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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 H wrote:

snipped for length

This is where I think university education is a huge deal. . . I know at least in the US, university gets a bad rap as a place of "liberal brainwashing", but the truth of the matter is not that they force people to think a certain way, its that they teach you skills that can be used to evaluate sources, which has a tendency to cause people to start leaning a similar direction. Well, at least that's what *I* did in the history department, and I know most of the "social sciences" (sociology, poli-sci, etc) typically work on the same principles when looking at sources.


And, again here in the US, there is this bizarre mistrust of education, and we often seem to celebrate ignorance. Conspiracy theorists thrive in this sort of environment. And I think it shows when you try to trace down the origins of so many conspiracies and they all point to one country.

It's the same in the UK, well, I know it is that way to a certain extent, if you are doing a BSc or other science based, you have to undertake research methods in some part, that means in theory you learn to critically evaluate sources for quality. Now some people will always try and justify findings to further their own narrative, but if you are ethically minded, you will not do this.

Slightly distrusting of typical BA disciplines though to be honest, especially within the social sciences.... I've read about enough bogus papers being published to not fully trust the ethical integrity of their disciplines. If anyone is unaware of a fairly famous hoax played on some publishers of social sciences then read this, known as 'The New Sokal': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

However, it is not just the social sciences that are evidently unethical... This article I read a few months back is truly horrifying in regards to bogus anaesthesia research published: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02241-z

If you want to talk about conspiracy theories, seriously, the world of research is much deeper and darker than just the 'pay for research' cases of big business buying research that supports their products. There are some seriously messed up practices going on, and that's also without mentioning the amount of PHD students who commit suicide each year.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think it highlights how poorly the education systems around the world are geared up to teach self learning. In fact UK side at least, we don't even encourage nor reward self-learning as a skill until you're at University (and even then its more a 2nd year thing in many subjects where 1st year is a bit like Alevels in that there's often a lot you can achieve with the core reference books - its just more than one "core text book" whilst at school it was typically one per subject).


So for the majority they spend their most formative years not learning how to self learn a subject. So when they start to try they are a high risk of falling into pitfalls of false information online and that leads them down a rabbithole of confusion and they don't even know they are in one let alone how to get out.



This is a problem born of mark schemes. Because the mark scheme system is efficient to mark with its used, but it has a snare built into it. Any student that does self learn within a subject is, at best, liable to pick up no additional points for material outside of the scheme; and at worst could lose points if they present a more modern correct answer/argument, which differs to the mark scheme answer.



So not only are students not really equipped with the skill until Uni, but its discouraged until then anyway. So for many flat-earthers and other almost "anti-science " groups where I tend to notice that they are predominantly students who didn't go to uni for the sciences (perhaps they did and did the arts or they never went); they specifically lack the self learning skills that they need to prove their own theories.

As an FE lecturer, all I have to say on the above in regards to self learning is you are asking everyone in the school system to actually be able to perform quite a comprehensive skill that requires high levels of analytical and evaluative skills. That is a mature and high level that usually is only capable from around the age of 15 to be honest.

Additionally, some people actually are incapable of reaching that peak, or well, are in a education system that has to take you in and spit you back out at a certain age within fairly high class sizes of mixed abilities.

If you want to solve it the system has to change, at which point we can teach effectively. a one size fits all system only caters to the middle ground, and quite poorly, it doesn't allow the gifted to flourish and implement the self learning skills you want above, and it doesn't provide the necessary support to learners who need it. I can't tell you how many times I have been frustrated personally in the classroom at the absolute divergence of abilities within a group.

However, your point in bold is genuinely amazing and a debate I had specifically with a lead examiner this year (I am also an examiner for the specific exam). What they wanted as 'perfect score' answer was completely wrong in regards to up to date research in the subject (Sport Science, stuff is always changing...). I was making an argument that an actual correct answer on the subject would have picked up 25% of marks at best, because we are teaching out of date knowledge, that does not reflect current practice (which they would be learning next year at Uni). Crazy.

True I'm sure my theory would be much harder to put into practice, but I suspect there would be some leeway to making some changes. Eg perhaps introducing two or three text books for one or two subjects rather than just the one text book. Thus at least presenting the idea to students of using more than one source material. Weening them off the concept of a comprehensive text book approach to learning.

Though yes a real big change would be a means for the marking scheme to be more flexible. Sadly it seems they want to go the other way with the increase in tick-box examinations and that whole side of things. Something I dislike because to me tick-box systems tend to end up being very crafty with wording so that two or three can logically appear to be the right answer, but only one is the perfect definition. Though I went through over 10 years ago now so this is only secondhand info that there's more tickboxing going on. I know even back then there was increasing talk of them wanting to do more tickbox exams.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:And, again here in the US, there is this bizarre mistrust of education, and we often seem to celebrate ignorance.

Well, I am not sure that it is necessarily a "celebration of ignorance" in all cases, so much so as it is more distrust of so-called "expertise." In a sense, this can sometimes be justified, because people really do use "knowledge" in immoral, or unethical ways. Or, use knowledge to push a vested interest. In other words, knowledge alone doesn't really insulate from confirmation bias. In a sens, one could sort of say that information is "neutral," but people might not be. In reality, I don't think information, like language, is actually ever neutral. Because it might be, in-itself, but we don't even have knowledge, or just information, in-itself, we have it for-ourselves. Which means that whatever the Self is, tinges, taints, or twists whatever information is at-hand. If nothing at-hand, then we've already suspected that "knowledge" is, in some part, to be exploited as a means, so why not just make something up? When we could be radically skeptical of anything, why then believe anything besides what confirms your biases?

See, it all is complicated. Very complicated. It seems to be to be a whole intersection of identity, epistemology, information theory, and so much more. All that really winds up my jargon machine too, which is always already running, and makes it really hard to talk about it all succinctly too. Maybe if I was just better with words it would help too.

Crispy78 wrote:It's not just the US.

Who can forget Michael Gove's "Britain has had enough of experts"?

https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c

A mere two years after serving as Secretary Of State for bloody Education...

Well, I don't know who that is, but I can think of a variety of "vested interests" in pitching that. Again, I don't really want to rehash what I wrote pages ago, but there are all sorts of reasons to be skeptical of so-called experts. Yet, at the same time, there is also good reason to believe what many of them are saying.

But that is the nuance to it all. You have to learn when skepticism is a "useful" stance and when it's not helpful, or serves only to confirm one's own biases.

 Overread wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think it highlights how poorly the education systems around the world are geared up to teach self learning. In fact UK side at least, we don't even encourage nor reward self-learning as a skill until you're at University (and even then its more a 2nd year thing in many subjects where 1st year is a bit like Alevels in that there's often a lot you can achieve with the core reference books - its just more than one "core text book" whilst at school it was typically one per subject).


So for the majority they spend their most formative years not learning how to self learn a subject. So when they start to try they are a high risk of falling into pitfalls of false information online and that leads them down a rabbithole of confusion and they don't even know they are in one let alone how to get out.



This is a problem born of mark schemes. Because the mark scheme system is efficient to mark with its used, but it has a snare built into it. Any student that does self learn within a subject is, at best, liable to pick up no additional points for material outside of the scheme; and at worst could lose points if they present a more modern correct answer/argument, which differs to the mark scheme answer.



So not only are students not really equipped with the skill until Uni, but its discouraged until then anyway. So for many flat-earthers and other almost "anti-science " groups where I tend to notice that they are predominantly students who didn't go to uni for the sciences (perhaps they did and did the arts or they never went); they specifically lack the self learning skills that they need to prove their own theories.

As an FE lecturer, all I have to say on the above in regards to self learning is you are asking everyone in the school system to actually be able to perform quite a comprehensive skill that requires high levels of analytical and evaluative skills. That is a mature and high level that usually is only capable from around the age of 15 to be honest.

Additionally, some people actually are incapable of reaching that peak, or well, are in a education system that has to take you in and spit you back out at a certain age within fairly high class sizes of mixed abilities.

If you want to solve it the system has to change, at which point we can teach effectively. a one size fits all system only caters to the middle ground, and quite poorly, it doesn't allow the gifted to flourish and implement the self learning skills you want above, and it doesn't provide the necessary support to learners who need it. I can't tell you how many times I have been frustrated personally in the classroom at the absolute divergence of abilities within a group.

However, your point in bold is genuinely amazing and a debate I had specifically with a lead examiner this year (I am also an examiner for the specific exam). What they wanted as 'perfect score' answer was completely wrong in regards to up to date research in the subject (Sport Science, stuff is always changing...). I was making an argument that an actual correct answer on the subject would have picked up 25% of marks at best, because we are teaching out of date knowledge, that does not reflect current practice (which they would be learning next year at Uni). Crazy.

True I'm sure my theory would be much harder to put into practice, but I suspect there would be some leeway to making some changes. Eg perhaps introducing two or three text books for one or two subjects rather than just the one text book. Thus at least presenting the idea to students of using more than one source material. Weening them off the concept of a comprehensive text book approach to learning.

Though yes a real big change would be a means for the marking scheme to be more flexible. Sadly it seems they want to go the other way with the increase in tick-box examinations and that whole side of things. Something I dislike because to me tick-box systems tend to end up being very crafty with wording so that two or three can logically appear to be the right answer, but only one is the perfect definition. Though I went through over 10 years ago now so this is only secondhand info that there's more tickboxing going on. I know even back then there was increasing talk of them wanting to do more tickbox exams.

The specific examination issues doesn't come from box ticking, well it does, fundamentally you cannot have 12,000 papers all being an essay format based upon ones own opinion on a subject matter, and then another persons opinion on the grading of such. We examiners need to be funnelled in regards to marking also, otherwise internal verification of that mark is virtually impossible (and some examiners aren't that great), so you don't want wrong grades being awarded. Which means a question has to be funnelled, and marks have to be triggered by specific actions that the students are taught to write towards triggering.

It's incredibly difficult to justify in words why we do this, but basically, there's method to the madness, and secondly exams in my opinion are harder in some qualifications than they use to be. You then get the argument that exam rates keep going up so they can't be harder... Well, the reason why that is, is because the subject content has not been updated for so long, teachers become masters of teaching to the exam, they almost know what is coming and can prepare the students to multiple scenarios. As well as being an examiner I obviously teach exam units also, and my grade average goes up every year, I can pretty much guarantee how many A's I can get in a class now in August, before I've even met my class. Change and update the subject material, and grades will drop again. Guaranteed.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Slightly distrusting of typical BA disciplines though to be honest, especially within the social sciences.... I've read about enough bogus papers being published to not fully trust the ethical integrity of their disciplines. If anyone is unaware of a fairly famous hoax played on some publishers of social sciences then read this, known as 'The New Sokal': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

None of those hoaxes ever submit bogus papers to a "hard science" to act as a control group. So their conclusions are meaningless as they do not offer any proof that false papers being published is limited to the social sciences.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Slightly distrusting of typical BA disciplines though to be honest, especially within the social sciences.... I've read about enough bogus papers being published to not fully trust the ethical integrity of their disciplines. If anyone is unaware of a fairly famous hoax played on some publishers of social sciences then read this, known as 'The New Sokal': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

None of those hoaxes ever submit bogus papers to a "hard science" to act as a control group. So their conclusions are meaningless as they do not offer any proof that false papers being published is limited to the social sciences.

I assume it is because it is incredibly difficult to hoax in a hard science discipline. You can't really get away with making up a complete new theory like you can with the social sciences. However, like my other example above, the hard sciences do have issues, mainly with falsifying data as the example shows.

My main distrust of the social sciences is the absolute lack of common sense when reading the above 'findings', additionally, due to the nature of how they 'conduct' research - being, not taking a hard science pathway for it and allowing flimsy research practice, usually because it furthers their agenda - it just makes it a bit of a joke to be honest. Agenda based research is against what I would consider should be the absolute corner stone of research - objectivity.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Slightly distrusting of typical BA disciplines though to be honest, especially within the social sciences.... I've read about enough bogus papers being published to not fully trust the ethical integrity of their disciplines. If anyone is unaware of a fairly famous hoax played on some publishers of social sciences then read this, known as 'The New Sokal': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

None of those hoaxes ever submit bogus papers to a "hard science" to act as a control group. So their conclusions are meaningless as they do not offer any proof that false papers being published is limited to the social sciences.

I assume it is because it is incredibly difficult to hoax in a hard science discipline. You can't really get away with making up a complete new theory like you can with the social sciences. However, like my other example above, the hard sciences do have issues, mainly with falsifying data as the example shows.

Right, so there is a way to submit false papers. But they don't do that because it wouldn't support the agenda they are trying to push.

Hoaxing in hard sciences doesn't need to be making up a completely new theory. Falsifying data is equally applicable.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Slightly distrusting of typical BA disciplines though to be honest, especially within the social sciences.... I've read about enough bogus papers being published to not fully trust the ethical integrity of their disciplines. If anyone is unaware of a fairly famous hoax played on some publishers of social sciences then read this, known as 'The New Sokal': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

None of those hoaxes ever submit bogus papers to a "hard science" to act as a control group. So their conclusions are meaningless as they do not offer any proof that false papers being published is limited to the social sciences.

I assume it is because it is incredibly difficult to hoax in a hard science discipline. You can't really get away with making up a complete new theory like you can with the social sciences. However, like my other example above, the hard sciences do have issues, mainly with falsifying data as the example shows.

Right, so there is a way to submit false papers. But they don't do that because it wouldn't support the agenda they are trying to push.

Hoaxing in hard sciences doesn't need to be making up a completely new theory. Falsifying data is equally applicable.

I'm with you, it's just as much of a problem, what I'm trying to say is it is 100% easier to disprove or invalidate from the first time reading it in a hard science, you can't get away with creating new theories that go against established theories. You absolutely can do that in the social sciences, and that's because they do not adhere to high standards.

Falsifying data in hard sciences, and when I am saying falsifying data, I'm talking about it only becoming apparent if you forensically go through the data to look for issues. You cannot do that in the social sciences as a lot of the time there is no hard data, there are no numbers, so it is easier to blag.

Erm, you realise that it is contextualy easier to disprove social sciences and that there is a difference between quantifyable science and qualitative science?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Erm, you realise that it is contextualy easier to disprove social sciences and that there is a difference between quantifyable science and qualitative science?

Yeah, considering I teach research methods, I'm fairly aware of the difference. I also tend to disagree with you and would state it is easier to disprove quantitative sources.

Easier is probably the wrong word to use actually, you can for definite find issues within quantitative data if you analyse them, as in you can come to a definitive conclusion, this can be difficult with qualitative.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Erm, you realise that it is contextualy easier to disprove social sciences and that there is a difference between quantifyable science and qualitative science?

Yeah, considering I teach research methods, I'm fairly aware of the difference. I also tend to disagree with you and would state it is easier to disprove quantitative sources.

Easier is probably the wrong word to use actually, you can for definite find issues within quantitative data if you analyse them, as in you can come to a definitive conclusion, this can be difficult with qualitative.

TBF, especially in philosophy, which if it employ methodology in most cases employs qualitative, the key is to find the premises that are or have issues.

The core issue however is, that qualitative lends it's hand better to dogma, or world view science type things. as in the more restitance and adherence to dogma, which makes disproving, atleast for me easier but actually removing a view quite a bit harder.
Which is also where agenda science rears it's head especially in newer subdivisions of social science which as of yet had not a phase where they started to form standard value combinations unlike economy or political science.

Remind me, wasn't SKOAL also the the whole greivance study incident?


Yup found it.

I believe the core issue is with people actually having a lack of integrity, and less with the methods employed.

Also i don't know how differing culture affects the liklyhood of Agenda science or ideological indoctrination for social studies, beeing linked to the corresponding culture can mean that it is impacted a lot by it.

I'm absolute not discrediting all qualitative research, it is required and the absolutely only way to conduct studies in certain aspects, your example above, I'd be hard pressed to form a conclusive and empirical quantitative based research approach for philosophy. I use qualitative approaches all the time in my sport performance business, when I want to know what makes a person tick and motivates them, there's only so much I can do with hard data to form conclusions, I have to speak to them as well, which then can potentially lean me into being subjective, even if it is not conscious. So I usually rephrase key questions multiple times to ensure I have as much clarity about their thoughts and feelings as possible.

Yeah, that's what I allude to above to be honest when I say I am distrustful of a fair amount of research from the social sciences and it is all because of the infiltration of agenda based research. That's not to say the hard sciences also do not have agendas also, and go out of their way to prove such agendas - even tweaking figures as I referenced above in the second link.

I have to say I do have a narrow view of agenda science though, I tend to only ever read studies that are either American, or English and well... America is the pinnacle breeding ground of aggressive agenda based research.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a slightly interesting tangent talking about research, have some of you read the story about testing of the rona in Tanzania, with fruit coming back as a positive test? I actually laughed, as it turns out it seems to be a flaw in the testing process conducted at this specific lab used.

That would have opened up a complete can of worms though in regards to the conspiracy theorists stating that the data is been inflated....

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I'm absolute not discrediting all qualitative research, it is required and the absolutely only way to conduct studies in certain aspects, your example above, I'd be hard pressed to form a conclusive and empirical quantitative based research approach for philosophy. I use qualitative approaches all the time in my sport performance business, when I want to know what makes a person tick and motivates them, there's only so much I can do with hard data to form conclusions, I have to speak to them as well, which then can potentially lean me into being subjective, even if it is not conscious. So I usually rephrase key questions multiple times to ensure I have as much clarity about their thoughts and feelings as possible.

So basically you follow what is a good qualitative approach to the letter.

As for Philosophy: Philosophy does rarely use either approach. Philosophy at most attempts to give context to methodological research more often and or the base tools by supplying logic for social science the themes and questions. Or is concerned about if we are even real but that field insofar only really meets with psychology, neurology and of course the new hip stream of simulation theory so in a way quantum physics. Also as an aside, it's funny to me that neurology and Psychology are at a point where the question is now basically the same as philosophy asked what, 2000 years ago in the question of how body and mind interact, just from another direction?

Our most important tool is basically mind experiments. Rarely requiring data and beeing more a set of premises and arguments aswell as a conclussion. Not to say that we don't include it or disregard data, it just depends on which subdiscipline you work in philosophy. The practical part of course uses if it is any decent what is available in datasets from other disciplines (economy and alot of other sciences come to mind which are further sub disciplines born out of philosophy), however qualitative research is based upon premises and questions, which are basic logic operations which is basically all we do more or less making it comparatively easy to spot internal logical issues in it.

Yeah, that's what I allude to above to be honest when I say I am distrustful of a fair amount of research from the social sciences and it is all because of the infiltration of agenda based research. That's not to say the hard sciences also do not have agendas also, and go out of their way to prove such agendas - even tweaking figures as I referenced above in the second link.

I have to say I do have a narrow view of agenda science though, I tend to only ever read studies that are either American, or English and well... America is the pinnacle breeding ground of aggressive agenda based research.

there was an interesting interview in the NZZ with a historian in switzerland, about the "fiction of one scientific truth":
https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/caspar-hirschi-im-interview-ld.1554576
TLDR, humanities as their main job is to critically intervene. In order to not allow experts to give out unchallanged statements or the "simple" political recipie or action in order to avoid giving the population clear simple picture , because the situation as it is isn't clear.

Also there's another issue endimic in regards to cultural influence over science.
the , let's call it sphere issue. What i mean by that is that language groups tend to form shperes which are quite verifyable take the "german sphere of academia" f.e. it is quite a bit more distanced to regular societiy the reason is found in it's inception as a Elite that was not in possession of power and therefore had to distance itself from the other elites (nobility and economy elites), which has lead to a more ivory tower behaviour, overlycomplex lingua academia and other nice little side issues. And the "big " german states of Austria and Prussia, later on german empire were autocratic and had a top down structure. Basically beeing academicaly correct was more important then political influence after 1848 which has lead to an (sometimes) over correct and over complex language and structure of it. On the other hand it in general has hand and feet what is made, just a pain to read, and yes this it the field where you can throw in Hegel and start unmigitated suffering for philosophy students and professors

And that is just a difference that is verifybale via releases of papers and books and for whom they are released, comparatively the "anglosphere" is a lot more accepting of the laymen and is written often for the laymen.


and then you have the wierd hodgepodge and structures that we have which separete us from the german sphere propper to a degree aswell as from the french and italian. Probably best seen when you compare political science in its research of direct democratic processes and influences of it on society. Which tends to be alot more critical of it's role in the sourounding nations meanwhile over here it is just a fact as is paying taxes and dying.

Culture is quite heavily influencing prevalent tools and dogmas. the key is to be atleast aware of them.


As for the agendasetting issues, we don't seem to suffer from that as violently because we have politicised basically everything but in a system that is based upon the simple fact that you shall still work together out of principle, but that has also to do with how the political system inherently influences the society and all it's branches but vice versa how science inherently influences politics aswell can probably best shown with rousseau and the heavy republicanistic dogma under which switzerland falls in it's core foundation idelogy of how the state should be run.

Well, Theres a new nutjobery going arround aka the "plandemic"

Well, we're getting snow today (mid-atlantic US), and the most common response I've seen is 'so much for global warming.'

Sigh.

Voss wrote:
Well, we're getting snow today (mid-atlantic US), and the most common response I've seen is 'so much for global warming.'

Sigh.

see snow, ignore the hightened predicted freak weather , global warming hoax lol ......



Did i do it correctly?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Voss wrote:
Well, we're getting snow today (mid-atlantic US), and the most common response I've seen is 'so much for global warming.'

Sigh.

see snow, ignore the hightened predicted freak weather , global warming hoax lol ......



Did i do it correctly?

Last year at the 10th of May it was way warmer over here, riddle me that!!!!

I remember a few years ago when the mid-west got hit with a big blizzard, and people were like "so much for global warming." Paradoxically, blizzards of that scale were a century ago, common place in the American Mid-West. Not a freak once in a decade occurrence. Frankly, at this point all you have to do is look at some places in Central/South America and Africa to see that climate change is real and is devastating. Frankly, whether or not humans are causing it is something of a policy/academic issue. To be in denial of shifting climate patterns today is to be in absolute denial of one's own ignorance.

And because I still think it's fascinating, whenever I talk about climate change I always bring up that the Middle East used to be home to massive sprawling cedar forests. It wasn't the highly arid/desert climate it is today until about 250 years ago. The oldest piece of human literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh, has a moral lesson about the dangers of mass deforestation. How the feth did the Sumerians manage to work this gak out thousands of years ago while idiots today just want to be obtuse dicks bizarrely obsessed with the performance of the fossil fuel market?

Monetary incentive i'd guess.

We live in an age of short term thinking and divided family units. This tends to encourage much more short term resource extraction and use. It's why so many places are happy to strip trees at an insane rate, but don't even bother with replanting.

Though at the same time a lot of poorer nations are strip deforesting to convert the land into farmland to generate food and income. Basically they are,at an insane speed, repeating what countries like the UK have already done. And because we see it happening now we see the destruction it cause. In the UK we don't see as much of it because we already did it generations ago, if at a steadier pace.

It's worth noting that the Mississippi river at St. Louis used to freeze over regularly. And when I say 'freeze over', before the highway bridges over the river they'd drive small trucks over the ice routinely in the twenties and thirties.

I moved there in the mid-eighties and lived there forty years... and never once did the river freeze over AT ALL.

 Vulcan wrote:

I moved there in the mid-eighties and lived there forty years... and never once did the river freeze over AT ALL.

An argument could be made that we were beginning to see "proper" climate change by the mid-70s . . . Growing up and seeing the LA Rams play on TV, LA always had a heavy, heavy "fog" (aka, the smog was hella thick). . . Seeing LA now (even pre-lockdown 2020), with all of the improvements to emissions regulations, business practices, etc. there has been quite a big turn around in air quality since the early 90s.

Then there's where I actually grew up in the PNW. . . when I was still in school, by mid-december the highest the temp would reach would be around 43 F. And about half the days, if they were clear, I'd be waiting for the school bus and it would be 20 (they finally delayed/altered bus schedules when it hit 19 F or below a couple times). . . Where I live now near Tacoma, WA. . . the winters have been wild swings. One year it got cold and icy with a couple snow storms. This past winter it was warm as feth, with only one light dusting of snow. I know that I'm using individual weather events as examples, but I think y'all know what I'm on about. . . the "themes" of various seasons are changing in weird ways, and its generally getting warmer, which is not good where I'm at

Plandemic believers and protest seem to spread quite heavily ....

why?

Just why...

Plandemic?

On a more interesting note, this thread got me to wondering how one could engage with conspiracy theorists.
As we've all seen, hitting them with facts doesn't seem to work.

It turns out the trick is to not go all confrontational but to get them to do the thinking themselves.
Since conspiracism does not come from rational analysis (it is very much a rationalisation of something one has already decided is true), engaging in my facts vs your facts rarely works; they'll only dig their trenches that much deeper.

Some things that can work: First, for all techniques, empathize with them over something unrelated, so they start to think of you not as an opponent or an agent of "the man", but as a sympathetic ear or part of some peer group (a local sports team victory or whatever).
Then ask them questions about their beliefs. To a moonlanding denier, for example, you could ask something like "I don't understand. I can see that there are no stars in the pictures, but I don't see stars in the sky during the day here on Earth either."

Another approach might be to lay out both sides. Since conspiracy theorists often explain away any evidence that disputes their side as proof of "the cover-up", lay out the arguments against the theory, and add things that would prove your side wrong. Then sum up the arguments for the theory and ask them: "what could prove this theory wrong?" or, "What evidence would be required to change your mind?". If they say "nothing", you're wasting your time anyway. If they're at least a kittle bit interested in sincere debate, they'll start thinking.

Both methods puts the ball in their court to start examining their beliefs, and with some clever/gentle coaxing, they'll hopefully discover "for themselves" that they were wrong.

In either case, the key is empathy first, then gently bring in the logic.

Plandemic, aka planed pandemic, aka BILL GATES WANT'S TO CHIP ALL OFF US!!! / not...

came up at the start of the thread but recently the general populus of far left and right morons and other wierdo or fringe groups has highjacked it and staged protests in germany and switzerland here.

This will probably read more aggressively than it's meant to, so please read it assuming a jovial tone, but I think there's a whole heap of strawmanning going on here and it feels a lot like the interdisciplinary-critiques I read in undergrad essays that's rooted in a lack of familiarity with material outside of one's own field. I believe a lot of conspiracy thinking emerges from the same problems, so it's even on-topic!

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Slightly distrusting of typical BA disciplines though to be honest, especially within the social sciences.... I've read about enough bogus papers being published to not fully trust the ethical integrity of their disciplines. If anyone is unaware of a fairly famous hoax played on some publishers of social sciences then read this, known as 'The New Sokal': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

How many is 'enough'? What does bogus mean? Further examples?

I assume it is because it is incredibly difficult to hoax in a hard science discipline. You can't really get away with making up a complete new theory like you can with the social sciences. However, like my other example above, the hard sciences do have issues, mainly with falsifying data as the example shows.

How precisely are you using 'theory' here? It obviously means different things in hard science than elsewhere and I want to be sure I'm reading you correctly.

My main distrust of the social sciences is the absolute lack of common sense when reading the above 'findings', additionally, due to the nature of how they 'conduct' research - being, not taking a hard science pathway for it and allowing flimsy research practice, usually because it furthers their agenda - it just makes it a bit of a joke to be honest. Agenda based research is against what I would consider should be the absolute corner stone of research - objectivity.

What constitutes a 'lack of common sense'? Why is positivism the only valid approach? What constitutes 'flimsy research practice'? Why do you jump from these vague accusations to 'agenda based research'? Which agendas? How do they lead research? Examples?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I'm with you, it's just as much of a problem, what I'm trying to say is it is 100% easier to disprove or invalidate from the first time reading it in a hard science, you can't get away with creating new theories that go against established theories. You absolutely can do that in the social sciences, and that's because they do not adhere to high standards.

Which standards? Are you trying to judge one (group of) discipline(s) by the standards of another? Why is that appropriate?

endlesswaltz123 wrote: You cannot do that in the social sciences as a lot of the time there is no hard data, there are no numbers, so it is easier to blag.

Is the reliance on soft data a reason to discount research when it is only available data? Why?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:I have to say I do have a narrow view of agenda science though, I tend to only ever read studies that are either American, or English and well... America is the pinnacle breeding ground of aggressive agenda based research.

I think trying to make a case about thorough and robust research and then saying you only read material from two countries is alarming. Do you maybe mean you only read material in English? I'd still find that deeply problematic, and it wouldn't fly in much of the humanities, but I'm conscious of it being a commonplace problem amongst scientists in the Anglophone world.

Is Umbrella Guy with the hammer starting the looting in Minneapolis a conspiracy theory or a real thing?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Is Umbrella Guy with the hammer starting the looting in Minneapolis a conspiracy theory or a real thing?

the conspiracy that he's a cop??? Seems to point to the "real thing" . . . but it is unconfirmed, and likely to be impossible to confirm. . . . . But, lets be real for a moment. . . . I don't think ANYONE wants to actually discuss that, as that will inevitably go wrong here.

Without getting into the underlying thing we're probably best avoiding - snopes says it's fake; he has an alibi per the PD and they vouch for him.

So, since they aren't exactly swimming in well-earned trust, I would say somewhere between dubious and unlikely, but not flat out a conspiracy theory.

via yesterday;s Popbitch mailout :

https://dianamystery.com/


"THE DIANA-MORRISSEY PHENOMENON

***************** STARRING JAYNE MANSFIELD *****************

Princess Diana's Death Foreshadowed in Morrissey's Work"


includes such wonders as

"In CONTACT, the Extraterrestrial message to Earth is from the star-system VEGA. ...

V is letter #22

E is letter #5

G is letter #7

A is letter #1

Using the numbered order of the letters in the alphabet, the word VEGA is 22-5-7-1. ...

V - E - G - A
22 5 7 1

Morrissey was born on day 22 of month 5 and Diana was born on day 1 of month 7. "



powerful stuff indeed.