The elephant in the room, education, and them.

[mikkel_the_dane]

First a mention to you, @Shadow Wolf . Yeah, unmasking is sometimes maybe not the best thing to do, but I will do it now as true, honest, and authentic as to being in effect for neuro diverse “over”-analytical both as bad and good.
As for you, @Secret Chief. Yes, you are spot on. So here it is for nitpicking even A is A.

This is a freak show for some of you, so here is a fair warning. For some versions of cognitive dissonance, this text can cause that in some of the readers of this text. If that is the case, deal with it as it works for you, including declaring me as in effect irrelevant of the really real world and what matters. But note that the moderators may not like that.

“...
Do all people have metacognition?
And as Alexander Luria, the Russian psychologist found, not all adults metacogitate. Some adults follow instructions or perform tasks without wondering why they are doing what they are doing. They seldom question themselves about their own learning strategies or evaluate the efficiency of their own performance.
...”
https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-what-makes-humans-unique/

Now for those, who know the limits of a model, this is neither true nor false as universal. It is even more complex than that.
It is complex because of in effect that all humans with a sufficient cognition use our individual brains differently including me depending on context and the relevant cognitive schema, for which there are several schemata for several different contexts for several different individuals.

Yeah, I know. So, I will deal with the limit of logic first for the binary way and compare it to a triad.
I will only use one example, namely the law of identity and for the rest take for granted that all other cases I use, are comparing cases as binary versus triadic, however indirect.
So, A is A, that is so for a limited case of time and space in the sense of A for the following metacognition. A is A, is the same if I reduce away time and space for the process of getting same, but if I add time and space this A is only like this A as similar and different since the process happens in time and space, so this A is a different time and space than this A.
Neat, right.

So, the triad as cognitive is same, similar and/or different for at least 3 senses, times, spaces, and other senses.
But it doesn’t stop there because I am a part of it. I know the above and other cases and I know that other people do that differently.

But there is more. A is A is for the “is” different from a feline as the cat is black.
The first one is an internal cognitive evaluation, the second is the mention of “is” but not usage and the 3rd one is external sensory experience.
Now notice that I didn’t just use the “is”, I explained the different usages.
And regarding knowledge for its different versions, there are 3 factors. When to use it, how to use it and how it works.

And it is weird for the difference between following instructions versus question instructions.
Questioning instructions require reflection or in effect metacognition if I want to check myself, because I must for any context ask how does work, work and what happens if I use another version of work. I.e. a different method, for which I have to have in effect a meta-method for compare different methods. Nice, right!

So here it is. A method is a measurement act using a set of measurement standards, but for the world as such, there are several ones and several different combinations, but in general for the following:
Time, space, objective, intersubjective as cognitive rules, and norms including moral ones and/or the individuals as for a general result and individual for the specific nature and nurture.

Thus there are in my culture the following different categories of knowledge.

• Hard science
• Social science
• Psychology
• Humanities
• Human science
• History
• Logic/math
• Science of science

There is no single common factor for all of them, not even objective, because they rely on different contradictory versions of objective.
In effect they all have different axiomatic assumptions/dogma/paradigms and for science of science there are 2, which are different and produce different results.

So here are the limits of the science of science as an in-effect dichotomy of what is and what we ought to do about that. They are different because the first one explains what you can do, but the second is what you should do.
So here it is for philosophy as a form of knowledge for its 2 variants:

“philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. …”
Philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
Notice the “or” and that is the 2 traditions for which they are in effect different.

The one is analytical for what the whole is and the other is phenomenological for what it works as human and what that means.
So here it is for the 2 as methods:

• Always use objective reason, logic and truth/proof/evidence
• Always explain and account for the different measurement acts for: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

Now a note about measurement and things. It is not just instruments and physical things. It is all versions of evaluation of experiences and for me, not as true or false but as same/similar/different for what they are as that and how that matters to me and/or other humans.

So here is an example in general terms for what I was taught to do. There are now 2 humans, me, and another human. I am a professional now, so I have authority, because I must decide how to help the other human. I do so for a lot of factors. Power, resources, ability, and formal and custom norms. And I must do so for us both as in nature as relevant, in culture as relevant and as individuals and then act. So, I did that and apparently helped the other human, because I checked later, and it seemed to have worked. I also reported back to my 2 bosses, one administrative and the other functional and got 2 different results. For the former what I did was correct and for the latter wrong. I then checked their behavior and found that they apparently used 2 different methods for functionality and norms. And I had learned something more.

Now I jump context.
Thus, for STEM in effect, they make models of what is for different versions of objective, independent of the mess of subjectivity as feelings/emotions, or how to deal with subjectivity in a correct manner and what matters existentially as a human for making models as objective in their tradition.
But I was conditioned differently, because I was a cog in the machinery of the landscape and it was my responsibly and duty, because I had chosen that responsibly and duty, and thus had a limited authority to do so in the limited context of me and other humans.
In any one given limited time and space for several contexts including myself as one context.

Thus, the scientists make different models. That is all good and fine but doing that in the landscape as a practice is a different craft for humans as subjectively humans.
And some of them do is-ought differently and that is okay if they don’t cross the demarcation between how it works objectively and how we ought to deal with that subjectively. That is 2 different kinds of education, and I was taught both, because I had to consider both.

And yes, I can over-analyze both as bad and good, because I know how do to do both.

 

[Secret Chief]

First a mention to you, @Shadow Wolf . Yeah, unmasking is sometimes maybe not the best thing to do, but I will do it now as true, honest, and authentic as to being in effect for neuro diverse “over”-analytical both as bad and good.
As for you, @Secret Chief. Yes, you are spot on. So here it is for nitpicking even A is A.

This is a freak show for some of you, so here is a fair warning. For some versions of cognitive dissonance, this text can cause that in some of the readers of this text. If that is the case, deal with it as it works for you, including declaring me as in effect irrelevant of the really real world and what matters. But note that the moderators may not like that.

“...
Do all people have metacognition?
And as Alexander Luria, the Russian psychologist found, not all adults metacogitate. Some adults follow instructions or perform tasks without wondering why they are doing what they are doing. They seldom question themselves about their own learning strategies or evaluate the efficiency of their own performance.
...”
https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-what-makes-humans-unique/

Now for those, who know the limits of a model, this is neither true nor false as universal. It is even more complex than that.
It is complex because of in effect that all humans with a sufficient cognition use our individual brains differently including me depending on context and the relevant cognitive schema, for which there are several schemata for several different contexts for several different individuals.

Yeah, I know. So, I will deal with the limit of logic first for the binary way and compare it to a triad.
I will only use one example, namely the law of identity and for the rest take for granted that all other cases I use, are comparing cases as binary versus triadic, however indirect.
So, A is A, that is so for a limited case of time and space in the sense of A for the following metacognition. A is A, is the same if I reduce away time and space for the process of getting same, but if I add time and space this A is only like this A as similar and different since the process happens in time and space, so this A is a different time and space than this A.
Neat, right.

So, the triad as cognitive is same, similar and/or different for at least 3 senses, times, spaces, and other senses.
But it doesn’t stop there because I am a part of it. I know the above and other cases and I know that other people do that differently.

But there is more. A is A is for the “is” different from a feline as the cat is black.
The first one is an internal cognitive evaluation, the second is the mention of “is” but not usage and the 3rd one is external sensory experience.
Now notice that I didn’t just use the “is”, I explained the different usages.
And regarding knowledge for its different versions, there are 3 factors. When to use it, how to use it and how it works.

And it is weird for the difference between following instructions versus question instructions.
Questioning instructions require reflection or in effect metacognition if I want to check myself, because I must for any context ask how does work, work and what happens if I use another version of work. I.e. a different method, for which I have to have in effect a meta-method for compare different methods. Nice, right!

So here it is. A method is a measurement act using a set of measurement standards, but for the world as such, there are several ones and several different combinations, but in general for the following:
Time, space, objective, intersubjective as cognitive rules, and norms including moral ones and/or the individuals as for a general result and individual for the specific nature and nurture.

Thus there are in my culture the following different categories of knowledge.

• Hard science
• Social science
• Psychology
• Humanities
• Human science
• History
• Logic/math
• Science of science

There is no single common factor for all of them, not even objective, because they rely on different contradictory versions of objective.
In effect they all have different axiomatic assumptions/dogma/paradigms and for science of science there are 2, which are different and produce different results.

So here are the limits of the science of science as an in-effect dichotomy of what is and what we ought to do about that. They are different because the first one explains what you can do, but the second is what you should do.
So here it is for philosophy as a form of knowledge for its 2 variants:

“philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. …”
Philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
Notice the “or” and that is the 2 traditions for which they are in effect different.

The one is analytical for what the whole is and the other is phenomenological for what it works as human and what that means.
So here it is for the 2 as methods:

• Always use objective reason, logic and truth/proof/evidence
• Always explain and account for the different measurement acts for: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

Now a note about measurement and things. It is not just instruments and physical things. It is all versions of evaluation of experiences and for me, not as true or false but as same/similar/different for what they are as that and how that matters to me and/or other humans.

So here is an example in general terms for what I was taught to do. There are now 2 humans, me, and another human. I am a professional now, so I have authority, because I must decide how to help the other human. I do so for a lot of factors. Power, resources, ability, and formal and custom norms. And I must do so for us both as in nature as relevant, in culture as relevant and as individuals and then act. So, I did that and apparently helped the other human, because I checked later, and it seemed to have worked. I also reported back to my 2 bosses, one administrative and the other functional and got 2 different results. For the former what I did was correct and for the latter wrong. I then checked their behavior and found that they apparently used 2 different methods for functionality and norms. And I had learned something more.

Now I jump context.
Thus, for STEM in effect, they make models of what is for different versions of objective, independent of the mess of subjectivity as feelings/emotions, or how to deal with subjectivity in a correct manner and what matters existentially as a human for making models as objective in their tradition.
But I was conditioned differently, because I was a cog in the machinery of the landscape and it was my responsibly and duty, because I had chosen that responsibly and duty, and thus had a limited authority to do so in the limited context of me and other humans.
In any one given limited time and space for several contexts including myself as one context.

Thus, the scientists make different models. That is all good and fine but doing that in the landscape as a practice is a different craft for humans as subjectively humans.
And some of them do is-ought differently and that is okay if they don’t cross the demarcation between how it works objectively and how we ought to deal with that subjectively. That is 2 different kinds of education, and I was taught both, because I had to consider both.

And yes, I can over-analyze both as bad and good, because I know how do to do both.

Err..I'm spot on with what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Err..I'm spot on with what?

You mentioned me as nitpicking old philosophy. The law of identity is older than Christianity, but still relevant for how you do observation/cognition/evaluation and all other humans including me as capable of doing it with some variation.

 

[Secret Chief]

You mentioned me as nitpicking old philosophy. The law of identity is older than Christianity, but still relevant for how you do observation/cognition/evaluation and all other humans including me as capable of doing it with some variation.

I did? Sorry, I've been to bed since then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did? Sorry, I've been to bed since then.

Nevermind that. Your inferred "picture" of me nitpicking old philosophy actually helped me make an even more "absurd" meta-model of how to deal with different models.

 

[Nakosis]

First a mention to you, @Shadow Wolf . Yeah, unmasking is sometimes maybe not the best thing to do, but I will do it now as true, honest, and authentic as to being in effect for neuro diverse “over”-analytical both as bad and good.
As for you, @Secret Chief. Yes, you are spot on. So here it is for nitpicking even A is A.

This is a freak show for some of you, so here is a fair warning. For some versions of cognitive dissonance, this text can cause that in some of the readers of this text. If that is the case, deal with it as it works for you, including declaring me as in effect irrelevant of the really real world and what matters. But note that the moderators may not like that.

“...
Do all people have metacognition?
And as Alexander Luria, the Russian psychologist found, not all adults metacogitate. Some adults follow instructions or perform tasks without wondering why they are doing what they are doing. They seldom question themselves about their own learning strategies or evaluate the efficiency of their own performance.
...”
https://www.improvewithmetacognition.com/metacognition-what-makes-humans-unique/

Now for those, who know the limits of a model, this is neither true nor false as universal. It is even more complex than that.
It is complex because of in effect that all humans with a sufficient cognition use our individual brains differently including me depending on context and the relevant cognitive schema, for which there are several schemata for several different contexts for several different individuals.

Yeah, I know. So, I will deal with the limit of logic first for the binary way and compare it to a triad.
I will only use one example, namely the law of identity and for the rest take for granted that all other cases I use, are comparing cases as binary versus triadic, however indirect.
So, A is A, that is so for a limited case of time and space in the sense of A for the following metacognition. A is A, is the same if I reduce away time and space for the process of getting same, but if I add time and space this A is only like this A as similar and different since the process happens in time and space, so this A is a different time and space than this A.
Neat, right.

So, the triad as cognitive is same, similar and/or different for at least 3 senses, times, spaces, and other senses.
But it doesn’t stop there because I am a part of it. I know the above and other cases and I know that other people do that differently.

But there is more. A is A is for the “is” different from a feline as the cat is black.
The first one is an internal cognitive evaluation, the second is the mention of “is” but not usage and the 3rd one is external sensory experience.
Now notice that I didn’t just use the “is”, I explained the different usages.
And regarding knowledge for its different versions, there are 3 factors. When to use it, how to use it and how it works.

And it is weird for the difference between following instructions versus question instructions.
Questioning instructions require reflection or in effect metacognition if I want to check myself, because I must for any context ask how does work, work and what happens if I use another version of work. I.e. a different method, for which I have to have in effect a meta-method for compare different methods. Nice, right!

So here it is. A method is a measurement act using a set of measurement standards, but for the world as such, there are several ones and several different combinations, but in general for the following:
Time, space, objective, intersubjective as cognitive rules, and norms including moral ones and/or the individuals as for a general result and individual for the specific nature and nurture.

Thus there are in my culture the following different categories of knowledge.

• Hard science
• Social science
• Psychology
• Humanities
• Human science
• History
• Logic/math
• Science of science

There is no single common factor for all of them, not even objective, because they rely on different contradictory versions of objective.
In effect they all have different axiomatic assumptions/dogma/paradigms and for science of science there are 2, which are different and produce different results.

So here are the limits of the science of science as an in-effect dichotomy of what is and what we ought to do about that. They are different because the first one explains what you can do, but the second is what you should do.
So here it is for philosophy as a form of knowledge for its 2 variants:

“philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. …”
Philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
Notice the “or” and that is the 2 traditions for which they are in effect different.

The one is analytical for what the whole is and the other is phenomenological for what it works as human and what that means.
So here it is for the 2 as methods:

• Always use objective reason, logic and truth/proof/evidence
• Always explain and account for the different measurement acts for: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

Now a note about measurement and things. It is not just instruments and physical things. It is all versions of evaluation of experiences and for me, not as true or false but as same/similar/different for what they are as that and how that matters to me and/or other humans.

So here is an example in general terms for what I was taught to do. There are now 2 humans, me, and another human. I am a professional now, so I have authority, because I must decide how to help the other human. I do so for a lot of factors. Power, resources, ability, and formal and custom norms. And I must do so for us both as in nature as relevant, in culture as relevant and as individuals and then act. So, I did that and apparently helped the other human, because I checked later, and it seemed to have worked. I also reported back to my 2 bosses, one administrative and the other functional and got 2 different results. For the former what I did was correct and for the latter wrong. I then checked their behavior and found that they apparently used 2 different methods for functionality and norms. And I had learned something more.

Now I jump context.
Thus, for STEM in effect, they make models of what is for different versions of objective, independent of the mess of subjectivity as feelings/emotions, or how to deal with subjectivity in a correct manner and what matters existentially as a human for making models as objective in their tradition.
But I was conditioned differently, because I was a cog in the machinery of the landscape and it was my responsibly and duty, because I had chosen that responsibly and duty, and thus had a limited authority to do so in the limited context of me and other humans.
In any one given limited time and space for several contexts including myself as one context.

Thus, the scientists make different models. That is all good and fine but doing that in the landscape as a practice is a different craft for humans as subjectively humans.
And some of them do is-ought differently and that is okay if they don’t cross the demarcation between how it works objectively and how we ought to deal with that subjectively. That is 2 different kinds of education, and I was taught both, because I had to consider both.

And yes, I can over-analyze both as bad and good, because I know how do to do both.

Is this not a episode of a resolution of your own cognitive dissonance?

How do I resolve this differences?
No body is right/there is no right.
There is no authority on being right.
Each of these disciplines are correct for themselves but this is the limit to their correctness.

I am always correct for myself, my ideology, my methods.
Except when I'm not. That is the only time I need to deal with conflict resolution.

Is this difference in method something you'd see as good for me or would you it as something which need to be corrected?

 

[Ella S.]

Yeah, I know. So, I will deal with the limit of logic first for the binary way and compare it to a triad.
I will only use one example, namely the law of identity and for the rest take for granted that all other cases I use, are comparing cases as binary versus triadic, however indirect.
So, A is A, that is so for a limited case of time and space in the sense of A for the following metacognition. A is A, is the same if I reduce away time and space for the process of getting same, but if I add time and space this A is only like this A as similar and different since the process happens in time and space, so this A is a different time and space than this A.
Neat, right.

There are limits to logic. This is not one of them. A is A is still true even within spacetime.

You can be more specific and define A with specific data about its location in space and the time it exists in, although this is usually unnecessary.

But there is more. A is A is for the “is” different from a feline as the cat is black.
The first one is an internal cognitive evaluation, the second is the mention of “is” but not usage and the 3rd one is external sensory experience.

This is not a distinction that is made within logic. "Is" has a very rigid formal definition and it has the same meaning in both cases.

You could say that one is a categorical statement and the other is a statement about identity. This tells us more about the statement itself than the "is" operator, though.

Logic/math

I appreciate that you associate logic with math. This is controversial in the study of logic, as philosophers, linguists, and computer scientists also try to claim logic as their own. Most of logic is based on propositional calculus or Boolean algebra of some sort, though, at its core, which makes it an extension of mathematics, in my opinion.

There is no single common factor for all of them, not even objective, because they rely on different contradictory versions of objective.
In effect they all have different axiomatic assumptions/dogma/paradigms and for science of science there are 2, which are different and produce different results.

I partially disagree. I think the scientific method can be extrapolated from logic using critical rationalism and I think that at least the formal sciences, social sciences, and natural sciences all have the same foundations.

The formal sciences will always be more certain than the natural sciences and the natural sciences will always be more certain than the social sciences but this is due to the field they are studying and not necessarily a difference in approach.

So here are the limits of the science of science as an in-effect dichotomy of what is and what we ought to do about that. They are different because the first one explains what you can do, but the second is what you should do.

I think moral realists would probably disagree that there's a difference between description and prescription. I tentatively agree with them. What exactly does "should" mean if it isn't evaluating an action according to a specific set of criteria? That evaluation would be descriptive.

I think the confusion is that most people want to do what they "should" do, so telling them what they "should" do can often have a persuasive character to it. That's not really a factor when deciding the truth of the statement, though.

Now I jump context.
Thus, for STEM in effect, they make models of what is for different versions of objective, independent of the mess of subjectivity as feelings/emotions, or how to deal with subjectivity in a correct manner and what matters existentially as a human for making models as objective in their tradition.
But I was conditioned differently, because I was a cog in the machinery of the landscape and it was my responsibly and duty, because I had chosen that responsibly and duty, and thus had a limited authority to do so in the limited context of me and other humans.
In any one given limited time and space for several contexts including myself as one context.

Thus, the scientists make different models. That is all good and fine but doing that in the landscape as a practice is a different craft for humans as subjectively humans.
And some of them do is-ought differently and that is okay if they don’t cross the demarcation between how it works objectively and how we ought to deal with that subjectively. That is 2 different kinds of education, and I was taught both, because I had to consider both.

And yes, I can over-analyze both as bad and good, because I know how do to do both.

The point of both engineering and science is not to form dogmatic models. It's to test their models.

I don't know why people keep trying to treat scientific consensus like it's a Catholic diocese. There's too much open disagreement and doubt about its own findings for it to be dogmatic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is this not a episode of a resolution of your own cognitive dissonance?

How do I resolve this differences?
Nobody is right/there is no right.
There is no authority on being right.
Each of these disciplines are correct for themselves but this is the limit to their correctness.

I am always correct for myself, my ideology, my methods.
Except when I'm not. That is the only time I need to deal with conflict resolution.

Is this difference in method something you'd see as good for me or would you it as something which need to be corrected?

Okay, sorry for the late answer.
The point is that in practice all moral systems are in effect axiomatic,
So here is a limited set of them.

I always do what is best for me.
I always do what is best for the group.
I always do what is best for a given individual, even if bad for me in some sense.

I use all 3 as not always always for different contexts and thus, yes, that is for coherence a variant of cognitive dissonance in some sense. More if you want it.

 

[Nakosis]

Okay, sorry for the late answer.
The point is that in practice all moral systems are in effect axiomatic,
So here is a limited set of them.

I always do what is best for me.
I always do what is best for the group.
I always do what is best for a given individual, even if bad for me in some sense.

I use all 3 as not always always for different contexts and thus, yes, that is for coherence a variant of cognitive dissonance in some sense. More if you want it.

Aren't you the one, always deciding what is best?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aren't you the one, always deciding what is best?

Yes, but best is relative for the context.
As absurd as it is, I was conditioned to accept that for some contexts the best is bad for me as me.
Here it is for philosophy as per Ayn Rand as per Objectivism and her axiom.
- The highest axiom for any human is the survival of that human individually for all contexts.

Strange as it seems even that one is not the only possible axiom and I was trained to weigh different axioms differently depending on context.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, but best is relative for the context.
As absurd as it is, I was conditioned to accept that for some contexts the best is bad for me as me.
Here it is for philosophy as per Ayn Rand as per Objectivism and her axiom.
- The highest axiom for any human is the survival of that human individually for all contexts.

Strange as it seems even that one is not the only possible axioms and I was trained to weigh different axioms differently depending on context.

I certainly agree that context is important.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

Thus there are in my culture the following different categories of knowledge.

• Hard science
• Social science
• Psychology
• Humanities
• Human science
• History
• Logic/math
• Science of science

There is no single common factor for all of them, not even objective, because they rely on different contradictory versions of objective.
In effect they all have different axiomatic assumptions/dogma/paradigms and for science of science there are 2, which are different and produce different results.

Your missing the most important one spiritual insight.
This is the most important because a spiritual man understands all of these things as everything becomes one. They all blend into each other, but containment and remembrance of them is within the spiritual knowledge.