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.
The flat earth thing mentioned earlier is very instructive of the point that is being made here, but you have to go back several hundred years to see that. At one time someone saying the earth wasn't flat seemed very dumb. After all, the learned experts said it was flat and you could confirm that "fact" with your own eyes. Oops, that turned out to be highly mistaken.
But because of all of our progress and discovery, we risk becoming conceited thinking that our current knowledge is more concrete than it actually is. In a few hundred years no doubt some of the things that we take as obviously, uncontroversially true will turn out not to have been so. It is wise then to listen to those whose arguments may be easy dismiss, because maybe they are telling us the world isn't flat and we should listen.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: The flat earth thing mentioned earlier is very instructive of the point that is being made here, but you have to go back several hundred years to see that. At one time someone saying the earth wasn't flat seemed very dumb. After all, the learned experts said it was flat and you could confirm that "fact" with your own eyes. Oops, that turned out to be highly mistaken.
But because of all of our progress and discovery, we risk becoming conceited thinking that our current knowledge is more concrete than it actually is. In a few hundred years no doubt some of the things that we take as obviously, uncontroversially true will turn out not to have been so. It is wise then to listen to those whose arguments may be easy dismiss, because maybe they are telling us the world isn't flat and we should listen.
Be that as it may, I still find the meteoric rise in the popularity of "Ancient Alien" programming to be both saddening for my loss of respect of my fellow Americans and saddening for the loss of my favorite TV channel that now just shows Alien/Illuminati/Conspiracy schlock...
How many people watch that show to laugh at it though? I don't know that I'd assume everyone who watches Ancient Aliens is automatically a believer. If anything, it might be an example as the OP proposed of people looking for things to ridicule in others.
Believe it or not I have at least one friend that is far left politically whereas I am not. However this friend is very nice and respectful when talking about such things. I have even to an extent in some cases changed my mind to his stance. Some might find this odd but it's not. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if I feel I might be to somebody being nice to me and respectful. However if somebody is an absolute jerk to me and insults me in various ways I find no reason to give them the joy of being right or 'winning' as they so often try to do.
It shouldn't be that hard. Just don't treat the other person like they're evil or stupid and try to explain your point like a civilized and decent person and they may even change their mind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/11 19:22:08
LordofHats wrote: How many people watch that show to laugh at it though? I don't know that I'd assume everyone who watches Ancient Aliens is automatically a believer. If anything, it might be an example as the OP proposed of people looking for things to ridicule in others.
I will now openly mock you for disagreeing with my assumption that they're all tinfoil hat wearers.
Here is some ointment for that wicked burn I just gave you!
LordofHats wrote: How many people watch that show to laugh at it though? I don't know that I'd assume everyone who watches Ancient Aliens is automatically a believer. If anything, it might be an example as the OP proposed of people looking for things to ridicule in others.
I will now openly mock you for disagreeing with my assumption that they're all tinfoil hat wearers.
Here is some ointment for that wicked burn I just gave you!
The whole "it was aliens" explanation seems to be the equivalent for saying "it was god's will" or I truly don't know but let's make wild absurd guesses at what it could be.
All that said this is not a productive conversation for this topic. So yeah let's stay on topic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/11 19:25:56
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: The flat earth thing mentioned earlier is very instructive of the point that is being made here, but you have to go back several hundred years to see that. At one time someone saying the earth wasn't flat seemed very dumb. After all, the learned experts said it was flat and you could confirm that "fact" with your own eyes. Oops, that turned out to be highly mistaken.
But because of all of our progress and discovery, we risk becoming conceited thinking that our current knowledge is more concrete than it actually is. In a few hundred years no doubt some of the things that we take as obviously, uncontroversially true will turn out not to have been so. It is wise then to listen to those whose arguments may be easy dismiss, because maybe they are telling us the world isn't flat and we should listen.
Actually, learned people knew that the world was round since at least the height of ancient Greece. Anybody that sailed was aware of curvature, and there was a reasonably accurate estimate for the earth's size based on measuring the angle of the sun. For most people, the earth as they knew it (the few square miles they lived in) was enough for them.
As for our knowledge not being concrete, it might be improved, but very little of our knowledge has been completely obsolete. Rather, the underlying theories have been replaced. As you may know, Newton drafted three laws of physics. Very technically, they are no longer always true. At subatomic levels, and with relativistic effects, classical mechanics is "wrong." Does that make our notion that an object at rest will stay at rest less "concrete." Only if you are particle physicist, really.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: The flat earth thing mentioned earlier is very instructive of the point that is being made here, but you have to go back several hundred years to see that. At one time someone saying the earth wasn't flat seemed very dumb. After all, the learned experts said it was flat and you could confirm that "fact" with your own eyes. Oops, that turned out to be highly mistaken.
But because of all of our progress and discovery, we risk becoming conceited thinking that our current knowledge is more concrete than it actually is. In a few hundred years no doubt some of the things that we take as obviously, uncontroversially true will turn out not to have been so. It is wise then to listen to those whose arguments may be easy dismiss, because maybe they are telling us the world isn't flat and we should listen.
Actually, learned people knew that the world was round since at least the height of ancient Greece. Anybody that sailed was aware of curvature, and there was a reasonably accurate estimate for the earth's size based on measuring the angle of the sun. For most people, the earth as they knew it (the few square miles they lived in) was enough for them.
As for our knowledge not being concrete, it might be improved, but very little of our knowledge has been completely obsolete. Rather, the underlying theories have been replaced. As you may know, Newton drafted three laws of physics. Very technically, they are no longer always true. At subatomic levels, and with relativistic effects, classical mechanics is "wrong." Does that make our notion that an object at rest will stay at rest less "concrete." Only if you are particle physicist, really.
Wasn't some hot shot from ancient Egypt the first to guess the size of the earth? I mean he was off by a bit and might not have taken some things into account but for thousands of years ago it was impressive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/11 19:29:05
Ptolemy, a Greek in Egypt is probably the most famous man to calculate the Earth's circumference in the ancient world.
The very first man to accurately do it was named Eratosthenes of Cyrene (Libya) who is also the father of Geography. Prior to him, Pythagoras and Aristotle had both made attempts to calculate the Earth's circumference.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/11 19:35:56
flamingkillamajig wrote: Wasn't some hot shot from ancient Egypt the first to guess the size of the earth? I mean he was off by a bit and might not have taken some things into account but for thousands of years ago it was impressive.
I had to look up the actual name, but it was Eratosthenes, a Greek geographer that lived in Egypt. This was in 360BC.
According to the holy Wikipedia, Greek philosophers speculated that the earth was a sphere in the 6th century BC, but it was not confirmed until the 3rd.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Wasn't some hot shot from ancient Egypt the first to guess the size of the earth? I mean he was off by a bit and might not have taken some things into account but for thousands of years ago it was impressive.
I had to look up the actual name, but it was Eratosthenes, a Greek geographer that lived in Egypt. This was in 360BC.
According to the holy Wikipedia, Greek philosophers speculated that the earth was a sphere in the 6th century BC, but it was not confirmed until the 3rd.
Dude we totally need a history thread on dakka. I'm so interested in all this stuff now. You guys should totally make one if you feel confident in your abilities to teach history of specific periods.
Honestly, Wikipedia is great for history, in that it goes enough beyond factoids to give you some context for history.
My concentration in college was in the history of science, which is a great place for a person that loves science and technology but finds the actual practice of doing science very boring.
Polonius wrote: Honestly, Wikipedia is great for history, in that it goes enough beyond factoids to give you some context for history.
I would agree with this. In general, Wikipedia's history articles are about as good as you'll find on the Internet. The best thing to do is actually read an article on something you're interested in, then scroll to the bottom of the article and poke through the listed References. Wikipedia is a really good place to pick up some worthwhile reads.
Polonius wrote: Honestly, Wikipedia is great for history, in that it goes enough beyond factoids to give you some context for history.
My concentration in college was in the history of science, which is a great place for a person that loves science and technology but finds the actual practice of doing science very boring.
Interesting because I love science and technology and find how it works fascinating but the history of who figured it out is generally very boring to me. Who really cares about who did something as much as how they figured it out?
Doing lab work isn't always bad but measuring how radioactive an object is and listening to it decrease quickly over time and measuring this for at least an hour is pretty boring. Sometimes you gotta deal with the boring parts though. If you only love the interesting parts and can't deal with the boring ones then you can't be a scientist.
Personally I love science and did physics and as much science as I could when I could. I did calculus too but in my opinion it was the hardest class I had to take even more so than physics by a lot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/11 19:59:32
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: The flat earth thing mentioned earlier is very instructive of the point that is being made here, but you have to go back several hundred years to see that. At one time someone saying the earth wasn't flat seemed very dumb. After all, the learned experts said it was flat and you could confirm that "fact" with your own eyes. Oops, that turned out to be highly mistaken.
But because of all of our progress and discovery, we risk becoming conceited thinking that our current knowledge is more concrete than it actually is. In a few hundred years no doubt some of the things that we take as obviously, uncontroversially true will turn out not to have been so. It is wise then to listen to those whose arguments may be easy dismiss, because maybe they are telling us the world isn't flat and we should listen.
Actually, learned people knew that the world was round since at least the height of ancient Greece. Anybody that sailed was aware of curvature, and there was a reasonably accurate estimate for the earth's size based on measuring the angle of the sun. For most people, the earth as they knew it (the few square miles they lived in) was enough for them.
As for our knowledge not being concrete, it might be improved, but very little of our knowledge has been completely obsolete. Rather, the underlying theories have been replaced. As you may know, Newton drafted three laws of physics. Very technically, they are no longer always true. At subatomic levels, and with relativistic effects, classical mechanics is "wrong." Does that make our notion that an object at rest will stay at rest less "concrete." Only if you are particle physicist, really.
I think we all recently just saw a good example that the other side really is dumb sometimes.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
No, the other side is often dumb and just speak slogans on how they fix stuff. Alot ignore or just dont care about research that proves their Bias wrong.
It also doesnt help that one of the biggest slogans I read from every side is "Statistics are lies with numbers" as excuse to ignore alot.
kronk wrote: "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" is probably the common joke/phrase you were going for.
There is a lot to be said for twisting numbers to mean what you want.
33% for, 33% against, and 33% neutral can be used as:
"Look, only 1/3rd of the people voting want this!"
"Look, only 1/3rd of the people are against this!"
"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not in favor of this!"
"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not against this!"
"Look, Ice Cream!"
Or outright omission of relevant facts. Like how in Ferguson, Black people got arrested more than the white people. Ignoring the fact that black people made up a majority of the entire population. which roughly correllated with the amount of arrests.
Even if a particular group were to be doing most of the violence, taking into account their relative number to other groups, the next thing you want is to know why.
Not to just go "Well that's [group/race] for you."
Or my favourite, by a poster on this forum a bit ago "Maybe blacks should just stop committing crimes"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/11 20:28:28
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
kronk wrote: "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" is probably the common joke/phrase you were going for.
There is a lot to be said for twisting numbers to mean what you want.
33% for, 33% against, and 33% neutral can be used as:
"Look, only 1/3rd of the people voting want this!"
"Look, only 1/3rd of the people are against this!"
"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not in favor of this!"
"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not against this!"
"Look, Ice Cream!"
Or outright omission of relevant facts. Like how in Ferguson, Black people got arrested more than the white people. Ignoring the fact that black people made up a majority of the entire population. which roughly correllated with the amount of arrests.
Not so...
Ferguson, Missouri 2010 Census: Population 21,203 people The racial makeup of the city was 67.4% Black, 29.3% White, 0.5% Asian, 0.4% Native American, 0.4% from other races, and 2.0% from two or more races.
African Americans experience disparate impact in nearly every aspect of Ferguson’s law enforcement system. Despite making up 67 percent of the population, African Americans accounted for 85 percent of FPD’s traffic stops, 90 percent of FPD’s citations, and 93 percent of FPD’s arrests from 2012 to 2014.
African Americans are 2.07 times more likely to be searched during a vehicular stop but are 26 percent less likely to have contraband found on them during a search. They are 2.00 times more likely to receive a citation and 2.37 times more likely to be arrested following a vehicular stop.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/11 20:35:39
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Thanks for that. Earth at the center of the universe is the better example of what I was trying to say.
Yes, Heliocentrism, as opposed to geocentrism, was the first and one of the hardest changes in theory that even educated folk had to contend with. The reason isn't because people were stuck in their ways, it was that it was actually really hard to prove, and the difference didn't matter.
Even for astronomers, the Ptolemaic theory of everything orbiting earth worked really well, aside from the planets. Even then, they had epicycles.
Keep in mind, they didn't have telescopes! They had no way of knowing how deep space was, or that other planets had moons, or that planets have phases like the moon. All they saw were the moon, five planets, and the sun rotate around the earth.
Copernicus famously called for a heliocentric model, but astrononmers rejected it, not because it was wrong, but because adopting didn't help them. The predictions it made were no more accurate than under Ptolomey. It wasn't until Kepler figured out that orbits were elliptical, not circular, and thus he was able to make predictions that were consistent with heliocentrism, but not geocentrism.
In the end, much of what we "knew" about the universe in 1400 was still useful knowledge in 1600. It's not that we were wrong in the phases of the moon or the length of Mars orbit, but we learned more about it. The way we look at the data changed.
Very few scientific theories have been completely abandoned. Most evolve, sometimes dramatically, but older science isn't necessarily "wrong."
kronk wrote: "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" is probably the common joke/phrase you were going for.
There is a lot to be said for twisting numbers to mean what you want.
33% for, 33% against, and 33% neutral can be used as:
"Look, only 1/3rd of the people voting want this!"
"Look, only 1/3rd of the people are against this!"
"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not in favor of this!"
"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not against this!"
"Look, Ice Cream!"
Or outright omission of relevant facts. Like how in Ferguson, Black people got arrested more than the white people. Ignoring the fact that black people made up a majority of the entire population. which roughly correllated with the amount of arrests.
Not so...
Ferguson, Missouri 2010 Census:
Population 21,203 people
The racial makeup of the city was 67.4% Black, 29.3% White, 0.5% Asian, 0.4% Native American, 0.4% from other races, and 2.0% from two or more races.
African Americans experience disparate impact in nearly every aspect of Ferguson’s law enforcement system. Despite making up 67 percent of the population, African Americans accounted for 85 percent of FPD’s traffic stops, 90 percent of FPD’s citations, and 93 percent of FPD’s arrests from 2012 to 2014.
African Americans are 2.07 times more likely to be searched during a vehicular stop but are 26 percent less likely to have contraband found on them during a search. They are 2.00 times more likely to receive a citation and 2.37 times more likely to be arrested following a vehicular stop.
kronk... the difference is that the white population in Ferguson were much, much older (almost geriactric) than the African Americans. Ferguson (and it's surrounding cities) experienced 'white flight' period in 70s/80s, such that only the old white families remained. As you know, it's the young bucks who are likely to get in trouble/attract attention from the law than the old geezers.
It was more about that city using its own citizen to garner up revenue based on ridiculous ticketing quota rather than Institutional racism.
kronk wrote: "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" is probably the common joke/phrase you were going for.
There is a lot to be said for twisting numbers to mean what you want.
33% for, 33% against, and 33% neutral can be used as:
"Look, only 1/3rd of the people voting want this!"
"Look, only 1/3rd of the people are against this!"
"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not in favor of this!"
"Look, 2/3rds of the people are not against this!"
"Look, Ice Cream!"
Ice Cream, leads to a higher murder rates, right?
I think statistics are definitely something to be wary of. There was a famous example during World War 1, when helmets were introduced and suddenly the number of head injuries shot up. The high-ranking brass were convinced from the data that helmets must be causing injuries, and considered getting rid of them. In reality, they were saving lives, but had also affected the way injuries were being recorded.
Good data can certainly strengthen an argument, but sadly a lot of data isn't good; it isn't collected in a neutral way, it isn't presented in a neutral way, they don't use proper control groups. It ends up being worthless propaganda which actually hinders discussion, because a lot of people don't have the time or inclination to sift through and debunk it.
It's far easier to post 20 links to studies, and claim they all support your argument, than it is read through them and look for something relevant. I've seen people do that, and I think it's quite a hostile and cheap way of trying to argue. If I went into a court and said "I have 20 arguments for why I'm right", I think they would tell me to pick one (the best one) and walk everyone through it. You wouldn't just slam a two foot stack of semi relevant studies on the judge's desk and say "get back to me when you're done with those!", he'd tell you to feth off.
Regarding the flat Earth, I think that's a fair example of why it also pays to be suspicious of intuitive or "common sense" arguments, which I suppose are kind of the opposite of data arguments. I'm reminded of the video that was floating about last year, where a Saudi Cleric claims The Earth is stationary, because if it was really turning then a plane would only need to hover and the Earth would bring countries to it. Of course, most people would recognise that he was failing to take into consideration the energy required to overcome the planes initial inertia and "hover" in an atmosphere which is moving at 1000mph.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Thanks for that. Earth at the center of the universe is the better example of what I was trying to say.
Yes, Heliocentrism, as opposed to geocentrism, was the first and one of the hardest changes in theory that even educated folk had to contend with. The reason isn't because people were stuck in their ways, it was that it was actually really hard to prove, and the difference didn't matter.
Relativistically speaking, the Earth moving around the universe, and the universe moving around the Earth are kind of the same thing, it's just a matter of perspective. So going back to "the other side aren't dumb" idea. Perhaps a lot of the people over the ages who claimed the Earth is at the centre and doesn't move were kind of right, albeit for the wrong reasons.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/01/11 21:35:36
Polonius wrote: Honestly, Wikipedia is great for history, in that it goes enough beyond factoids to give you some context for history.
My concentration in college was in the history of science, which is a great place for a person that loves science and technology but finds the actual practice of doing science very boring.
Interesting because I love science and technology and find how it works fascinating but the history of who figured it out is generally very boring to me. Who really cares about who did something as much as how they figured it out?
Doing lab work isn't always bad but measuring how radioactive an object is and listening to it decrease quickly over time and measuring this for at least an hour is pretty boring. Sometimes you gotta deal with the boring parts though. If you only love the interesting parts and can't deal with the boring ones then you can't be a scientist.
Personally I love science and did physics and as much science as I could when I could. I did calculus too but in my opinion it was the hardest class I had to take even more so than physics by a lot.
Doing time studies. Satan incarnate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/11 21:33:35
Peregrine wrote: Except, as I said, there are times when the other side is simply wrong and there's nothing left to be open to. Being open-minded in general is a virtue, but blind obedience to a "be open-minded" rule regardless of the situation is not.
Sure, and that’s why I distinguish between maintaining an open mind that the other side might have a good and reasoned point, which is frequently not true, and keeping an open mind that your own opinion might be ill-informed or poorly reasoned in some way. The latter is far more important, and almost always true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: Sometimes just getting involved in the discussion can be a good way of learning things in itself. Even if you are just bouncing slogans, you might eventually arrive at what appears to be an informed opinion through a process of evolution (like the Chinese room). There will certainly be no shortage of people happy to browbeat you into enlightenment if you are wrong about something.
Yeah, there’s definitely value in the debate. What it’s taken me a long time to realise is that value is only to myself, to help me develop my own opinions. To learn what parts of my own arguments were lacking.
Before that I really thought debate was about improving other people’s opinions. At first tried reasoning with people, nicely for a while but for a long time quite aggressively. I figured that if you just kept coming at them with reason and facts that eventually a light switch would come on. When the switch didn’t come I got more aggressive, believing that if you made people feel ridiculous for sticking to ridiculous points then eventually they’d have to change. But there’s no shame on the internet, and people would come back with the same nonsense over and over again.
I have seen a small number of people who did change their opinions over time, and that led me to believe for a while that there was some value in this approach. But over time I realised that most of that change was driven almost entirely by things outside of their on-line debates. Whether it was some life experiences, or a growing maturity or whatever, the role of any person bashing away on their keyboard was extremely minor, at best.
But for all that time spent bashing away on the keyboard, I did (somewhat accidentally) manage to improve my own opinions, quite a lot.
Personally, I'm very suspicious (perhaps even frightened) about anyone jumping to conclusions. I tend to look for something contradictory out of habit, especially when things sound sensible. Really, this is just good "science", reflective scepticism etc, but I've noticed it is rarely appreciated online. I find myself playing devils advocate a lot, which can occasionally be very rewarding if you can get someone to reconsider his/her view, but it can also often make you an object of contempt.
Yeah, this is the kind of thing that works much better in real life than on the internet. In real life it’s generally understood, more or less, that someone is taking up that position to test it out, or just for sport, but on-line where we don’t really know each other it’s much less clear.
And in real life you’re more likely to engage with people who more moderate, or even unengaged on the issue. On-line the participants in any thread are much more likely to be people really engaged by that issue, already coming in with dogmatic opinions. Which makes more playful techniques like devil's advocate much more likely to cause vitriol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: I didn't get the idea from the article that we should engage every slack jawed yokel and ask their 2 cents.
I’m not talking just about some part of any debate being made up by slack jawed yokels. Most people have very superficial opinions on almost everything. They pretty much to, there’s so many topics, and in between work, family obligations, hobbies and general staring at tv time, there’s only so much reading any of us do. Expecting people to have informed opinions on any more than a couple of topics is not practical.
But with people I know, I have found some value in listening to why they see things the way they do. It's not always horribly illuminating, for example my father-in-law like Trump because he thinks having a business run the country would be good.
Sure, and I think it is always good advice to listen and read from everyone. My point really, is that doing so under the assumption that they have a sensible opinion will quickly lead to disappointment and a feeling that you’ve wasted your time. Whereas listening to anyone and everyone on the assumption that while they’re probably poorly informed and maybe also kind of ridiculous, but also diverse and nuanced, means you are likely to walk away with a greater, and better informed understanding of people, and of the opinions surrounding a debate. And maybe that might shed light on your own opinion, in some way.
I think one thing that a person that wants to be knowledgeable needs to do is to be familiar with the arguments against your position, the real arguments. Read things from serious thinkers. Get past the rhetoric, and read the ideas.
This is very good advice. How many people look to disprove their own opinions? It’s really hard, not only because we have to get over our own egos to believe we might not know as much as we assumed, but because we’re so unaware of our own blindspots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: But because of all of our progress and discovery, we risk becoming conceited thinking that our current knowledge is more concrete than it actually is. In a few hundred years no doubt some of the things that we take as obviously, uncontroversially true will turn out not to have been so. It is wise then to listen to those whose arguments may be easy dismiss, because maybe they are telling us the world isn't flat and we should listen.
There’s a thing called the half life of facts, the idea that facts have a half life in a model much like radiation. So while we can't say which specific facts in any given field will be overturned, we can estimate with pretty good reliability that in a given amount of time (depending on the field), half the facts will be overturned.
So not only do we not actually know that much, about half of what we know on a subject will be wrong somewhere from 30 to 50 years from now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: In the end, much of what we "knew" about the universe in 1400 was still useful knowledge in 1600. It's not that we were wrong in the phases of the moon or the length of Mars orbit, but we learned more about it. The way we look at the data changed.
Very few scientific theories have been completely abandoned. Most evolve, sometimes dramatically, but older science isn't necessarily "wrong."
Sure, and I guess one way to express this is to refer to everything as 'our best current undestanding'. But we don't say that, and more importantly we generally don't think that way either. There's a tendency among people to internalise what they first learn about a field, and then filter all future information based on that. People not only reject anything that challenges that, they get quite upset when those first principles are challenged. Look at how people reacted to Pluto being ‘demoted’. Talk about things that don’t matter – it was just a change in classification. But people had learnt nine planets, so dammit nine planets there should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It was more about that city using its own citizen to garner up revenue based on ridiculous ticketing quota rather than Institutional racism.
When a revenue motive impacts one ethnic group disproportionately, that is institutional racism. That’s the point to institutional racism – it doesn’t look for intentional racist motivations from any person, but just looks at how institutions end up impacting different ethnic groups.
The lessons from observing institutional racism are then two-fold – that minorities face an uphill battle even if we personally aren’t racist, and that there’s little value in calling specific people racist because that isn’t what’s driving institutional racism.
Unfortunately the right has missed the first lesson, and the left has missed the second.
Smacks wrote: Good data can certainly strengthen an argument, but sadly a lot of data isn't good; it isn't collected in a neutral way, it isn't presented in a neutral way, they don't use proper control groups. It ends up being worthless propaganda which actually hinders discussion, because a lot of people don't have the time or inclination to sift through and debunk it.
Yes, but stats and other collected data are, unfortunately, all we have. The alternative is anecdote, which has every problem of collected data, only worse.
If I went into a court and said "I have 20 arguments for why I'm right", I think they would tell me to pick one (the best one) and walk everyone through it. You wouldn't just slam a two foot stack of semi relevant studies on the judge's desk and say "get back to me when you're done with those!", he'd tell you to feth off.
While a court would expect you to summarise your arguments yourself, you can in fact present 20 different arguments. You can in fact argue that the prosecution's motive isn't true because he didn't know his wife was cheating, that he wasn't able to commit the murder because he was at a mate's house at the time, and he couldn't have killed because he didn't have the strength needed to hit her with that weapon. Things can be wrong for lots of reasons, and it's okay to present more than one.
I do agree there's an internet technique of spamming lots of studies to bully the other person off the point. Typically the poster has failed to read the arguments, and reading them will often find studies that claim the exact opposite that the poster intended. It is a bad technique, but that doesn’t mean the general idea of showing multiple ways that something is wrong is illegitimate.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2016/01/12 04:31:25
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: While a court would expect you to summarise your arguments yourself, you can in fact present 20 different arguments. You can in fact argue that the prosecution's motive isn't true because he didn't know his wife was cheating, that he wasn't able to commit the murder because he was at a mate's house at the time, and he couldn't have killed because he didn't have the strength needed to hit her with that weapon. Things can be wrong for lots of reasons, and it's okay to present more than one.
But I think they would still want you to present them one at a time, and give the prosecution a chance to respond. It's not that it is illegitimate to present multiple arguments, but it might be a waste of time where one will suffice. In the court analogy, If you can show that an accused person has an ironclad alibi, then you could probably get the case dismissed on the strength of that alone, without having to go to trial at all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/12 09:33:02
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
