Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#106872 - 05/25/16 05:08 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Online
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2092
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
More and more these days, scientific facts are presented in an the format of an entertainment piece or opinionated/biased article format, where more time is spent on entertaining the reader's emotions, rather than educating one with information.


You confuse the study/research paper with its simplified interpretation/summary/analysis that you can read in various newspapers and journals, even those concerning science.

This is an example of the scientific research paper:

Incidence of birth defects after artificial insemination with frozen donor spermatozoa: a collaborative study of the French CECOS Federation on 11 535 pregnancies

This is an example of the newspaper article about some scientific research:

Birth defect risk rises with some fertility treatments

 Quote:
It does not take a consensus of scientists, or a any 'prestigious certificate of acceptance' to prove that we breath air.


Perhaps, your scientific "knowledge" is limited to the couple of facts you stated (which is all right as I'm not well-versed in science too) but science deals with more complex issues. Everyone knows we breathe but how do we breathe? How do our lungs look like? How do they work? How do other animals breathe? How do plants produce oxygen? If an average idiot knows the answers to these questions, it's because he was taught that at school. Not everything is visible to the bare eye. Of course, you can see certain things at school too, under the microscope. Someone invented it, you know.

That being said, the peer review is faulty at times. You can find this article interesting:

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility


Edited by Czereda (05/25/16 05:09 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#106878 - 05/26/16 11:38 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Czereda]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Before something becomes FACT it implies thorough testing. It implies repeated testing. It implies insurmountable data to be gathered and interpretated.


Yes, repeated testing only validates an experiment. My point is that the quantity or diversity of people matters little, if the process is well established to turn out the factual data. Does this makes sense?

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Before something becomes fact you need a multitude of everything.


Everything... care to elaborate?

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Fact is not your fucking public opinion. In case you fail to understand: opinion=/= facts.


Ok then...


 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Then it is called a fucking opinion. Not a fact.


You are either not reading my post, or have little understanding of the English language, so here is one of my points restated:

If information is censored Dimitri, you don't know the raw data until you have access to the original information. That's not opinion.


 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
You've filed your complaint with the wrong department. The prevalence of “adutation” is marketing’s bag, not engineering's. The same applies to the consumer in the manufacture of technology as in the manufacture of consent – caveat emptor. Nothing has changed in this regard. Scientists acquire the data by applying a method – the scientific method. The data is used in the synthesis of information; and it's a two way-street with that shit. Both presenters and consumers of this information are at liberty to determine what information is relevant and what isn't.

'Still barking up the wrong tree, man.


The wrong tree? My original point to Dimitri cannot be too hard to understand. The raw data is often misrepresented, in this case by marketing, as you've made clear. So... thanks for elaborating my point AK \:D

 Originally Posted By: naama
still, its (science is) the best thing we have so far... (in terms of human progress of course).


Naama, I am going to say that Science is only one thing we humans have. I don't think Science is the pinnical of our existence, even if we were possibly engineered.

 Originally Posted By: Czereda
Perhaps, your scientific "knowledge" is limited to the couple of facts you stated (which is all right as I'm not well-versed in science too) but science deals with more complex issues. Everyone knows we breathe but how do we breathe?


I understand, but you're branching off in another direction, perhaps because I am not being clear enough. When I mentioned scientific consensus, I really mean (in answer to Dimitrt) that it does only take one person to discover a fact. An agreement or disagreement between many people, scientists or not, will do nothing to change a fact. Another point of mine, is that when controversy fires up, it s about conflicting ideas concerning what people are going to do in reaction to any given set of data or discovery. Those are the lines of politics and social matters. In other words, you can argue a fact all day, but its still a fact. Dolphins swim in water. The 'how' isn't so much controversy, as much as study.
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106879 - 05/26/16 01:34 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CN
The wrong tree? My original point to Dimitri cannot be too hard to understand. The raw data is often misrepresented, in this case by marketing, as you've made clear. So... thanks for elaborating my point AK
You're welcome, except I didn't. Raw data cannot be misrepresented. It is neither true nor false. Factuality and verifiability are properties of information which is synthesized (and this is key) from data.

Fabricated or corrupt, data it is still data, and it is generally understood that all data-sets are inherently incomplete due to time constraints: how long stuff that once was ain't, how long we've been at this whole acquiring-data game, how much time, labor, and associated cost is afforded to its collection, how much time and associated cost is afforded to the presentation of relevant and profitable information. This is just as well, since even comprehensive data-sets are not necessary to derive specific (mis)informative facts - which exist at the presentation layer.

Not all information is relevant, and of that which is relevant only a subset of that is at all profitable to synthesize - and only a still-smaller subset of that is profitable to present to you, the consumer.

This is not a constraint that science alone is bound by, nor is it one that the scientific method introduces. It applies in equal measure, and for the same reasons, to products of commerce and engineering as it does to products of faith and policy.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106886 - 05/27/16 10:02 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Naama
SO. Me... Being free from all kind of conspiracy theories here
and being free from different ideologies (as it often is the case with science criticism/tics)
I am stating
that considering science as best base
for ones worldview
is wrong, and its a big mistake.


Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. Do you smoke crack by chance? Your posts are nonsensical ramblings.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#106887 - 05/27/16 12:10 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: SIN3]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
I know that.
It does not stop many people from having it as their personal idol. And popping it out like the weasel out of box

No, I don't smoke crack. Do you?
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#106890 - 05/27/16 02:11 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Naama]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
@SIN: I spent a lot of time speaking with foreigners in college, and Naama's reminds me of it, which is why I feel I can grasp the subtext, so to speak. Have you considered English may not be Naama's first language?

*But then again, you'd be amazed at some of these 'college level' attempts at the art of written communication...

@Naama:

 Originally Posted By: Namma
It does not stop many people from having it as their personal idol. And popping it out like the weasel out of box


To elaborate: Some people see science as a useful tool, others, for some greater good beyond themselves. I honestly don't know how to explain it. Maybe belief in a deity is some kind of tool in its own way. Self help, as it were.

Some people replace their belief in god with evolution. They don't claim Atheism so much as a 'belief in evolution.'

I don't give a shit, I tell them. And they say I have to have something to believe in, and I say, "you're looking at it."

My last word for a while on this particular subject: The products of science are only as beneficial to us puny humans as we make them.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/27/16 02:33 PM)
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106891 - 05/27/16 02:12 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3314
 Originally Posted By: CN
If information is censored Dimitri, you don't know the raw data until you have access to the original information. That's not opinion.

If things are being censored or highlighted to further an agenda it ceases to be fact and merely becomes opinion.

That's plain English. Simple and straight-forward.

I'm under the impression that not only do you lack basic insight about the scientific method but also hold some "romanticized" idea about people in white labcoats.

Shit ain't like television.


If I were you I'd shut up and look up "Scientific method" on wikipedia as some sort of crash-education on the level of "science for dummies". --> And I'm quite serious on that part. DO IT!
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106892 - 05/27/16 02:26 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Dimitri]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
@Dimitri:

It seems we more or less share the same point of view, and are expressing a different context for the same fact, with some differences, which has you confused.

I am only going to clarifyone last time. If its an argument you desire, feel free to present another point or topic, here or PM.

You: It ceases to be fact and becomes opinion: more or less what I've been getting at all along, so... why the opposition?

Me: The raw data may look different from the more opinionated presentation.

More or less the same idea, no?

If the data has been misrepresented, or censored, by media, or agenda, you're still lacking knowledge of the original data. In this scenario, the fact is, you don't know the differences between the original process and data, compared to the manipulated final presentation.

One more point:

It seems to me you think I am attacking the scientific method, when I never was in the first place, so much as how information collected by the scientific method is presented, and *faith in scientific consensus.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/27/16 02:36 PM)
Edit Reason: *
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106893 - 05/27/16 08:44 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Czereda Online
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2092
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
Some people replace their belief in god with evolution. They don't claim atheism so much as a belief in evolution.


There are still some Christian denominations which take the Bible literally so they reject the theory of evolution solely on religious grounds. If I'm not mistaken, there are still schools which teach creationism i.e., the silly stuff that Noah took the baby dinosaurs upon his ark. It's mainly an American thing. In my country teachers must abide by the national curriculum so even the Catholic schools must teach evolution. They don't even protest since Catholicism treats the Bible as the mythos. Inspired by the Spirit of God, sure, but still a mythos so its meaning is not literal but symbolic. Here hardly any religious person is offended by evolution. I think it's the same in other European countries since they are more secular than Poland.

Now since Christianity got identified with creationism, some Atheists who are still in their rebellion stage, treat the theory of evolution as some cause to identify with and fight for. This is because if you live in the proverbial bible belt, among people who demand the right to study creationism and who vehemently oppose evolution as something godless, then you use evolution to emphasize your rebellious attitude towards the society you live in. Thus evolution stops being just a scientific theory and becomes the Cause you believe in.

More belligerent Atheists are into the cult of science wanting somehow to prove that Atheism is synonymous with science, that all religious people oppose science and you have to be an Atheist to appreciate science. The same attitude can be observed here in Poland perhaps because the Atheists are in the minority and the Catholic clergy interferes with politics.

It has nothing to do with science. Science is a methodology. Treating it like a substitute for a religion or a cause to identify with is childish. It's an indication that you are still angry with Daddy God and Mommy Church and you need to grow up. The theory of evolution is just that: a theory and there are still things we don't know and further research must be done and it is being done. It's something to study, analyze, experiment with. You are either good at it or you suck at it. There is no place for belief here.

When I was at school, I never liked science and I absolutely hated Biology, not because it offended my religious feelings but because it was difficult and boring. I was a total dumbass when it comes to Biology and I'm still really poor at science in general and not much interested in it. And I bet that those who treat science like a cult and worship it are no wiser. It's not the way to go about this stuff.


Edited by Czereda (05/27/16 08:51 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#106894 - 05/28/16 12:43 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3314
 Originally Posted By: CN
If the data has been misrepresented, or censored, by media, or agenda, you're still lacking knowledge of the original data.

Hence why I talked about reproducability.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#106895 - 05/28/16 01:10 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Dimitri]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
I see what you're saying Dimitri, but the data doesn't always represent facts, as is the case with theories, especially nonsense like the climate change, and predicting the condition of the earth 600 years from now.

In this case you are totally right. Reproducibility reigns.

However, in the case of consensus (and peer review) its only a matter of reproducibility of the experiment to reveal its data. *Also consider when dealing with non-linear systems, or unpredictable things, it becomes more... complex.

Anyway, It only takes one to discover, and prove something. I am not saying that any given experiment should not be tested for validation. But this whole validation process is the issue. You could say the scientific method is good enough, but you and me both know it isn't so, as we've already made clear, much more than the scientific method alone play a part.


Edited by Creatura Noptii (05/28/16 01:29 AM)
Edit Reason: *
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106900 - 05/28/16 05:08 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CN
If the data has been misrepresented, or censored, by media, or agenda, you're still lacking knowledge of the original data.
That's not a very strong case against anything. For starters, data, in and of itself, is not misrepresented, it is given. Let's say I'm about to fly out somewhere for vacation. There's a shit-ton of airlines to choose from, and various measures and metrics presented to me by them with which I can go about evaluating which one to choose. The cost of the ticket, duration of the flights, all sorts of data given – which I can only take as a given. Now, if they're lying from the out-set and I plan to use that data (it is still data – fabricated or not) in my decision making process, then any subsequent decision making effort on my part is basically fucked from the get-go – and precisely to the extent that it being fucked-with by such a thing allows. This is true regardless of the methodology employed in making an informed decision. This is not news. Garbage in, garbage out: we get that. It's as much an issue for the scientific method as it is with any other, and it will still continue to be an issue for researcher and consumer alike even if something better than science comes along… unless that something better happens to be omniscience.

In the mean time I am presented with or given data. Limited though it is, and for as sus' as it may or may not be, it is still more data than I actually need for my purposes. For instance, I've determined, firstly, that my purpose isn't to verify the integrity of the data I am being given. I've also determined that my purpose isn't to evaluate which flight is the cheapest, since, although I have an abundance of data with which to provide that information, I really only care, first and foremost, IF the flight will arrive to its destination on time. That's a piece of data that has not been instantiated yet. The flight hasn't happened. There's no where I can look this up. This data has been omitted because it simply doesn't exist. Whenever I call the airline to ask a real person if my flight will arrive at its destination on time, the answer, I-shit-you-not, is always “yes”. What are the odds! They must be misrepresenting the facts. They can't possibly know that, and there's no way they have a 100% on time arrival rating. So I decide to do some digging. Turns out they only publish the time the flight was scheduled to depart, the time the flight actually departed, and the time the flight actually arrived at its destination.

It'd be nice if they published the time the flight was scheduled to arrive at its destination, since that actual vs scheduled landing is all I care about, really. For some reason they just didn't feel all that compelled to expend the cost and effort necessary to provide me with that information. Still, it's not a total loss – I have been given enough data to extrapolate an on time departure percentage. It's around 90%. It's a pretty safe bet that if it departs late, it's nearly always going to arrive late – common sense. The measures an aircraft can take to make up for lost-time in transit are limited by fuel and regulatory constraints. Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that if it departs on time it will arrive on time - shit happens in transit. Even so, I expect that the people who plan-out flight paths and whatnot, plan these sorts of things out based on more than just a series of fuck-it-why-nots, darts, and coin tosses. They measure these sorts of things based on how long the path from point A to point B takes to run, scheduling the departure to accommodate an arrival time forecast with a bit more accuracy than “sometime afternoon on the 25th – maybe earlier”. Subsequently, although there will be fewer on-time arrivals than on-time departures, the two are so tightly coupled that it won't be significantly fewer. I can count on somewhere <90% and >80% being my chances of my flight arriving on time. They could've just presented the historical schedule vs actual arrival time and saved me a bit of extrapolation, and maybe it would've provided a slightly more accurate number, but at the end of the day, that data is only as relevant as I determine it is and signifies only what I have made it out to signify. Even when giving me the data to work with, they make no promises as to what it actually means, in fact, what they do promise is that the flight, my flight, will get there on time even though the data itself clearly suggests otherwise.
 Originally Posted By: CN
the data doesn't always represent facts, as is the case with theories, especially nonsense like the climate change, and predicting the condition of the earth 600 years from now.
The data is as factual as the data is. It says nothing otherwise in and of itself. What the data says, or speaks to, is open to interpretation and subject to the whim of any method you chose to employ in order extrapolate facts from this data with.

The scientific method, fortunately, is consistent enough in practice to where noise in the data will stand-out. If insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, red-flags and tea-kettles go off when you actually get them. No change in process, no change in environment, but different results? Flaky input. The data is sus', and in ways that the consumer would be none the wiser regarding because, quite frankly, when it comes to interpreting data, most people just don't have a sufficient enough grasp of the subject matter to be qualified even to sort their own ass from their elbow from amongst the data given. We basically trust “the scientists” to catch that sorta thing and break-it-down for us, because not everyone really needs to know how the damn watch works, they just need to know the time. If the dorks in lab coats are given bad-data, they're only slightly less fucked than the hapless consumer - and by no fault or failing of their own.

 Originally Posted By: CZ
When I was at school, I never liked science and I absolutely hated Biology, not because it offended my religious feelings but because it was difficult and boring.
Even if given all the uncensored data, she, like most people, not only wouldn't know what to make of it, but flatly could not be fucked in the least to learn. Throwing all that stuff out there for the consumer/researcher to sift through has the opposite effect of informing. There's only so many hours in a day – and it really is some boring shit, right there. Fortunately, she's not utterly fucked when she gets a head ache and needs some Asprin or whatever. She doesn't walk into the store to find isles and isles of boxes labeled C3H6O, C8H9NO2, C9H13NO2, thinking “I should've paid more attention in school” :(. Nope, instead there are isles and isles of product packaged brightly to convey only the most relevant information to the consumer – a brand and the purpose. Maybe the chemical structure is somewhere on the box in fine print, maybe it's proprietary information – a secret blend of bath-salts and spices, maybe they're lying about that as well - it actually doesn't matter. It's not as if people are going to run home and do some sort of chemical analysis. They're going to run home and take it with some water, tea, or vodka, and it will work as-advertised. It's a trust assumption of convenience, and one that only gets weird to people who, for some reason or other, obsess about that sort of thing - skeptical to the point of impracticality.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106906 - 05/28/16 10:25 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: antikarmatomic]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 950
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
We basically trust “the scientists” to catch that sorta thing and break-it-down for us, because not everyone really needs to know how the damn watch works, they just need to know the time. If the dorks in lab coats are given bad-data, they're only slightly less fucked than the hapless consumer - and by no fault or failing of their own.


I don't know, if their job is to manage data and they can't, their job is on the line, and I am pretty sure it'd be their fault.

As for the data, the sword cuts both ways. Yes, the data by itself is only data, but it comes down to the convenience of programming: the computers are only going to present the data they are programmed for. You can repeat the same experiment over and over and get the same numbers, but no one is going to know that Earth will be like 50 years from now, no matter how many computer models you program.
_________________________
https://youtu.be/8nW-IPrzM1g

Top
#106911 - 05/29/16 12:07 AM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: CN

I don't know, if their job is to manage data and they can't, their job is on the line, and I am pretty sure it'd be their fault.
Their job is to conduct research and analysis, not mine data.

 Originally Posted By: CN
Yes, the data by itself is only data, but it comes down to the convenience of programming: the computers are only going to present the data they are programmed for.
Gross over-simplifications aside, people are going to interpret the data in the manner they have been trained to interpret it with or without the computer. The game doesn't change at all when sifting through this stuff manually. Incidentally, you do realize that data didn't just “poof” into existence with advent of the computer, yes? Well, if ya don't know, now ya know. In other news: data is not synonymous with information, and neither of the two owe their existence to technology.

At any-rate, whether I run the numbers by hand, or devote an entire Oracle instance to processing the data regarding my flight's on time arrivals, the only way I'll ever know for sure if it will land on time is when it does or doesn't. This isn't news to anyone. I'm not exactly shitting my pants at the "revelation" that computer models can't predict what the Earth will look like 50 years from now. The data-sets aren't comprehensive, and even if they were, the time it would take to process them all might very well take 50 years to grok, and even then… well… it's a model – we're all very much aware of this. If these models are being marketed as infallible glimpses into the future that's marketing’s bag… or that people are reactionary morons – there's also that.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#106943 - 05/31/16 02:12 PM Re: Science: a Flawed Paradigm [Re: Creatura Noptii]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
I'm familiar with little Miss Batshit, thanks.

I was actually referring to this statement:

 Quote:
SO. Me... Being free from all kind of conspiracy theories here


But do, carry on \:\)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page 3 of 4 <1234>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.023 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.