NOT READY YET!!!

Introduction

Goal

The information presented on this site
does not require any special knowledge to understand it,
other than the reduced requirements of its time for a Soviet engineer. There were three of them:
The ability to read, the ability to write, and the ability to count(+,-,*,:).
In our case, the first condition is sufficient.
Naturally, the information presented here does not claim to be the "truth in the last instance".
Criticism is welcome,
you can express your thoughts/comments on any point.
Registration is not required, generally accepted rules of communication of civilized people are assumed for granted.
If you have at least some intellectual power,
you must have asked yourself this kind of question many times:
How does one

and so on and so forth.... and generally how not to get confused in this extremely complex and contradictory world.
After a thoughtful examination of the table_of_content of our site you will become visibly clearer with this terrible problematic, in addition, you will recover mentally and emotionally, at least we think it's very likely.
Prerequisite: the capacity for critical analysis (including your own person) and some assiduity in thinking.
The central article on the site is an adapted translation of a chapter from the book "Im schwarzen Loch ist der Teufel los" by the German physicist Ulrich Walter.
A rough translation of the book's title:
"There's a hell of a lot going on in the black hole."
This popular science book presents a modern view of the world (the universe, various aspects of its origin and development, and the laws of physics) with an emphasis on such a "fantastic" phenomenon as the BLACK HORSE.
There is also a chapter devoted to one of the most important methodological principles - "Ockham's Razor".
The author uses a concrete example to explain its essence in detail, successfully combining the requirements of "high" science with normal human language and common sense.
You can read it at once,
without getting bogged down by other menu items.
Although, in our enlightened opinion, they should also be read, as there is certainly (probably) some information there that is useful to calm your nervousness, put your own worldview in order and (quite useful) to create/correct one's
General Theory of Everything.
In addition, practical recommendations can be found immediately, which are the consequences of the theoretical analysis and the example discussed - Conclusions useful for ordinary life:
You can also immediately read a brief explanation:
What Ockham's Razor is.

General provisions

Are there any basics, methods, or tools that can be used to always and unambiguously make correct judgments, conclusions, results, check information and, accordingly, make "good" decisions.
Unfortunately, there is no such philosopher's stone (basis). However all is not so hopeless.
We are interested in cognition of the world, the laws operating in it, and how to understand all this?
Mankind has achieved so much, we have so much of knowledge and a myriad of practical implementations. How did we get all this?
The process of trying to know began a long time ago, this fascinating pastime has been engaged in esotericism, religion, astrology, kabbalah, metaphysics.
But the vast majority of available knowledge and no less than 99% of the practical results of cleverness lies on the conscience of science, more precisely academic science (AS), which was formed about 500 years ago.
Therefore, the primacy here should be given
to the modern Academy of Sciences.
The main difference of the Academy of Sciences from other branches of knowledge of the world consists in the following:
AS developed rules, criteria, various intellectual instruments, which together (when properly applied) yield quite reliable results.
This foundation, which AS uses, is called the scientific methodology.
Possible objections here.

Thinking and Proving.

Below is adapted text from Robert Wilson's book, The Psychology of Evolution Apparently the most important principles of AS are the principle of verifiability of results and the collective, democratic organization of the scientific community and of scientific research itself.
It is thanks to this that AS is able to combat subjectivism more or less successfully.
The following is a text that lucidly explains this thesis.
As Leonard Orr aptly put it, the human brain behaves as
if it consists of two parts: the Thinker and the Proving.
The Thinker
The Thinker can think about almost anything.
We know from history: he can think that the earth lies on the backs of endless turtles, or that it is empty inside.
The thinker may think that man is mortal, immortal, or both mortal and immortal (reincarnation theory).
He can be sure that, for example, Russia has attacked Ukraine and is conducting a full-fledged war exclusively for the good of the two brotherly peoples: Russian and Ukrainian.
The Thinker can think of a disease and recovery.
That is, the Thinker is characterized by Creativity and unlimited flight of fancy.
The Proving
The function of the Proving One is relatively simple.
It is to provide proof of the results of the Thinker's creative activity. Why is it simple?
Because data, reasoning that contradicts the Thinker's opinion, is simply disregarded.
On the other hand, any evidence, even circumstantial evidence, of an opinion is enough to conclude:
the correctness of the Thinker's judgment is proven.
The rule is simple:
whatever the Thinker likes, the Proving One proves.
A prime example of the Thinker/Doer cooperation, which led to the terrible catastrophe of 1933-1945:
The Thinker feels that all Jews are rich, and unfairly so, the Proving One will prove it.
He will find the right information that the poorest
Jew from the poorest ghetto secretly possesses great wealth.
Similarly, feminists are capable of believing that all men (including vagrants who live on the streets) degrade and exploit all women (the Queen of England in particular).
If Thinker thinks that "holy water" will cure his runny nose, The Proving One will get indisputable proven results confirming this knowledge.
Of course, it is fairly easy to realize that other people's brains are set up that way.
It is much harder to recognize that our own brains function on the same principle.

Scientists and Science

Of course, the quality of Thinking and Proving varies from person to person.
Some suffer from morbid credulity, while others have a great deal of skepticism.
As a rule, specialists are less prone to exuberant fantasy in their field of knowledge. However, this is only true as a statistical
trend and does not invalidate the phenomenon described above.
Scientists are reputed to be the most objective representatives of humanity. However, the biographies of great scientists do not really support this view.
They were as emotional, as prejudiced, as famous men of art.
In 1905, most physicists thought Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong. The great Einstein believed until 1920 that quantum theory was wrong,
despite the results of many experiments confirming it.
Fascinated by the idea of electric DC generators, Edison was firmly convinced that alternating current generators were very dangerous, even though they had been proven practically and theoretically to be safe.
For people far removed from technology - they are now used everywhere and their production numbers in the tens of thousands every year.

Continuous scientific and technological progress is achieved not because the brain of scientists does not obey the action of psychological laws, but because scientific methodology, based on critical thinking, collective creativity, and objective methods of verification, eventually "grinds down" personal theories, opinions, arguments, and biases and gets a (more) objective result as a result.

However, it is logical to ask:
On what basis and why does the Thinker adopt this particular viewpoint?
This fundamental question is discussed here, the answer to which is not an easy one.

My tongue is my enemy. Terminology.

The importance of clarity in words, sentences, and statements cannot be overemphasized. A great deal of misunderstanding, distortion of meaning, ambiguity arises - quite objectively - because of the properties of human language.
It is therefore necessary to define and use precisely in reasoning, in discussion, in theory, in research, in concepts and terms.
Equally necessary is the avoidance of ambiguity, of imprecise formulations.
Going by words and sentences - is like walking through a minefield.
Heaps of unpleasant dangers lie in wait for you at every step. A simple example.
Consider an informational phrase:
"This site is for inquisitive and not very smart people."
Do you understand the meaning of this phrase?
It seems to be nothing complicated, everything is clear. Actually it is not.
The first interpretation is:
if a person is inquisitive and not very smart, then the site is for him, that is, a person must have two properties.
Second interpretation:
The site is for both inquisitive(or) and not-so-smart people.
That is, a person only need to possess at least one of these properties.
Conclusion:
this phrase contains at least two different statements.
Which interpretation is the correct one?
It seems to me that the first one, to you that the second one.
Who is right?
Either the one with the higher position,
or we have to torture the author, and what exactly did he mean?
As you can see, even in such uncomplicated statements,
there is easily apparent or implicit ambiguity and ambiguity.
It is not surprising at all that in today's world, with the sheer amount of data available to anyone, to understand the information received is:
falsehood, truth, objectivity, tendentiousness, half-truths, flawed judgments. etc. is incredibly difficult.
Aggressiveness, a degree of spitefulness, total denial of the opponent's arguments has become almost the norm in social media.
A recent book, Our Minimal Shared Reality ( Mai ...) deals with this very issue and, in our opinion, deals with various aspects in a very lucid, reasoned, critical way. true, fair, plausible The biggest controversial issues are scientifically tested The first thing to understand. should be to separate and clearly distinguish opinion from fact.
Write a comment
 
COMMENT