I sure wish I knew how to quote nicely like you. I bet that's in a FAQ somewhere... :-)

"Newton's law of gravitation can be tested empirically. It can be falsified by experiment. MBTI can't. That's the definition of science and non-science."

Depends upon what you mean. Just because Newton's models have been "falsified" by experiments in certain situations doesn't mean that the model isn't useful in other situations. It just isn't the be-all end-all of Truth.

"Exactly. MBTI is all based on correlation, not causality. Correlation and statistics can be useful in giving someone the idea for a testable scientific theory. But until you posit a causality and can test it empirically, it's isn't science yet. "

Not true, as my example of gravitation demonstrates. Gravity is an extremely reliable model that *correlates* with the ordinarily observed behavior of what we call "mass". Not in all situations, but in many useful and regularly encountered (by humans) situations. However, nobody knows what *causes* gravitation. In fact, causality was never part of the "Law". That doesn't make it unscientific.

If you accept the existence of a non-material aspect of reality (which I believe I can demonstrate using examples of language, zero, love, beauty, etc, etc), then it is reasonable to be interested in correlations and models of that aspect of reality. As reasonable, I believe, as being interested in creating models of the correlations we observe in the physical world.

Your statement seems to be: if it's not scientific in a material (physical) sense, it isn't true or it isn't real, or it isn't valuable.

There are many directions to take the conversation:

- I can suggest (as I have) that the physical, material aspect of reality is not the whole story and "science" should not be constrained by that demonstrably false assumption.

- I can propose that science isn't concerned with finding Truth, but only *approximations*, or models that *explain* reality after the fact, as Feynman, Einstein, Scroedinger and many others have stated.

- Or, I can suggest that whether something is "scientific" is not the ultimate condition of something being useful or good. To pick an example somewhat relevant to the bbs: music.

To the extent that something claims to make claims of fact that can be demonstrated to be false (as in astrology) I agree with you, Tony. I don't think that is the case with the MBTI. I think it is intended only to be a general model showing trends of groups of people.

To the extent that it makes claims of percentages of populations, etc, it *is* verifyable and falsifyable, and it has been validated consistently, to the best of my understanding. That makes it totally different than astrology.

Please keep in mind, I agree with you that most people don't think about using these models. But let's understand exactly what it is *claiming* and base the discussion on that.

Jim