If we don't get ologies right , then we will never survive . The truth is what science should be after , beyond politics , beyond money , beyond ego . Is truth , what is really going on , about knowledge . Knowledge is about truth . Without truth there is only what we think , not what is really , true . So far what is really found , does not reflect the realitiy of ologies . Political correctness , and the like is what many hold dear . When we come to the point of a mature being , then we come to a truth of ourselves . That Humanity can only survive without blinders to our history , ancient history and to our full potential. river
Your observation has to do with the difference between the processing of memory, via emotions versus via intellect. For example, PC is all about emotions and not intellect. It is based on feelings, leading to a narrow way of looking at reality. Intellect is not about emotions, so there is more flexibility in terms of data. If you don't do along with PC and its sentiments, you are isolated by walls other will set up. If we remove emotions, these walls can come down. But as long as emotions rules, its nature is to omit data that is not consistent with the group hug. In the early days, connected to the invention of psychology, humans began exploring their emotional natures, since the narrowing affect of emotions was often found to be the source of many types of psychological and adaptation problems. The emotions can fixate and not see the other side. One can fixate of sadness and not see the good things that are part of one's life. Therapy was useful since it made the emotions conscience, so a more open intellect was able to leave the box of emotional fixation. In more recent times, the political left distorted this healthy approach of going from emotions to intellect, to attempting to go from intellect to emotions. It tries to make men more in touch with their feelings, thereby placing male intellect second to feelings. This narrowing of the mind and data set, allows anything to appear to go, even bad science, since in the confines of a narrowed reality data set and the proper feeling, anything can appear kosher. Intellect uses a larger data set, which can't be seen by emotions, and often appears wrong to the emotional dominant. Truth can appear wrong and wrong can appear right of wrong caters to the emotional ambience. If you look at Trump haters, the emotion is hate, Their data set only contains data that reinforces the hate. It can;'t think outside that box, since data outside will induce conflicting emotions that can get you exiled from the group hug. Good therapy will attempt to show how emotions can narrow the data field into its own image, such that truth cannot be seem beyond a narrow box of truth, that is not objective with intellect.
The English suffix '-logy' or '-ology' derive from a Greek word that meant 'speech'. Today in English, they more often refer to writing. What precedes the suffix indicates the nature or subject of the speech/writing. Hence 'trilogy' in literature suggests threefold writing. 'Homology' means something like 'are said to be the same'. In English, '-ology' often indicates scholarly or scientific writing or speech. That can indicate broad subject areas such as 'theology' (scholarly speech/writing about the gods), 'biology' (scholarly speech/writing about life) or 'geology' (scholarly speech/writing about the earth). It can also be used in more technical ways, such as 'orthology' in evolutionary molecular genetics. 'Orthology' (and 'ortholog') means something like 'said ('-logy') to be 'straight' ('ortho-', from another Greek word) meaning in this technical usage two identical/similar sequences of DNA that are derived from an evolutionary line of descent. In most areas of scholarship, including science, it often helps to know a little Greek and Latin so that the technical vocabulary starts to make sense.
Even in Ancient Greek times there was a distinction between the two meanings of the suffix, and while the suffixes shared a common root (a word meaning "to speak") they were actually different sources. One meaning refers to a speech or writing, so, as you say, trilogy would be a collection of three writings, speeches, stories etc. This derives directly from the Greek word "logos" meaning speech, writing, story. The other meaning, however, even in Ancient Greek, already meant "the study of...". This derives from the Greek word "-leg" or "-log" meaning "someone who speaks about...". A theolog, for example, would be someone who speaks about the matter of god(s). From that you get "-logos" meaning "the study of..." which is where we get words like theology. It's a subtle difference in roots, I suppose, but worth noting.
You mean like Mathology? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And then there are -ologies that do not follow logic, such as Astrology. While "logic" does originally come from the same root word "logos", it actually comes more directly from the Greek word "logike" meaning reasoning, although "logos" was often used to mean "reason". So while it might seem that -ologies follow logic, the relationship is really only in the etymology of the words rather than anything more formal.
ology ; 1) denoting a subject of study or interest . ;2) denoting a characteristic of speech or language . denoting a type of discourse . Origin ; Greek ; French --Medieval latin Logie -- logia logy There is no downward arrow ; so French to logie ; Medieval Latin to logia . Oh..#1 is what I was referring to , to be clear .
Even with their vastly poorer conceptions of the world and outright myths, people of ancient times still outputted practical inventions and schemes which enabled them to control and utilize the resources of their environment to a lesser magnitude than today. Which is to say, rather than chasing after the philosophical idealist's long love-affair with the wandering butterfly of "truth", the emphasis should be on outputting effective or successful abstract and concrete tools (predictive and progress-enabling models, methods, engineering standards, technology, etc). A truth claim with a generic FITB placeholder like "This descriptive or prescriptive account and the way it is indexed / catalogued conforms to reality" isn't objectively found ready-made under a rock minus the mediation of human processes. It is information approved or set by the preferences and aims of an artificial system. Science disciplines are managed by the latter. Their canon for operation might embrace an underlying theme of trying to mimic the dispassion of overall existence (organization without intent and understanding) or trying to not to be guided by personal and political concerns ("how _X_ affects me and / or my tribe"). But in the end scientists and academic wonks are still "interested and involved" agents like everyone else, albeit mitigated in that respect. To use superdeterminism as a role player in a couple of examples (whose issues, BTW, fittingly revolve around the preoccupation with a true / false picture of nature -- in contrast to the aforementioned practical effectiveness / success; which goes to show how scientists do plant their feet in philosophical obsessions despite assorted claims to the contrary by some members of their own professional clan)... Where rejecting superdeterminism is an instance of personal or my group's preference, because it is "boring": Natalie Wolchover: “For us it seems like kind of a win-win,” Friedman said. “Either we close the loophole more and more, and we’re more confident in quantum theory, or we see something that could point toward new physics.” There’s a final possibility that many physicists abhor. It could be that the universe restricted freedom of choice from the very beginning — that every measurement was predetermined by correlations established at the Big Bang. “Superdeterminism,” as this is called, is “unknowable,” said Jan-Åke Larsson, a physicist at Linköping University in Sweden; the cosmic Bell test crew will never be able to rule out correlations that existed before there were stars, quasars or any other light in the sky. That means the freedom-of-choice loophole can never be completely shut. But given the choice between quantum entanglement and superdeterminism, most scientists favor entanglement — and with it, freedom. “If the correlations are indeed set [at the Big Bang], everything is preordained,” Larsson said. “I find it a boring worldview. I cannot believe this would be true.” --Experiment Reaffirms Quantum Weirdness ... Quanta Magazine ... Feb 7, 2017 Where superdeterminism should be ruled-out a priori in the management plan itself -- just as rejection of supernatural explanations (methodological naturalism) is a necessary feature of science's canon for operation: Luboš Motl: The main thing you should notice is that if there are KGB agents [figurative] working like that [superdeterminism], science cannot be trusted. Indeed, it's the ultimate conspiracy because the scientists' brains may be controlled [or were preset by early conditions] so that they always avoid learning the true essence of Nature and what is important about Her. In his 2010 book "Dance of the Photons", one of the four or so quantum-foundations workers who don't suffer from a severe psychopathology wrote: "[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature." [--Anton Zeilinger] If an agent is controlling what a scientist wants to ask and learn according to a rule the scientist can't really decode, science is indeed impossible. This is why Sabine Hossenfelder's claim that she is "testing" superdeterministic theories is an oxymoron at the very basic level. One can't really be scientifically testing any of these things because the main feature of superdeterminism is that it breaks the relationship between the results of any experiments and the information about "what is actually going on". That's why you may reliably throw Hossenfelder's paper into the trash bin right after you finish reading its title. --Superdeterminism: the ultimate conspiracy theory ... The Reference Frame (blog) ... October 05, 2013 It's not so much a matter of autonomy for scientists, as just random degrees of freedom being available in the course of experiments and theory-making which would eventually sift-out other possible routes than just the single, circuitous path that science was monotonously pre-ordained to follow (in the context of superdeterminism).
There is an explanation for super determinism, that can be understood using an analogy. If you look through both of your eyes, you can see the world in 3-D. If you cover one of your eyes, you will loose depth perception; z-axis, and the world appears to become more 2-D. Picture the scenario of researching the science of motion with a patch on one eye. Since the third dimension is not as clear cut, your models of motion will not adequately express 3-D, since you can't see in 3-D. Instead your theory will appear more 2-D but with a random variable, due to reality being 3-D. Models will seem logical and consistent with what is seen with one eye, but will need a fudge factor due to the 3-D affects you can't directly see with one eye but are part of 3-D reality. The same is true of the brain. We have two sides of the brain, however, we can only be conscious of one side at a time. For science, the conscious side is primarily the left side of the brain. The right side, still works but has an unconscious patch. Our models of reality, will reflect this limitation, such that we will conclude that super determinism; 3-D, is not possible but rather reality is 2-D plus random. The limitation is not based on reality but on the unconscious patch. It is possible to use both sides of the brain, but one at a time. The affect is like having two eyes, where you alternate opening and closing each eye, so only one is open at a time. This adds the third dimension and eliminates random. This is more than likely an evolutionary path for the humans of the future, that will transform knowledge away from a flat world ruled by random pixies to one in 3-D super determinism.
