able to be intimidated and controlled by the threat of punishment and we'd just be locking people up to no good end.

I dont follow how being "freer" would make a person seem "robotical" or "stereotyped"

Well, I was thinking free of outside influence. The far extreme of such a condition would be something resembling the broom from The Sorcerer's Apprentice that just keeps going about what it was doing regardless of attempts to dissuade it. Or one far extreme would be at any rate. The brooms were free of both outside and inside influence. If we add interior influences it becomes more complicated, but a consequence would be that strange or socially unacceptable behavior conceived by the interior factors would be acted out as they would not be blocked by the exterior factors

But that example seems flawed, because the broom started to act because Mickey through "magic" commanded the broom to do a certain action... the broom is doing Mickeys original will, regardless that it got stuck in an infinite loop and didnt follow the change of will of Mickey. The brooms are acting from "outside influence" that had so much inertia that it couldnt be changed afterwards.

Exterior factors indeed act as prohibitions or limitations to "unacceptable behavior" whatever that is given the context, but i still dont agree that that would equate to the behaviour coming out as neither "robotical" nor "stereotyped"... it could be "excentric" in which others dont understand the behaviour, it could be "psychopathic" in which the uncaring of others actively injures them.... like i dont know if youre talking about compulsive actions and rituals or  .

[The Johnny]

So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science,

Gonna argue that.

Oh, its a shame, but i do believe you; what have you run into?

I can tell you that astronomy is just fine, but climate science has become a big bag of Exxon whores.

Makes sense, the money factor and all... I wonder if military contractors could get away with cheating the results or the punishment would be too harsh for them to dare, like in metrics regarding cost/reliability/safety. Although this is more of an engineering thing than scientific "doctrine".

[chaotic neutral observer]

The issue is that my example is clear cut because its ideological and racial, and at least we, now, can see its flaws from a mile away. But id venture to say that today science is distorted by capitalistic interest.

From what ive heard, this is common practice with "pharma R&D", they manipulate the results, not in the sense of presenting false results as true, but in modifying the tests and trials so the metrics are misleading and show what is required or convenient for them - for example, the construction of the "ADHD epidemic" and its treatment.

So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science, but could there be other areas where ideology would affect its legitimate process? and the outright lying and misleading that pharma does seems like a very niche case, but what other branches or variants of science get affected by capitalistic interest, i do wonder.

You seem to be implying that capitalistic interest necessarily corrupts the scientific process.  In some cases it does, but some legitimate branches of science are almost entirely driven by a profit motive.  Materials science, for example, is largely motivated by practical applications.  There is also less room for distortion, since if you get the science wrong, your product Just Doesn't Work.

[Doktor Howl]

Oh, its a shame, but i do believe you; what have you run into?

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

2014.

[The Johnny]

The issue is that my example is clear cut because its ideological and racial, and at least we, now, can see its flaws from a mile away. But id venture to say that today science is distorted by capitalistic interest.

From what ive heard, this is common practice with "pharma R&D", they manipulate the results, not in the sense of presenting false results as true, but in modifying the tests and trials so the metrics are misleading and show what is required or convenient for them - for example, the construction of the "ADHD epidemic" and its treatment.

So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science, but could there be other areas where ideology would affect its legitimate process? and the outright lying and misleading that pharma does seems like a very niche case, but what other branches or variants of science get affected by capitalistic interest, i do wonder.

You seem to be implying that capitalistic interest necessarily corrupts the scientific process.  In some cases it does, but some legitimate branches of science are almost entirely driven by a profit motive.  Materials science, for example, is largely motivated by practical applications.  There is also less room for distortion, since if you get the science wrong, your product Just Doesn't Work.

Within the context of all thats been discussed in this thread, what im saying is that interests, be it ideological or economic, have been the great historical distorters of science... on the ideological front one can speak of religion and racism... and well, economic is about profit.

Legitimate science first figures out how a process works, then it seeks to figure out how this understanding can be put into practice and THEN finally one can start to think about profit.

How does one think about profiting from nuclear energy, if one doesnt know how to use/make it, or even more importantly if one doesnt know it exists?

One could venture that the greatest patrons of science in the XXIst century have not been capitalists, but the military, because they dont care about how much it costs or the profit it will make, but that its done right and that its pragmatic.