Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
So since two experts in their fields have bomb-throwing political blogs, you think this is illustrative of the point?

You claimed that "serious social scientists" do not have blogs like the one quoted. I provided examples of "serious social scientists" that have blogs like the one quoted.

I suppose direct evidence of a point in contravention to your own might not be something you consider to be illustrative, but then I imagine you're well above confirmation bias, so that simply doesn't seem likely.

biccat wrote:
Neither Krugman nor Chomsky would write something so trite (ok, maybe Krugman) in their fields.

I doubt that, as both men have written extensively on topics that either they, or others, have covered before. Additionally, they have both written extensively in other fields, often on matters that have been long since settled. Similarly, the quoted blog was written on philosophy of science by a person who appears to be a psychologist, so that what he penned was unoriginal is certainly forgivable.

biccat wrote:
But that's assuming you consider him serious.

Unless serious means "someone I like" I imagine very few people would ever consider Krugman "not serious". Having a Nobel prize and more than 200 publications tends to lead to being regarded with seriousness.

If, as I suspect, you are using serious in that capacity, then it would be kind of you to simply use the correct terminology, rather than attempting to dance around your point. Because, quite honestly, it seems at the moment that you aren't really taking issue with social scientists so much as social scientists who make points with which you do not agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Not circular logic, I am merely stating that harm is bad in the medical field and saying why it is as opposed to philosphy where hurting may be good.

No, you stated that hurt constitutes harm. Leaving aside that the infliction of pain is not necessarily harmful in the sense relevant to medicine, claiming that X is Y and therefore assumptive of all properties of Y only follows if both X and Y exist as premises; meaning that you included your disputed premises in your conclusion.

halonachos wrote:
If I had said that hurting is always bad, the fact that bad is painful is proof of this, then it would be circular logic.

No, flatly incorrect. You should look up the concept of circular logic.

warpcrafter wrote:There is a point where millions of corroborating anecdotes gain a weight of their own. That's what us non-scientists call common sense. Perhaps if scientists possessed some of that, their science would have a better reception.

Except when it's done in a non scientific manner you get a bunch of yahoos reinforcing themselves.
What your describing is just mob think- which is generally wrong.

I wish there was a scientific study that studied the effect of personal opinions on scientific studies.

GG

Howard A Treesong wrote:OP can be summed up thus - anecdote does not make for data.

BrassScorpion wrote:

That's a terrible graph, what does it even mean? There's no labels.

I had assumed it was simply a listing of the opinions and comments received from the blogger's Twitter feed... it only goes up to 14 because not many actually read the blog.

generalgrog wrote:I wish there was a scientific study that studied the effect of personal opinions on scientific studies.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I wish there was a scientific study that studied the effect of personal opinions on scientific studies.

GG

There are actually many of those. Experimenter bias is a popular topic in a number of fields.

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"

Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."

I am saying that when you hurt someone you cause harm to them. The very definition of harm is to cause physical, mental, or moral deterioration or to put it simply to damage or injure someone. That's the textbook definition of harm, not some misconstrued meaning that can be twisted but the accepted definition.

original hippocratic oath wrote:I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

In the medical field they pledge an oath to cause no harm because it negatively affects the patient. In effect if a doctor causes harm to his patient he is not following his oath which would potentially cause the doctor to lose his license for malpractice.

So when you hurt someone, you cause harm to them, and in the medical field harm is bad. Very simple, not circular, but a line of ideas leading to the overall result that hurting someone is bad because in the medical field causing harm is bad. Again, this was put into contrast with philosophy where harm has no restrictions on whether or not it is good put forth in some oath.

So to repeat myself; Wondering about whether or not pain is bad relies on the field of philosophy as opposed to the medical field where harm is always negative, bad, and not at all nice.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I wish there was a scientific study that studied the effect of personal opinions on scientific studies.

GG

There are actually many of those. Experimenter bias is a popular topic in a number of fields.

Hence the recognition of the need for the double blind trial protocol.

dogma wrote:

And then we have to wonder if, while touching the stove hurts, hurting is bad. Some people enjoy pain.

This is true, I once nailed my testicles to my workbench for the purpose of my own sexual gratification and found the experience highly enjoyable.

Well, until I realised id left my pliers out of arms reach.

mattyrm wrote:

dogma wrote:

And then we have to wonder if, while touching the stove hurts, hurting is bad. Some people enjoy pain.

This is true, I once nailed my testicles to my workbench for the purpose of my own sexual gratification and found the experience highly enjoyable.

Well, until I realised id left my pliers out of arms reach.

halonachos wrote:
I am saying that when you hurt someone you cause harm to them. The very definition of harm is to cause physical, mental, or moral deterioration or to put it simply to damage or injure someone. That's the textbook definition of harm, not some misconstrued meaning that can be twisted but the accepted definition.

original hippocratic oath wrote:I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

In the medical field they pledge an oath to cause no harm because it negatively affects the patient. In effect if a doctor causes harm to his patient he is not following his oath which would potentially cause the doctor to lose his license for malpractice.

So when you hurt someone, you cause harm to them, and in the medical field harm is bad. Very simple, not circular, but a line of ideas leading to the overall result that hurting someone is bad because in the medical field causing harm is bad. Again, this was put into contrast with philosophy where harm has no restrictions on whether or not it is good put forth in some oath.

So to repeat myself; Wondering about whether or not pain is bad relies on the field of philosophy as opposed to the medical field where harm is always negative, bad, and not at all nice.

Otherwise all surgeons would be going to vivisectionist hell!

Also for bad papers has anyone read the Acupuncture paper about 2 months ago that basically showed that acupuncture as the same effect as a placebo then concluded acupuncture is great?

Oh and in relation to all the stats:

You know, nevermind what I wrote here. I am going to look for the delete button now.

I don't think it's that people think that their opinion trumps scientific research, so much as a general resentment of being told what to think in a dogmatic fashion:

'Hey, you shouldn't smoke, dude. Smoking causes cancer.'

'No it doesn't.'

'YES IT DOES, SCIENCE SAYS SO!'

'Oh?'

'Yes.'

'How?'

'I'm not sure... But it's bad, so just stop it.'

This sort of thing is the problem - the people arguing from a scientific standpoint often have as little scientific knowledge as the people they are arguing against. I'm not going to just accept that spanking causes anti-social behaviour purely because someone tells me that that's what the statistics point to - I'd want to know more about how they arrived at that conclusion. For example, I'd want to know if alcohol was a factor in the households sampled, if so, how many units per day/week, I'd want to know how often they beat their children, how many parents in the household etc. There's nothing wrong with asking questions about a conclusion that seems counter-intuitive.

Albatross wrote:I'd want to know more about how they arrived at that conclusion.

... dunno, how about you go read the study and find out?

Most people are too lazy for that, and expect everything to be handed to them. Entitlement comes from across the political spectrum.

Albatross wrote:I don't think it's that people think that they're opinion trumps scientific research, so much as a general resentment of being told what to think in a dogmatic fashion:

'Hey, you shouldn't smoke, dude. Smoking causes cancer.'

'No it doesn't.'

'YES IT DOES, SCIENCE SAYS SO!'

'Oh?'

'Yes.'

'How?'

'I'm not sure... But it's bad, so just stop it.'

This sort of thing is the problem - the people arguing from a scientific standpoint often have as little scientific knowledge as the people they are arguing against. I'm not going to just accept that spanking causes anti-social behaviour purely because someone tells me that that's what the statistics point to - I'd want to know more about how they arrived at that conclusion. For example, I'd want to know if alcohol was a factor in the households sampled, if so, how many units per day/week, I'd want to know how often they beat their children, how many parents in the household etc. There's nothing wrong with asking questions about a conclusion that seems counter-intuitive.

Most people don't have your level of knowledge though. There's no point people asking questions if they aren't educationally qualified to understand the answers.

I believe anyone of normal level of intelligence can understand principles of science and mathematics if explained well. If they know some basic questions to ask about how a study was constructed, they would be in a better position to distinguish between the kind of crap that gets into the newspapers and politicians's speeches all the time, and studies that may actually yield some valid information.

It isn't necessary to know statistics inside out. People take a lot of science on trust already, because it has been proven to work.

The BBC has been criticised recently about this kind of thing.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I believe anyone of normal level of intelligence can understand principles of science and mathematics if explained well. If they know some basic questions to ask about how a study was constructed, they would be in a better position to distinguish between the kind of crap that gets into the newspapers and politicians's speeches all the time, and studies that may actually yield some valid information.

I think that, in some places, the scientific model is being replaced by political agendas. For instance, another California group sought state funding to conduct a "study" that proved that third hand exposure to smoke would cause genetic defects... This was not to see whether there ARE any effects, but rather they already know that it is a problem. Just an FYI, third hand smoke is what a person is "exposed" to when they buy a car that was previously owned by a smoker, or the same thing for buying/renting a house etc. The study group felt so confidently that their point could be seen, and used in future legislation in California and the country to further impose limits on smoking and tobacco use.


To me, IMO the "scientific process" should go something more along the lines of, "is there an affect from doing activity X, and if so, what is it?" not, "Activity X causes this to happen, and that's bad (or good)" This same thing has been going on since the late 60s and into the 70s and beyond with Nuclear power, though the "clean" energy people have been extremely successful in their goals, even though their claims are completely unfounded. There are folks out there who would have you believe that nuclear power is unsafe. In the course of nuclear power in the western world, there have been 0 casualties in any nuclear disaster. Not even in the latest incident in Japan. How much more safe can you make a reactor that withstood a massive earthquake AND a tsunami, and only then did it have any problems at all. It's the same with Three Mile Island, which would have actually not had ANY meltdowns or emergencies if it had not been for legislation to shut it down.

Ensis Ferrae: So I take it you dislike efficacy tests in pharmaceuticals?

Melissia wrote:Ensis Ferrae: So I take it you dislike efficacy tests in pharmaceuticals?

What I dislike are things that tend to lead to laws that infringe on what I consider a First Amendment right. Personally, if a pharmaceutical company wants to test their shampoo on dogs and cats, or their latest version of Viagra on Parakeets and chimpanzees, then more power to them; They typically don't do much with law making, as they would be killing their own industry by doing too much in that realm.

Smoking and nukes are your 1st amendment rights?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Melissia wrote:Ensis Ferrae: So I take it you dislike efficacy tests in pharmaceuticals?

What I dislike are things that tend to lead to laws that infringe on what I consider a First Amendment right. Personally, if a pharmaceutical company wants to test their shampoo on dogs and cats, or their latest version of Viagra on Parakeets and chimpanzees, then more power to them; They typically don't do much with law making, as they would be killing their own industry by doing too much in that realm.

... efficacy tests are tests that specifically look for a positive result and do their best to ignore side effects.

IE: "Drug X causes Y to happen, and this is good."

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:I'd want to know more about how they arrived at that conclusion.

... dunno, how about you go read the study and find out?

Did you even read my post? I'm talking about a specific set of circumstances, under which the people making 'science says...'-type statements have about as much understanding of the subject as their opponent, i.e. none. If you're making an argument from scientific evidence, and a person asks how that evidence was used to arrive at a conclusion, your statement 'how about you go read the study and find out?' is basically an admittance that you haven't got a fething clue what you're talking about, and just like to sound authoritative. If you understood the position that you were arguing from properly, you could explain how a conclusion was arrived at, with no problems at all.

Your rhetorical strategy would be to simply compound your arrogance, and throw rudeness and dismissiveness into the mix too. Brilliant. Must be why you win so many arguments.

feeder wrote:Smoking and nukes are your 1st amendment rights?

Smoking yes, but nukes.. in the power sense, just makes sense as a safe alternative to coal, and one that is more "green" than hydro electric, or arguably even solar.

Wait, I'm lost - how does banning animal testing infringe upon a persons 1st Amendment rights?

Moreover, if it did, why should that matter?

Albatross wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:I'd want to know more about how they arrived at that conclusion.

... dunno, how about you go read the study and find out?

Did you even read my post? I'm talking about a specific set of circumstances, under which the people making 'science says...'-type statements have about as much understanding of the subject as their opponent, i.e. none.

Right, but the problem is that if they're reading it in the news, and simply dismiss it because noone's there to explain it to them directly, that's laziness.

Albatross wrote:Wait, I'm lost - how does banning animal testing infringe upon a persons 1st Amendment rights?

Moreover, if it did, why should that matter?

By and large, from what I have read, most corporations are supposed to be treated as individual citizens for many things, such as the Freedom of Speech, and as anonymous donators to political campaigns.

Plus, I think that, in many cases there are products that actually need to be tested on animals, because there are stupid people out there who give these products to their animals. For instance, I am sure that we all know at least one person who washes their dog's fur in the bath with "human" shampoo, without any sort of testing done on dogs, who's to say what could happen? Also, I recently read about cat owners in California getting prescriptions for Prozac for their cats. Why the feth does a cat need prozac?!?

feeder wrote:Smoking and nukes are your 1st amendment rights?

No, second amendment.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
In the course of nuclear power in the western world, there have been 0 casualties in any nuclear disaster.

While I agree with your statements. The above is actually false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

So., what's the point of this thread then?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Albatross wrote:Wait, I'm lost - how does banning animal testing infringe upon a persons 1st Amendment rights?

Moreover, if it did, why should that matter?

By and large, from what I have read, most corporations are supposed to be treated as individual citizens for many things, such as the Freedom of Speech, and as anonymous donators to political campaigns.

So, does the 1st Amendment govern an individual's right to perform experiments on animals, or something?

Plus, I think that, in many cases there are products that actually need to be tested on animals, because there are stupid people out there who give these products to their animals.

I love this statement. And you.

I'd like to point out that just because most peoples opinions don't trump scientific studies, doesn't mean mine don't. Over 100% of the Mes surveyed agree. So nyah!