Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on scientific misrepresentation

tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 8:30:03 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
John Oliver expertly sums up the problems with the people's--and the media's--trust in scientific studies. It's something I have railed on IRL, and it's a point I'm going to raise now. I think, for a long while, people have kept their implicit trust in whatever the media represents as the conclusion of a scientific study. And there are multiple problems with this view, because science is a rigorous subject that requires much more credibility than is expected--and the scientists and media both misrepresent studies for the purpose of some form of "entertainment."

People have stopped buying into the view that studies can have problems. The media's representation of studies tries to be either overly optimistic or overly pessimistic--since drawing emotions is the purpose of entertainment. But cherry-picking the conclusions of studies that you want or like isn't science--that's the distinction between "faith" and "science." The news media's misrepresentations of what the science actually says is--for lack of other words--painful for me to hear, because it merely propagates faith and delusions in the face of actual evidence.

For an example, take this article published by Mirror. [http://www.mirror.co.uk...] It's a hilarious article that claims "scientific research proves that the smell of flatulence fights cancer." That's a gross misrepresentation of the research. The actual study concluded that "AP39, a novel mitochondria-targeted hydrogen sulfide donor, stimulates cellular bioenergetics, exerts cytoprotective effects and protects against the loss of mitochondrial DNA integrity in oxidatively stressed endothelial cells in vitro." [http://europepmc.org...] So how did the media manage to misrepresent it so much? It's simple: AP39 donates hydrogen sulfide to mitochondria, and incidentally has cytoprotective effects and stimulates bioenergetics as per the study. The media noticed that hydrogen sulfide is present in flatulence.

Anthropogenic climate change is a perfect example of the whole issue--on both sides (the side that says climate change is dominated by human-emitted greenhouse gases and the side of climate scepticism). First, the mistakes made in citations of pro-AGW advocates--and, more notably, debaters on this site--are pretty huge. For instance, many people cite a study that says "97% of studies suggests the domination of anthropogenic global warming in climate change graphs." NASA's article on the scientific consensus is here. [http://climate.nasa.gov...] The problem is the study's own methodology, which resulted in a misrepresentation by NASA. The study is actually one by J. Cook, et al [http://iopscience.iop.org...] and the study's methodology is flawed because it is taken by journals that refuse to publish dissent. The publications used don't publish skeptical research.

The second, more critical, example here is global warming skepticism amongst the common populace itself--caused by vast misrepresentation of studies. For example, the State Policy Network started funding anti-AGW studies being published to promote the sale of coal and fossil fuels. Conservative billionaires have also secretly funded conservative think-tanks to create an anti-AGW impression on the public. [http://www.theguardian.com...] The corruption of the scientific method in this way is truly pathetic.

TL;DR

1. The media grossly misrepresents scientific research by looking into keywords and skimming press releases of studies.

2. Just because a study says something doesn't mean it is true, because of poor methodology--science is a slow, rigorous process, and people shouldn't jump to conclusions so fast: a common sight on debate.org.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 9:01:37 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Confirmation Bias in Studies

There are some studies that are deliberately crafted to gain certain conclusions--studies that seriously annoy me due to the sheer level of bias the scientists have. One example of such a study is Mark Regnerus's study on the effects of same-sex parenting. Here is Ana Samuel's summary of Regnerus's study [http://www.familystructurestudies.com...] and the study itself. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] The study concluded that children who saw their parents engage in same-gender relationships were at greater risk of adverse outcomes (e.g. "being on public assistance, being unemployed, and having poorer educational attainment." [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...]).

The worst part is, in multiple of Regnerus's media appearances, he used the study as proof that same-sex parenting should be made illegal. [http://www.slate.com...] That is truly pathetic, because (1) his study never established a causal link between the same-sex parents and harms to children (merely establishing a correlation) and (2) his study wasn't even about same-sex parenting--it was about children witnessing their parents in same-gender relationships, which were often broken apart. The same results would come on in opposite-gender relationships when you take into account that only two of Regnerus's subjects were actually raised by same-gender parents--and both of those subjects had positive outcomes. [http://thinkprogress.org...] Mark Oppenheimer explains about Regnerus's University of Notre Dame profile: "'Mark alluded to the fact that his academic interest in family formation trends and processes had arisen while still an evangelical, and his recent entrance into the Catholic Church has shaped his own thinking about fertility and family life,' the profile says. Dr. Regnerus 'also hinted at future contributions that his academic research could potentially make to the larger Catholic Church.'" [http://www.nytimes.com...]

Pro-creationist studies almost always carry confirmation bias in them. The RATE model of creationist physicist Russell Humphreys [https://en.wikipedia.org...] is the most frustrating. The RATE project study by Dr. Humphreys essentially argues that the presence of helium in zircon crystals prevents uranium-lead dating to function. A bit of background, uranium lead dating works by the following formula:

Nnow = Norig * e^[(-lambda)*t]

Here, "Nnow" is the number of uranium atoms currently present in the sample of zircon rock or zircon crystals. "Norig" refers to the number of uranium atoms originally in the sample, which is equal to the sum of lead and uranium atoms in the sample, since lead atoms displace some uranium atoms in the sample. Lambda is the decay rate of uranium. The age of zircon rock is t. If we have methods to find all variables other than t, then we can find the age of zircon rock.

Humphrey's study questioned the ability of researchers to find the decay rate of uranium because of the presence of helium in zircon rock. Here's why the study is complete nonsense. Dr. Humphreys' RATE model fails to fulfill Quality Assurance or Quality Control Procedures. "Essential QC/QA Concedures include properly collecting, identifying, labeling, storing and monitoring all samples. If the collection site of a specimen is unknown or if it has been improperly stored for several decades, any resulting data are often useless." [http://www.talkorigins.org...] Humphreys insists that most of the Precambrian sections of the Fenton Hill cores are "granodiorites." This is flawed, since they are, in fact, gneisses. The entire RATE study assumes that the Precambrian sections consisted of *only one* rock unit. Humphreys admits that if it was not only one rock unit, or if the experiment failed to identify rock types, it would be inappropriate for their modeling efforts.

When studies fail to follow the basic scientific method just so they can reach the conclusion the researchers want to reach, it is immensely frustrating. Science and the scientific method is all about questioning preexisting assumptions and displaying skepticism, and such studies are an insult to scientific credibility.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 7:02:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Bump
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 1:12:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 7:02:38 AM, tejretics wrote:
Bump
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
keithprosser
Posts: 1,896
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 2:01:53 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I dont know what you are expecting, Tej. There's no debate to be had - who supports scientific misrepresentation? And if they did, they'd hardly say so.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 4:46:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 8:30:03 AM, tejretics wrote:

Anthropogenic climate change is a perfect example of the whole issue--on both sides (the side that says climate change is dominated by human-emitted greenhouse gases and the side of climate scepticism). First, the mistakes made in citations of pro-AGW advocates--and, more notably, debaters on this site--are pretty huge. For instance, many people cite a study that says "97% of studies suggests the domination of anthropogenic global warming in climate change graphs." NASA's article on the scientific consensus is here. [http://climate.nasa.gov...] The problem is the study's own methodology, which resulted in a misrepresentation by NASA. The study is actually one by J. Cook, et al [http://iopscience.iop.org...] and the study's methodology is flawed because it is taken by journals that refuse to publish dissent. The publications used don't publish skeptical research.

This example is more of a flaw in how 'science' is being performed than being presented in the media. The bias with this example is with the journals picking and choosing what to publish. It's not the media's fault that peer reviewed journals are biased.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 8:36:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I believe the case can be made that Science represented, is Science misrepresented.

Science behind closed doors, that never sees the light of day, may be just fine, have no credibility problems.

When results are made public, for mass consumption, credibility is lost.
Peer review is often non-existent.

Results are accepted as if Science (the SM) is flawless, when in fact the process itself recognises, so to say, that false results are to be expected from time to time, and will need correction.
That bears repeating.
False results are to be expected. That is part of the game plan.
And that is when all the rules have been followed, as perfectly as humanly possible.
We can be certain that the rules are not always followed, as that is human nature.

Due to the volumn of Scientific findings, peer review is often non existent, no nefarious motives, still, a breakdown of the SM system.

Defenders will say that with the really important stuff, the system will be upheld.
Even so, the system says sometimes the really important stuff will have false results.
Of course most of the daily grind of Science is not the really important stuff.
The way it touches, or intrudes into, our daily lives, is not the really important stuff.

Science is a great process, that has yielded great information.
It is not flawless. It is not error free. It is not harmless.
It is not guaranteed to yield Truth.
These things are not only forgotten, they are sometimes outright denied.
Therein lies the rub.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 5:51:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 4:46:05 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
This example is more of a flaw in how 'science' is being performed than being presented in the media. The bias with this example is with the journals picking and choosing what to publish. It's not the media's fault that peer reviewed journals are biased.

I know - I didn't mention the media in that paragraph.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 8:40:14 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Science isn't a thing. Science is a methodology for limiting cognitive bias. It's a methodology. An idea. It was born from mankind growing rather tired of shoveling each other's BS.

Whenever you hear knows that starts with 'scientists confirm' or 'studies show' you should immediately tune out/turn away. You're being force-fed an opinion, not science.

Even hard scientific data is often presented with a healthy dose of appeal to false authority and misrepresentation of data.

I've spent the past 20 years reading research and turning it into functional models for testing. The first page, the summary section, is nearly always a fatuous self-declaration of self-important horsedung. Seriously. Until you read the details of the study, how it was performed and what assumptions were made you can't trust a word of the summary. Many many many times one finds that the peer review process was clique-approved and shoved through the process by a group that, quite literally, BELIEVES (in the religious faith sense of belief) in a common set of assumptions.

If the belief is wrong, the conclusion will also be wrong. Thus the data is far more important than the conclusion.

Worse, beliefs from assumption lead to cognitive biases that can hold real progress in science back for decades.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 9:05:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 8:40:14 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Science isn't a thing. Science is a methodology for limiting cognitive bias. It's a methodology. An idea. It was born from mankind growing rather tired of shoveling each other's BS.

Whenever you hear knows that starts with 'scientists confirm' or 'studies show' you should immediately tune out/turn away. You're being force-fed an opinion, not science.

Even hard scientific data is often presented with a healthy dose of appeal to false authority and misrepresentation of data.

I've spent the past 20 years reading research and turning it into functional models for testing. The first page, the summary section, is nearly always a fatuous self-declaration of self-important horsedung. Seriously. Until you read the details of the study, how it was performed and what assumptions were made you can't trust a word of the summary. Many many many times one finds that the peer review process was clique-approved and shoved through the process by a group that, quite literally, BELIEVES (in the religious faith sense of belief) in a common set of assumptions.

If the belief is wrong, the conclusion will also be wrong. Thus the data is far more important than the conclusion.

Worse, beliefs from assumption lead to cognitive biases that can hold real progress in science back for decades.

+1. Nothing in science is certain (except that nothing in science is certain, but I'm not sure that's a scientific statement anyway. So hopefully no paradox. Hmm.)
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 9:51:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 8:30:03 AM, tejretics wrote:
John Oliver expertly sums up the problems with the people's--and the media's--trust in scientific studies. It's something I have railed on IRL, and it's a point I'm going to raise now. I think, for a long while, people have kept their implicit trust in whatever the media represents as the conclusion of a scientific study. And there are multiple problems with this view, because science is a rigorous subject that requires much more credibility than is expected--and the scientists and media both misrepresent studies for the purpose of some form of "entertainment."

People have stopped buying into the view that studies can have problems. The media's representation of studies tries to be either overly optimistic or overly pessimistic--since drawing emotions is the purpose of entertainment. But cherry-picking the conclusions of studies that you want or like isn't science--that's the distinction between "faith" and "science." The news media's misrepresentations of what the science actually says is--for lack of other words--painful for me to hear, because it merely propagates faith and delusions in the face of actual evidence.

For an example, take this article published by Mirror. [http://www.mirror.co.uk...] It's a hilarious article that claims "scientific research proves that the smell of flatulence fights cancer." That's a gross misrepresentation of the research. The actual study concluded that "AP39, a novel mitochondria-targeted hydrogen sulfide donor, stimulates cellular bioenergetics, exerts cytoprotective effects and protects against the loss of mitochondrial DNA integrity in oxidatively stressed endothelial cells in vitro." [http://europepmc.org...] So how did the media manage to misrepresent it so much? It's simple: AP39 donates hydrogen sulfide to mitochondria, and incidentally has cytoprotective effects and stimulates bioenergetics as per the study. The media noticed that hydrogen sulfide is present in flatulence.

Anthropogenic climate change is a perfect example of the whole issue--on both sides (the side that says climate change is dominated by human-emitted greenhouse gases and the side of climate scepticism). First, the mistakes made in citations of pro-AGW advocates--and, more notably, debaters on this site--are pretty huge. For instance, many people cite a study that says "97% of studies suggests the domination of anthropogenic global warming in climate change graphs." NASA's article on the scientific consensus is here. [http://climate.nasa.gov...] The problem is the study's own methodology, which resulted in a misrepresentation by NASA. The study is actually one by J. Cook, et al [http://iopscience.iop.org...] and the study's methodology is flawed because it is taken by journals that refuse to publish dissent. The publications used don't publish skeptical research.

The second, more critical, example here is global warming skepticism amongst the common populace itself--caused by vast misrepresentation of studies. For example, the State Policy Network started funding anti-AGW studies being published to promote the sale of coal and fossil fuels. Conservative billionaires have also secretly funded conservative think-tanks to create an anti-AGW impression on the public. [http://www.theguardian.com...] The corruption of the scientific method in this way is truly pathetic.

TL;DR

1. The media grossly misrepresents scientific research by looking into keywords and skimming press releases of studies.

2. Just because a study says something doesn't mean it is true, because of poor methodology--science is a slow, rigorous process, and people shouldn't jump to conclusions so fast: a common sight on debate.org.

Yes, I have seen people cite one solitary study as "proof" of some point being true. Worse, I have seen the abstract of a study cited as proof where one needs to pay money to evaluate the study itself. Even worse, I have seen newspaper articles misrepresenting some study cited as "proof" of some controversial point. And worst of all, a member of DDO even cited a debate on here (which itself cited a study) to me as alleged proof of a very controversial conclusion.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 9:56:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 9:05:45 PM, user13579 wrote:
+1. Nothing in science is certain (except that nothing in science is certain, but I'm not sure that's a scientific statement anyway. So hopefully no paradox. Hmm.)

That's not really what I said and I can't really agree with it. There is a huge amount of axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth.

My main point is that a person has to police their own biases in order to tell what is good science from what is bad.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 10:02:51 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 9:56:26 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 9:05:45 PM, user13579 wrote:
+1. Nothing in science is certain (except that nothing in science is certain, but I'm not sure that's a scientific statement anyway. So hopefully no paradox. Hmm.)

That's not really what I said and I can't really agree with it. There is a huge amount of axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth.

Oh no. Not again! I guess I have to invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. I'm invoking that on anything you claim to be an axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth. Because clearly, such statements cannot be settled by experiment, so by NFLS they are not worthy of debate. They're not worthy of being called axioms.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 10:11:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 10:02:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
Oh no. Not again! I guess I have to invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. I'm invoking that on anything you claim to be an axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth. Because clearly, such statements cannot be settled by experiment, so by NFLS they are not worthy of debate. They're not worthy of being called axioms.

When a ballistic shell fired from a railgun lands on your house, the survivors generally agree on the shared evidence that you were wrong.

axiomatic truth, sophists hate axiomatic truth
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 10:13:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 10:11:08 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:02:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
Oh no. Not again! I guess I have to invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. I'm invoking that on anything you claim to be an axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth. Because clearly, such statements cannot be settled by experiment, so by NFLS they are not worthy of debate. They're not worthy of being called axioms.

When a ballistic shell fired from a railgun lands on your house, the survivors generally agree on the shared evidence that you were wrong.

axiomatic truth, sophists hate axiomatic truth

Axiomatic truth is unfalsifiable.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 10:14:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 10:13:03 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:11:08 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:02:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
Oh no. Not again! I guess I have to invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. I'm invoking that on anything you claim to be an axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth. Because clearly, such statements cannot be settled by experiment, so by NFLS they are not worthy of debate. They're not worthy of being called axioms.

When a ballistic shell fired from a railgun lands on your house, the survivors generally agree on the shared evidence that you were wrong.

axiomatic truth, sophists hate axiomatic truth

Axiomatic truth is unfalsifiable.

Yes, but my explanation was a let less boring.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 10:15:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 10:14:13 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:13:03 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:11:08 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:02:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
Oh no. Not again! I guess I have to invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. I'm invoking that on anything you claim to be an axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth. Because clearly, such statements cannot be settled by experiment, so by NFLS they are not worthy of debate. They're not worthy of being called axioms.

When a ballistic shell fired from a railgun lands on your house, the survivors generally agree on the shared evidence that you were wrong.

axiomatic truth, sophists hate axiomatic truth

Axiomatic truth is unfalsifiable.

Yes, but my explanation was a let less boring.

Axiomatic truth is not science. It is math or logic.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 10:32:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 10:15:47 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:14:13 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:13:03 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:11:08 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:02:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
Oh no. Not again! I guess I have to invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. I'm invoking that on anything you claim to be an axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth. Because clearly, such statements cannot be settled by experiment, so by NFLS they are not worthy of debate. They're not worthy of being called axioms.

When a ballistic shell fired from a railgun lands on your house, the survivors generally agree on the shared evidence that you were wrong.

axiomatic truth, sophists hate axiomatic truth

Axiomatic truth is unfalsifiable.

Yes, but my explanation was a let less boring.

Axiomatic truth is not science. It is math or logic.

Actually, it's philosophy. It's central to the philosophies of science and mathematics because of it's role in logic.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 10:45:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 10:32:38 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:15:47 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:14:13 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:13:03 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:11:08 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:02:51 PM, user13579 wrote:
Oh no. Not again! I guess I have to invoke Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. I'm invoking that on anything you claim to be an axiomatic, epistemologically valid, scientific truth. Because clearly, such statements cannot be settled by experiment, so by NFLS they are not worthy of debate. They're not worthy of being called axioms.

When a ballistic shell fired from a railgun lands on your house, the survivors generally agree on the shared evidence that you were wrong.

axiomatic truth, sophists hate axiomatic truth

Axiomatic truth is unfalsifiable.

Yes, but my explanation was a let less boring.

Axiomatic truth is not science. It is math or logic.

Actually, it's philosophy. It's central to the philosophies of science and mathematics because of it's role in logic.

I don't think the philosophy of science is science. Because if it were science, the same rigor required in science would be required for the philosophy of science. Philosophy deals with subjective statements and empirically untestable "axioms". Even the axioms of logic are just assumed. So, those axioms are not science.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:07:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 10:45:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
I don't think the philosophy of science is science. Because if it were science, the same rigor required in science would be required for the philosophy of science. Philosophy deals with subjective statements and empirically untestable "axioms". Even the axioms of logic are just assumed. So, those axioms are not science.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:14:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
vvvv

At 5/11/2016 8:40:14 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Science isn't a thing. Science is a methodology for limiting cognitive bias. It's a methodology. An idea. It was born from mankind growing rather tired of shoveling each other's BS.

Whenever you hear knows that starts with 'scientists confirm' or 'studies show' you should immediately tune out/turn away. You're being force-fed an opinion, not science.

Even hard scientific data is often presented with a healthy dose of appeal to false authority and misrepresentation of data.

I've spent the past 20 years reading research and turning it into functional models for testing. The first page, the summary section, is nearly always a fatuous self-declaration of self-important horsedung. Seriously. Until you read the details of the study, how it was performed and what assumptions were made you can't trust a word of the summary. Many many many times one finds that the peer review process was clique-approved and shoved through the process by a group that, quite literally, BELIEVES (in the religious faith sense of belief) in a common set of assumptions.

If the belief is wrong, the conclusion will also be wrong. Thus the data is far more important than the conclusion.

Worse, beliefs from assumption lead to cognitive biases that can hold real progress in science back for decades.

^^^
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:15:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:07:15 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:45:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
I don't think the philosophy of science is science. Because if it were science, the same rigor required in science would be required for the philosophy of science. Philosophy deals with subjective statements and empirically untestable "axioms". Even the axioms of logic are just assumed. So, those axioms are not science.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I don't see how just defining a statement to be an axiom makes it "true". You can define basically anything you want to be an axiom, as long as the axioms are consistent with each other. They only determine what other statements are consistent with those axioms. A statement is "true" within a particular system defined by the axioms. Now, you can say that it is absolutely true that a particular statement is consistent with the axioms. But, then you have to show that the axioms by themselves are consistent, and basically if you can even do arithmetic with your axioms, then I don't think it's possible to prove their consistency.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:28:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:15:18 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:07:15 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:45:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
I don't think the philosophy of science is science. Because if it were science, the same rigor required in science would be required for the philosophy of science. Philosophy deals with subjective statements and empirically untestable "axioms". Even the axioms of logic are just assumed. So, those axioms are not science.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I don't see how just defining a statement to be an axiom makes it "true". You can define basically anything you want to be an axiom, as long as the axioms are consistent with each other. They only determine what other statements are consistent with those axioms. A statement is "true" within a particular system defined by the axioms. Now, you can say that it is absolutely true that a particular statement is consistent with the axioms. But, then you have to show that the axioms by themselves are consistent, and basically if you can even do arithmetic with your axioms, then I don't think it's possible to prove their consistency.

Stop being lazy and read a little history. You'll soon 'see' what you cannot currently see.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:34:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:28:59 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:15:18 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:07:15 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 10:45:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
I don't think the philosophy of science is science. Because if it were science, the same rigor required in science would be required for the philosophy of science. Philosophy deals with subjective statements and empirically untestable "axioms". Even the axioms of logic are just assumed. So, those axioms are not science.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I don't see how just defining a statement to be an axiom makes it "true". You can define basically anything you want to be an axiom, as long as the axioms are consistent with each other. They only determine what other statements are consistent with those axioms. A statement is "true" within a particular system defined by the axioms. Now, you can say that it is absolutely true that a particular statement is consistent with the axioms. But, then you have to show that the axioms by themselves are consistent, and basically if you can even do arithmetic with your axioms, then I don't think it's possible to prove their consistency.

Stop being lazy and read a little history. You'll soon 'see' what you cannot currently see.

"Several philosophers, including Donald Davidson and many deflationists, have endorsed axiomatic theories of truth in their accounts of truth."

"However, it is far from clear that truth is a definable notion."

Good. I'll wait for their proof that truth is definable. Then I'll read the rest. Actually how are they supposed to prove that truth is definable? If they want to prove that "truth is definable" is true, well they basically have to assume that truth exists in the first place!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:36:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:34:31 PM, user13579 wrote:
Good. I'll wait for their proof that truth is definable. Then I'll read the rest. Actually how are they supposed to prove that truth is definable? If they want to prove that "truth is definable" is true, well they basically have to assume that truth exists in the first place!

shrug:

I learned a long time ago not to waste my time on idiotic circular sophistry.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:38:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:36:23 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:34:31 PM, user13579 wrote:
Good. I'll wait for their proof that truth is definable. Then I'll read the rest. Actually how are they supposed to prove that truth is definable? If they want to prove that "truth is definable" is true, well they basically have to assume that truth exists in the first place!

shrug:

I learned a long time ago not to waste my time on idiotic circular sophistry.

You do it then. Prove that the statement "truth is definable" is true, without a circular proof assuming that truth exists in the first place. You are the one being circular.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:42:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:38:18 PM, user13579 wrote:
You do it then. Prove that the statement "truth is definable" is true, without a circular proof assuming that truth exists in the first place. You are the one being circular.

I pointed you towards the history of philosophy because it's already there, available for free on the internet, waiting for you to read.

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2016 11:45:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:42:50 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:38:18 PM, user13579 wrote:
You do it then. Prove that the statement "truth is definable" is true, without a circular proof assuming that truth exists in the first place. You are the one being circular.

I pointed you towards the history of philosophy because it's already there, available for free on the internet, waiting for you to read.

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it.

I don't care about the history of philosophy. We were talking about science. You said some scientific statements are "axioms". They cannot be scientific then. Ok, give me an example of a scientific "axiom". I want to use Newton's Flaming Laser Sword and/or Popper on it.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 12:25:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/11/2016 11:45:42 PM, user13579 wrote:
I don't care about the history of philosophy. We were talking about science. You said some scientific statements are "axioms". They cannot be scientific then. Ok, give me an example of a scientific "axiom". I want to use Newton's Flaming Laser Sword and/or Popper on it.

Like the author of the paper you're pirating from, I don't care to waste my time on meaningless argument.

Generally speaking, I consider the term 'axiomatic' to be cognitively equivalent to ZFC intersection, and truth being derived from set boundary eliminations until all observational tests have reduced the ZFC as far as possible.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 12:30:49 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 12:25:22 AM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 5/11/2016 11:45:42 PM, user13579 wrote:
I don't care about the history of philosophy. We were talking about science. You said some scientific statements are "axioms". They cannot be scientific then. Ok, give me an example of a scientific "axiom". I want to use Newton's Flaming Laser Sword and/or Popper on it.

Like the author of the paper you're pirating from, I don't care to waste my time on meaningless argument.

Generally speaking, I consider the term 'axiomatic' to be cognitively equivalent to ZFC intersection, and truth being derived from set boundary eliminations until all observational tests have reduced the ZFC as far as possible.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Ah. Finally you mention ZFC. Set theory proves nothing outside of math. Are you saying math is science? It really isn't. Math tells you nothing about the "physical world". Besides, I can use different axioms other than ZFC. I don't have to use the axiom of choice, for example (good luck testing that empirically! lol). I can prove that a ball can be chopped into pieces and have its pieces rearranged into two balls identical to the first ball. What does that tell me about the "physical world"? Nothing!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."