^hehe interesting theory. Really does make a lot of sense.

In other news, last nights QandA made for some interesting viewing. Dawkins vs Pell. Did anyone else catch it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

^hehe interesting theory. Really does make a lot of sense.

In other news, last nights QandA made for some interesting viewing. Dawkins vs Pell. Did anyone else catch it?

I'll start a Q and A thread and that can go in there, please.

Well played.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

What you've just said is nothing more than "a round of words that attempts to prove everything, yet prove nothing".

There are plenty of critics of falsificationism you know... or maybe you don't.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You're the one siding with the notion society is on the decline. It's up to you to show evidence that is a bit more substantial than an extremely short run of data based on cherry picked points of view that you happen to disagree with. Would you have said the same in 2007 when the majority of people believe climate change was anthropogenic? If yes, please show evidence. If no, how can you imply a trend based on such a short term data analysis?

You're making big claims that require big data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

I don't have much interest in predicting the course of humanity

But people do. If it turns out that society isn't regressing to pre-Enlightenment values, do the methodologies and findings of the psuedoscientists get thrown out? Hardly. Just as economists can make predictions that are wildly inaccurate, so can social scientists. They are of the same ilk - both try to model human behaviour scientifically, both get predictions extremely wrong. Why should either get respect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I'm not trying to prove anything. You're the one siding with the notion society is on the decline. It's up to you to show evidence that is a bit more substantial than an extremely short run of data based on cherry picked points of view that you happen to disagree with. Would you have said the same in 2007 when the majority of people believe climate change was anthropogenic? If yes, please show evidence. If no, how can you imply a trend based on such a short term data analysis?

You're making big claims that require big data.

I've largely forgotten what this was about, but even I could remember I'm hardly going to bother presenting you with any evidence underpinned by a theoretical approach you regard as a con.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

I've largely forgotten what this was about, but even I could remember I'm hardly going to bother presenting you with any evidence underpinned by a theoretical approach you regard as a con.

I regard it as a con because that's what it is. I recall you or one of your past aliases citing, prior to the collapse in confidence in the current government, the high level of support in the populace for doing something about climate change, and that politicians such as Abbott or Minchin were going against public opinion. That was little more than a few years ago. Now that there is a difference in opinion you use this as evidence that attitudes to science are entering a dark age. I just don't think anyone can make grand claims on such little evidence or on such a short run of data and information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I regard it as a con because that's what it is. I recall you or one of your past aliases citing, prior to the collapse in confidence in the current government, the high level of support in the populace for doing something about climate change, and that politicians such as Abbott or Minchin were going against public opinion. That was little more than a few years ago. Now that there is a difference in opinion you use this as evidence that attitudes to science are entering a dark age. I just don't think anyone can make grand claims on such little evidence or on such a short run of data and information.

I agree with this mostly. I do think you are way wrong about economists and social theorists being a big con though.

Of course they get it wrong, but they often get it right too.

I'm not talking about one off things like rate increases/decreases or one off events where people might react extraordinarily, but to dismiss economists and social theorists out of hand like you are seems to come from just being contrarian.

Surely you need to balance the instances where they get it right with where they get it wrong and perhaps you could statistically come to a conclusion, even then I would suggest that there will be some economists/social theorists who go against prevailing predictions and get it right where most of their colleagues get it wrong.

e.g. The GFC was predicted by at least a handful of economists who bore into the facts and came to conclusions of varying degrees of prescience. That they were summarily dismissed by those that counted probably had to do with reasons perhaps best explained by scientists, and even your dreaded con-men theorists.

Gravyishot, when you call the social sciences a con, I think you are forgetting that the alternative is faith based reasoning.

Yes in the social sciences there is much more room for error than in the physical sciences as there are many variables to take into account which are very hard to measure and the scientist isn't capable of being solely an observer as they are inevitably part of the experiment, and there is probably a much higher instance of social scientists trying to make their experiments meet the results they want rather than the other way round than you would get in the physical sciences but consider the alternative.

Would you want to get advice from the person who says "Hey there's a reasonable chance I haven't considered everything but based on our previous observations when these particular events occur we can reasonably assume that there will be a strong likelyhood that a similar result will occur so it would probably be a good idea to act accordingly at least until the result is visibly different at which time we'll try something different."

Or would you rather take advice on how to run society from the guy that says "Hey some whacked out drug addict wrote a book several thousand years ago and the book was then rewritten multiple times by the dominant political faction of the time to suit their political agenda.

I chose to interpret all of the instructions in the book literally and think we should do what it says to do even when that has been repeatedly shown to be the stupidest thing to do because I'm fucking stupid. I demand you do the same and that you teach your kids to only obey the drug fucked ramblings of uneducated nomadic tribesmen from millenia ago too.

By the way the book clearly says you need to give anyone that's read this book a lot 10% of everything you own so I'm going to need you to give me 10% of your stuff at a minimum. I don't take Amex."

One of those is a scam. It's not the one you are claiming is a scam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I regard it as a con because that's what it is. I recall you or one of your past aliases citing, prior to the collapse in confidence in the current government, the high level of support in the populace for doing something about climate change, and that politicians such as Abbott or Minchin were going against public opinion. That was little more than a few years ago. Now that there is a difference in opinion you use this as evidence that attitudes to science are entering a dark age. I just don't think anyone can make grand claims on such little evidence or on such a short run of data and information.

Well social science has saved lives so I think there is empirical evidence that it has utility.

I take your point regarding public opinion on climate change. I'm better informed now than when I made that comment and the surveys suggest that there was a rise in support but it is falling again, notably after the GFC. Not only that, but survey results indicate that among people who agree with anthropogenic climate change few actually change their behaviour in response to that belief.

For a good set of discussions on these issues see Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1, no. 1 2010. Note that from your perspective that journal is a 100% confidence trick.

The con is not in the findings or the discussion. It is in pretending that there is something scientific about it.

Scientific thought is a method of thought which we apply to observing the universe.

If you are trying to only extrapolate predicted results based on observable phenomenon and correlating it to previous recorded events while keeping in mind your various assumptions and possible weaknesses of your testing model, it is still science even if your testing methods aren't all that accurate.

As more data is collected, you can devise more accurate methods of testing which will lead to more accurate results.

Just because ancient tribesmen thought that the sun was a gods fiery chariot that ran across the sky and that this same chariot was left in the underworld during winter didn't invalidate their observations that a day is 24 hours long and that a year is 365.25 days long.

Just because Einstein showed that a lot of Newtons predictions were overly simplistic or fundamentally wrong didn't make planes fall out of the sky or turn off gravity across the planet temporarily while Einsteinian physics turned itself on.

You are mixing up science as being a form of causation when it is a form of observation.

Attempting to work out how societies work through the use of scientific thought may not currently always produce accurate results but if you use the scientific method to study something - it is science. It's just a form of science we need to spend a lot more time studying to get accurate results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Attempting to work out how societies work through the use of scientific thought may not currently always produce accurate results but if you use the scientific method to study something - it is science. It's just a form of science we need to spend a lot more time studying to get accurate results.

And there are plenty of sound arguments that application of the scientific method to such fields will never make accurate predictions - that is, that using 'science' in these fields is simply a charade to give misleading or incorrect findings the air of authenticity.

And if you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion you are in fact postulating that pure maths is the only science and maths should never be used to extrapolate anything of the less rigorous forms of "fake science" like physics or chemistry as the results will be far less accurate due to variables not being considered, measuring inaccuracies and observation effecting the results of the experiment.

After all these rigour problems could lead to errors in the conclusions of the experiments in these fields and it's better not to even try if there is the slightest chance of incorrectly coming to a conclusion and instead we should all just hope the sky gods give us lots of rain this year and that the frost giants don't decide to come back and bury us all under endless layers of snow until Ragnarok is over and the Easter Bunny kills Santa freeing us from the tyranny of Zombie Jesus's evil elves.

Seriously though, if the scientific method is used to set up experiments that lead to making to conclusions about stuff, it is science. I'm sorry if you dislike the results, but simply disliking them doesn't invalidate them. Only further experiments using the scientific method can do so.

That's not extrapolating anything to its logical conclusion. It's a strawman fallacy.

What experiments are set up to determine that humanity is regressing into a dark age, by the way? Are their methods reproducible? Will the results be the same (or within a margin of error)?

Most social sciences rely on massive underlying assumptions. For instance, classical economics assumes that each human acts rationally and in their best interests. All subsequent conclusions are derived from that underlying assumption. It's a big leap to make. Each different branch of social science will make such assumptions, even if they don't empirically hold true. Sorry if I don't regard such study as science, even if the scientific method is applied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

That's not extrapolating anything to its logical conclusion. It's a strawman fallacy.

What experiments are set up to determine that humanity is regressing into a dark age, by the way? Are their methods reproducible? Will the results be the same (or within a margin of error)?

Most social sciences rely on massive underlying assumptions. For instance, classical economics assumes that each human acts rationally and in their best interests. All subsequent conclusions are derived from that underlying assumption. It's a big leap to make. Each different branch of social science will make such assumptions, even if they don't empirically hold true. Sorry if I don't regard such study as science, even if the scientific method is applied.

No need to apologise. Your loss.

Yes but all science bar pure maths rely on massive underly assumptions. For instance in physics we assume that the laws of physics in our solar system are the same laws in other solar systems. All subsequent conclusions are derived from that underlying assumption. It's a big leap to make as we have never conducted an experiment in even one of the other solar systems out of the millions of them in this galaxy alone, let alone in the other millions of galaxies. Each branch of the physical science make such assumptions, even if they don't empirically hold true (when we eventually test something like the speed of light in other solar-systems to verify our assumptions) .

Are you going to claim that physics isn't a science as a result, even if the scientific method is applied?

No, of course you won't, that would be stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

No need to apologise. Your loss.

It's not really a loss is it? I'm not the one who said 'The Black Swan' was one of the best things he's ever read then goes on to ignore what was said in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Yes but all science bar pure maths rely on massive underly assumptions. For instance in physics we assume that the laws of physics in our solar system are the same laws in other solar systems. All subsequent conclusions are derived from that underlying assumption. It's a big leap to make as we have never conducted an experiment in even one of the other solar systems out of the millions of them in this galaxy alone, let alone in the other millions of galaxies. Each branch of the physical science make such assumptions, even if they don't empirically hold true (when we eventually test something like the speed of light in other solar-systems to verify our assumptions) .

Are you going to claim that physics isn't a science as a result, even if the scientific method is applied?

No, of course you won't, that would be stupid.

The basic underlying assumptions in physics and chemistry are testable and verifiable within our frame of reference. You can measure the mass of the electron and there is a consensus about what it is. The methods to measure, say, the intelligence of a person, are wildly disputed, with accusations of cultural bias or missing elements such as emotional intelligence. If you can't get the fundamental elements measured with any accuracy or consensus, then I'm afraid it's not a science and any pretence to being one is fraudulent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Scientific thought is a method of thought which we apply to observing the universe.

If you are trying to only extrapolate predicted results based on observable phenomenon and correlating it to previous recorded events while keeping in mind your various assumptions and possible weaknesses of your testing model, it is still science even if your testing methods aren't all that accurate.

As more data is collected, you can devise more accurate methods of testing which will lead to more accurate results.

Just because ancient tribesmen thought that the sun was a gods fiery chariot that ran across the sky and that this same chariot was left in the underworld during winter didn't invalidate their observations that a day is 24 hours long and that a year is 365.25 days long.

Just because Einstein showed that a lot of Newtons predictions were overly simplistic or fundamentally wrong didn't make planes fall out of the sky or turn off gravity across the planet temporarily while Einsteinian physics turned itself on.

You are mixing up science as being a form of causation when it is a form of observation.

Attempting to work out how societies work through the use of scientific thought may not currently always produce accurate results but if you use the scientific method to study something - it is science. It's just a form of science we need to spend a lot more time studying to get accurate results.

Wow wow ancient tribesman. Look what if these ancient tribesman knew something we still havent discovered.

Take pyramids as an example. 2 300 000 stones quaried some from as far as 120000 kms away. Apparently according to our records the great pyramid was built in 20 years.

If you lift 10 of those stones a day and some of them weight over 70 tonnes it will take you 600 years to put the damn thing up. Modern machinery will just be able to put 10 of those stones in place a day. There have been attempts by japanese scintists to put 10 stones of that size in place per day. They barely did it using modern cranes.

Ancient tribesman eh. PLease explain. Either our history is not telling us everything or those things are a lot older than what we think. History dates pyramids to 2500 bc.

Well this is embarrassing, I have been operating under the assumption that FreeEasy is a gravyishot alt so I'm a little unsure how to respond.

I have no real idea where you are going with your post so I guess I'll just point out that I can't see how that invalidates my point that just because ancient cultures had lots of really stupid beliefs, this doesn't invalidate any beliefs they had based on actual observation of nature rather than supposition.

Ok ok and please dont compare me to him. You see ancient sumerians and egyptians knew that Sirius (the dog star) has a twin. These days we call that star Sirius B. We have discovered it quite recently with the hubble. They did not only know of its existance they knew precise co ordinates and distance between 2 mentioned stars.

What I am saying is that summerians and egyptians have inherited that knowledge from a lost civilisation. They may have been stupid but who ever came bofore them knew more than us.

Can you imagine when these primitive egyptians saw the pyramids, they must have thought that if they claimed they made them every other tribe around them will shit their pants

What happened to this advanced civilizaton, nobody knows and it is anybodies guess. My theory is that stupid people outbread the smart people and than everything turned to shit. Its happening again.

I agree with you that the only real science is observational science and that there is no way that it will be accurate at first but more observation you do more pieces you will assemble and your prdictions will become more educated. Common sense really which is not very common at all.

..oh and asumption is the mother of all fuck ups. Wise man no nothing and dont invalidate other peoples points.

mmm... outbread

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Ok ok and please dont compare me to him. You see ancient sumerians and egyptians knew that Sirius (the dog star) has a twin. These days we call that star Sirius B. We have discovered it quite recently with the hubble. They did not only know of its existance they knew precise co ordinates and distance between 2 mentioned stars.

What I am saying is that summerians and egyptians have inherited that knowledge from a lost civilisation. They may have been stupid but who ever came bofore them knew more than us.

Can you imagine when these primitive egyptians saw the pyramids, they must have thought that if they claimed they made them every other tribe around them will shit their pants

Well thank you George Pell, the Egyptians or the Sumerians didn't know that Sirius (Alpha Canis Major) was a double star, (where do you get this crap??) which was discovered not by the Hubble space telescope but postulated by Bessel in 1844 and confirmed visually by the American telescope maker Clark in 1862. There was some brouhaha about Erich von Däniken's claim that alien's visited earth based on the fact that the Saharan tribe, the Dogons (who were BIG fans of Sirius) knew about Sirius' double in the 1980's, but they were told and happily took in this new information in the 1930's. So no.



PS: most stars are in fact double

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

I'm a little unsure how to respond.

That would be a first. Sure you don't have a spare essay lying around?

FreeEasy... you need to use Occam's razor a bit more, rather than taking some poorly explained observations and jumping to theories of aliens or unknown civilisations

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

The basic underlying assumptions in physics and chemistry are testable and verifiable within our frame of reference. You can measure the mass of the electron and there is a consensus about what it is. The methods to measure, say, the intelligence of a person, are wildly disputed, with accusations of cultural bias or missing elements such as emotional intelligence. If you can't get the fundamental elements measured with any accuracy or consensus, then I'm afraid it's not a science and any pretence to being one is fraudulent.

The whole point of making assumptions though is that in most situations, you cannot possibly measure and account for every possible variable that might influence your results. Variability and/or error of measurement is highly related to this fact. I'll use an example that I am familiar with which occurs all the time in the study of biomechanics. Its not possible to actually measure the deformation of bone in vivo during some dynamic task such as running, therefore, ALL kinetic analysis studies assume that a body segment acts like a rigid bar. In this case, there aren't many assumptions because there is only a small amount of stuff that we simply don't know and thus cannot account for. But I can see where you are coming from.... there is a continuum from a pure science like maths which doesn't use stats (since the results are either right or wrong, there is no error or variability), through many other forms of science, to pseudoscience where the unknowns are so great and therefore the assumptions are also, but the actual measures so few that you can't come to any sort of reliable conclusion. I agree, when that happens, it just ain't science.

So where does the threshold lie? At what point does something (that makes assumptions) go from being a science to something else (that makes heaps more assumptions) which now becomes a pseudoscience?

edit: maybe in the future, some pseudosciences will actually become sciences because the amount of stuff that is unknown has decreased so much that the amount of assumption making goes down and the results are far more reliable??

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

It's not really a loss is it? I'm not the one who said 'The Black Swan' was one of the best things he's ever read then goes on to ignore what was said in it.

The basic underlying assumptions in physics and chemistry are testable and verifiable within our frame of reference. You can measure the mass of the electron and there is a consensus about what it is. The methods to measure, say, the intelligence of a person, are wildly disputed, with accusations of cultural bias or missing elements such as emotional intelligence. If you can't get the fundamental elements measured with any accuracy or consensus, then I'm afraid it's not a science and any pretence to being one is fraudulent.

Man, what do you do, archive my posts?

As far as I'm concerned Black Swan critiques one of the most used methods in hard science, the use of confidence intervals in normal distributions. The scientific method relies heavily on confidence levels above the 95% tail. Much hard science ends up with a probabilistic outcome with a confidence interval that is accepted as proof in the field. Physical science uses the very same statistical methods used in social science. You can't so easily say it can apply in one field and not the other. There is no difference in the statistical treatment of abstract data. The statistical methods don't know anything about whether the underlying data is about chemical contamination or people.

I honestly get the feeling you don't know enough about physical science or social science to make these types of comments. It's interesting that you use a sub atomic particle as an example, not just because that area of physics is full of probabilistic theorems, but also because we still don't have a unified field theory. Using your ad absurdum logic, you can write off all of hard science because there are still things science can't prove.

When it comes to social science, there are degrees of usefulness and of course you can provide examples where it is weak. That doesn't mean there are not examples where it is strong. You are making an obvious logical fallacy. The example I've used, safety science, uses social science methods which have empirically proven efficacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

But people do. If it turns out that society isn't regressing to pre-Enlightenment values, do the methodologies and findings of the psuedoscientists get thrown out? Hardly. Just as economists can make predictions that are wildly inaccurate, so can social scientists. They are of the same ilk - both try to model human behaviour scientifically, both get predictions extremely wrong. Why should either get respect?

You're abusing the word pseudoscience and trying to squeeze social science in to a box in which it won't fit.

'Black Swan' was good, but Taleb's no great epistemologist.. Read some Hilary Putnam or Rorty and let go of your prejudice.

Everyone else here seems to be stating a similar case to my own but more eloquently, those will be my final words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Man, what do you do, archive my posts?

No, I just have an incredible memory.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned Black Swan critiques one of the most used methods in hard science, the use of confidence intervals in normal distributions. The scientific method relies heavily on confidence levels above the 95% tail. Much hard science ends up with a probabilistic outcome with a confidence interval that is accepted as proof in the field. Physical science uses the very same statistical methods used in social science. You can't so easily say it can apply in one field and not the other. There is no difference in the statistical treatment of abstract data. The statistical methods don't know anything about whether the underlying data is about chemical contamination or people.

I honestly get the feeling you don't know enough about physical science or social science to make these types of comments. It's interesting that you use a sub atomic particle as an example, not just because that area of physics is full of probabilistic theorems, but also because we still don't have a unified field theory. Using your ad absurdum logic, you can write off all of hard science because there are still things science can't prove.

When it comes to social science, there are degrees of usefulness and of course you can provide examples where it is weak. That doesn't mean there are not examples where it is strong. You are making an obvious logical fallacy. The example I've used, safety science, uses social science methods which have empirically proven efficacy.

My criticism was directed at your invocation of social scientists to authenticate your broad claims about the direction of society. Considering you vacillate your opinions wildly, it's hard to take you seriously. As stated earlier, public opinion was your bulwark against climate deniers, now they're turning into idiots. I don't really take such a change in opinion as scientific, even if you want to hide behind the method as some kind of get out.

It seems you have ignored that fundamental sociological measurements are wildly debated within that field alone. If the first principles of a science are shoddy, then how can anything be derived from those principles? These aren't just limitations in the ability to measure, as didj said, but basic problems with the method of measurement.

Yes, there may be a multitude of examples were social science is strong - just as you'll find thousands of people swear by homeopathy.

Fundamentally, this is such a laughable notion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

I'm strongly of the view that it is the rejection of science by the lay public that is bringing us into the dark ages.

And then you tell us it's been measured!

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

I'm placing importance on the statistically demonstrable increase in the rejection of scientifically proven existential risks we face.

Do you really call this science? Some massive leaps of faith there. It looks to me like a conclusion has been formulated that has then sought data to back itself up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

No, I just have an incredible memory.



My criticism was directed at your invocation of social scientists to authenticate your broad claims about the direction of society. Considering you vacillate your opinions wildly, it's hard to take you seriously. As stated earlier, public opinion was your bulwark against climate deniers, now they're turning into idiots. I don't really take such a change in opinion as scientific, even if you want to hide behind the method as some kind of get out.

It seems you have ignored that fundamental sociological measurements are wildly debated within that field alone. If the first principles of a science are shoddy, then how can anything be derived from those principles? These aren't just limitations in the ability to measure, as didj said, but fundamental problems with the method of measurement.

Yes, there may be a multitude of examples were social science is strong - just as you'll find thousands of people swear by homeopathy.

Fundamentally, this is such a laughable notion:



And then you tell us it's been measured!



Do you really call this science? Some massive leaps of faith there. It looks to me like a conclusion has been formulated that has then sought data to back itself up.

I can't really follow this post, most of it seems a bit scattergun to me. Although you have a remarkable memory you do seem to consistently latch onto arbitrary minor points while ignoring the broader points I (and others) make, like some kind of stoned essay marker with a pedantic obsession for correcting footnotes. So much so that you have driven yourself into a bizarre recursive corner like a demented Ouroboros.

I'm quite comfortable changing my mind about things when I learn more. I'm not trapped in dogma.

I haven't driven myself into anything, although I am now finding it amusing that one of the biggest complainers about ad hominem directed towards him is now using it.

You still haven't demonstrated anything to back up your wild claims, and simply hidden behind a shield of scientific method to give yourself a degree of authenticity. To most scientists, if not all, this is psuedoscience.

Glad you're amused. I had to do something to help you out.

I'm not going to bother "backing up my claims" for you. I gave you a reference to read. Go read it. I don't need your approval. Take them or leave them.

The stuff you referenced a couple of pages ago? Read it. None of it led me to conclude that the direction of society is changing in any measurable degree. The stuff I read on cultural acceptance of scientific consensus basically made the claim that people will tend refute consensus basically because it doesn't sit within their narrative of how the world works. I don't disagree with the notion, but nothing I read implied that this is a new thing or new direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Yes, there may be a multitude of examples were social science is strong - just as you'll find thousands of people swear by homeopathy.

What a silly argument. if you are agreeing that claude's premise is correct (that there are multiple examples of strong social being science), then I dont see what public perception has to do with its validity. objectively, there would be no different if no one swore by it or if everyone swore by it. 1+1=2 wouldnt be false if everyone believed to be false (and lets not get into semantics). If it is 'strong', as you argument states, then it is strong.

You have provided no evidence to explain why homeopathy and social sciences are eqivalent other than people 'swear by them' and it is nothing more that a rhetorical device.

The way I see it there just seems to be a difference in definition of what 'science' is and of whether or not applying the scientific method in complex systems is worthwhile.

As for the definition, as you have indicated above there is much disagreement over the meaning of terms like 'science' and 'intelligence'. I would make a decision on a definition based on its utility. I would say that it is worthwhile to continue referring to the social sciences as a science, whilst distinguishing it from hard sciences, because we are more likely to socially benefit from using scientific approaches to social analysis and policy than if we were to not us scientific approaches.

At the risk of committing the crime Becy pointed out above, I would hope it would be self-evident as to why it is worthwhile using science in social analysis and decision making, but I will say we can see from existing research that interpreting society using the scientific method is much more accurate (despite being flawed) and the actions we make much more successfully if we are using these methods than if we dont (or so I understand, I dont have any comprehensive research proving this point, and I also acknowledge multiple accounts of when sceintific approaches have been detrimental).

Abandoning the 'science' approach in these enterprises would inevitably lead drops in standards and discipline unless it was replaced with something more robust. So it only logically follows that you think one of two things...

- that having no system based on scientific method would be more accurate and more successful. to me this is silly, its like saying because medicine is not perfect we should abandon it all together.

or

- that you propose a system that is more accurate and successful than the scientific method in analysing society (which if you do, please share it, im sure you will win a nobel prize)





Do you propose something more robust in social analysis and decision making than the use of the scientific method?

My point is that just because a method reaches the truth (or the cure) does not make the method itself sound.

Engineering and medicine both use heuristics as much as the scientific method in order to get to the truth. Law uses dialectics.

My major problem is with the creeping nature of quantitative analysis as used in the harder sciences in areas where its efficacy is diminished and conclusions drawn may be erroneous. There is plenty on the subject, here is a starting point:

Quote:

Another realistic scenario: Target recently used purchase histories to target pregnant women with ads for baby-related products, with surprising success. I won't rehash that story. From that starting point, you can go a lot further. Pregnancies frequently lead to new car purchases. New car purchases lead to new insurance premiums, and I expect data will show that women with babies are safer drivers. At each step, you're compounding data with more data. It would certainly be nice to know you understood what was happening at each step of the way before offering a teenage driver a low insurance premium just because she thought a large black handbag (that happened to be appropriate for storing diapers) looked cool.

Quote:

"My biggest worry is that we're making important decisions based on black-box algorithms that may have hidden and problematic biases. If we're deciding who to give a mortgage based on machine learning, and the system consistently turns down black people, how do we even notice it, let alone fix it, unless we understand what the rules are?"

I admit I am a little over my head on this particular issue, but I would say that you will find both heuristics and dialectics in social sciences.

could you say dialectics is used in the peer-review system?

and unless I am mistaken about what a heuristic is, which I probably am, couldnt you say that the classical economic assumption that people act rationally and in their best interest is a heuristic? it isnt perfect, but as a rule of thumb it is very useful, similarly with intelligence tests you mentioned above.

On that note, I think they are interconnected, I wouldnt want an isolated scientific method to be the sole instrument, it would benefit from using heuristics and dialectics, just as heuristics and dialectics benefits from the scientific method. I cant imagine engineering being successful without solid scientific knowledge.

Maybe our opinions are not different, SS in isolation would be as productive as it could be, but I still dont think it stands that SS is a psuedoscience and detrimental to progress in human activities.

anyway, hope that made sense.

And I thought that people who argued about unix and file system differences were nerds.

I knew I'd seen gravy's argument somewhere before....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

I knew I'd seen gravy's argument somewhere before....

Awesome! I don't see art anywhere there, which is exactly why I'm doing it now. So much more fun to be in totally abstract land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

The stuff you referenced a couple of pages ago? Read it. None of it led me to conclude that the direction of society is changing in any measurable degree. The stuff I read on cultural acceptance of scientific consensus basically made the claim that people will tend refute consensus basically because it doesn't sit within their narrative of how the world works. I don't disagree with the notion, but nothing I read implied that this is a new thing or new direction.

Yes, there is more to it than that. But there were also more articles than that one in the reference and within that more references. I'd be keen to continue the discussion but there is no point when you start by undermining the entire system of analysis that forms that view. it's no different to the Q&A debate. Also, if I try to summarize the argument you'll pick one small aspect of that and twist the entire debate around it, like those annoying people in committees who call points of order. I can't work out whether you do it to troll or not but it's tiring and endless.

One thing is for sure, we are not responding to climate change and it's going to be an ugly century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Yes, there is more to it than that. But there were also more articles than that one in the reference and within that more references. I'd be keen to continue the discussion but there is no point when you start by undermining the entire system of analysis that forms that view. it's no different to the Q&A debate. Also, if I try to summarize the argument you'll pick one small aspect of that and twist the entire debate around it, like those annoying people in committees who call points of order. I can't work out whether you do it to troll or not but it's tiring and endless.

Calling anyone who questions your POV a troll is a crutch for you, hey?

There may be data upon data and references upon references. There is a lot of data out there currently and it is possible to use it to say many things that may be superficially true. I don't agree with the contention. It's an extremely sloppy finding: that we are entering a post-enlightenment age. None of what you have referred to draws this conclusion. Everyone has their own biases against scientific findings that don't agree with their perspective, but that doesn't mean you infer a higher cause. You are looking for a pattern that is not there.

Some people embrace the science of climate change and refute the science of GM food. Some people embrace medical science but don't want a nuclear medicine reactor on Australia's shores. Some people worry about asbestos in their homes, yet still smoke. It's not unusual or indicative of any trend. My major problem with social science is that it so often uses the scientific method to draw conclusions that simple, rational argument would not countenance. It's like we've thrown Occam's razor out the window because we have so much data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberabit

FreeEasy... you need to use Occam's razor a bit more, rather than taking some poorly explained observations and jumping to theories of aliens or unknown civilisations

Definatelly no aliens here just recorded history. Diud you know that there is a map from the 14th century called Piri Reis map. It maps out south pole with africa and south amrica joined to it.

This map is one of few that survived from the burning of the library in Alexandria. Ancient Greeks and before them ancient egyptians inherited these maps from someone else. They did not have meens to chart that map.

So yeah no Aliens here buddy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

My major problem with social science is that it so often uses the scientific method to draw conclusions that simple, rational argument would not countenance. It's like we've thrown Occam's razor out the window because we have so much data.

That's a fairly big contention you're making and I'm sure you could post examples to support it but I bet you could also post just as many examples which support the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Definatelly no aliens here just recorded history. Diud you know that there is a map from the 14th century called Piri Reis map. It maps out south pole with africa and south amrica joined to it.

This map is one of few that survived from the burning of the library in Alexandria. Ancient Greeks and before them ancient egyptians inherited these maps from someone else. They did not have meens to chart that map.

So yeah no Aliens here buddy.

So this is 14th century map by Piri Reis, who was born in the 15th century AD, survived the burning of the library of Alexandria... in 48AD?

Aha

Please explain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Ok ok and please dont compare me to him. You see ancient sumerians and egyptians knew that Sirius (the dog star) has a twin. These days we call that star Sirius B. We have discovered it quite recently with the hubble. They did not only know of its existance they knew precise co ordinates and distance between 2 mentioned stars.
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Definatelly no aliens here just recorded history. Diud you know that there is a map from the 14th century called Piri Reis map. It maps out south pole with africa and south amrica joined to it.

Sirius B was discovered by western astronomers well prior to the existence of the Hubble. And Antarctica was never connected to Africa or even close to it during human existence, and neither was South America (though I'll allow the possibility that winter pack ice may have bridged them occasionally). Here's a map showing sea and land levels during the last interglacial period- you'll notice both are still separate.



If you can't get a simple fact like that right, why should we give credence to your other claims?

Who is we? Are you talking about yourself in third person.

The entire land mass used to be formed as pangaea.


We have discovered Antarctica in the 19th century.

Piri Reis map is not from the 19th century.

??????

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Who is we? Are you talking about yourself in third person.

The entire land mass used to be formed as pangaea.


We have discovered Antarctica in the 19th century.

Piri Reis map is not from the 19th century.

??????

Pangaea began to break up 200 million years ago, there weren't even mammals on the planet at that point, much less humans. By the time modern human beings evolved, the continents were pretty much where they are now.

The Piri Reis map is from the 16th century, and the american sections of it are thought to be copied from Columbus' maps (which we know would have already existed). The section that some claim is antarctica is more likely just the southern section of the south american coast bent around to fit the parchment that the map is drawn on. This explains the map quite adequately, and is much less problematic than trying to properly back up a claim that it depicts Antarctica.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

My point is that just because a method reaches the truth (or the cure) does not make the method itself sound.

What about if the method is repeatable? This is a hallmark of the scientific method.

I'm assuming that the social sciences use a lot of surveys and questionnaires as part of their methods. Wouldn't there be lots of examples of where the conclusions drawn are repeatable when the same set of questions was asked of different (large) groups of people?



As an aside, the scientific method searches for some truth, but it never actually reaches it, because there always remains some level of uncertainty and something that is unknown. So in that respect, apart from maths, no science reaches "the truth".

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Who is we? Are you talking about yourself in third person.

The entire land mass used to be formed as pangaea.


We have discovered Antarctica in the 19th century.

Piri Reis map is not from the 19th century.

??????

I agree with spacemonkey, so at the very least he could be talking about himself and myself. That makes "we" .

Anyway, we is not even the third person. It's first person plural. So if you can't even get basic english right, why should WE give credence to anything you say?


You're right about one thing though..... you really aren't anything like gravyishot who is actually intelligent and well informed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeEasy

Definatelly no aliens here just recorded history. Diud you know that there is a map from the 14th century called Piri Reis map. It maps out south pole with africa and south amrica joined to it.

This map is one of few that survived from the burning of the library in Alexandria. Ancient Greeks and before them ancient egyptians inherited these maps from someone else. They did not have meens to chart that map.

So yeah no Aliens here buddy.

Sorry for the multiple posts folks but this really is lol worthy.

So you're saying that a map from 600yrs ago, which apparently didn't come from 600yrs ago anyway because it pre-dates the destruction of the library of Alexandria which occurred at least 1000yr earlier, records a historical time period which dates to around 175 million years ago.

Right, so if it wasn't aliens who actually drew the map with the sailing ships on it, then who did? oh right yeah, the dinosaurs must have been your lost civilization of super intelligent beings.