Do you Compartmentalize?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2016, 07:41 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 02:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes they have. It's called the scientific *method*, and peer review.

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the scientific method and peer review eliminate individual bias.

If you have a strong bias going into an observation, there's little reason to believe that this would be eliminated in the process of peer review. In fact just like here and else where, if we have strong biases we'd likely buckle down on those beliefs regardless.

Pointing to published studies, in which such strong biases, incentives, prejudices didn't exists in the first place, doesn't help. Nor would you likely be able to cite some well established studies in support of your claim about the effects of the scientific method, and peer review on people strongly held biases. This belief requires a steady stream of more fictions about the human mind itself.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 07:43 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 07:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  This is where the compartmentalization occurs.

The meaning of what science does, is what scientists do. If you’re speaking of what science does, you're making a generalized statement as to what scientist do as a whole, either that or trying to pull a no true scotsman. Scientists are employees of wide variety of organizations, both public and private, and only a small fraction of those with higher degrees in science work in academia. They serve in the interest of the organizations that employee them, in private industries, that’s in the interest of the corporation, and their stockholders.

Folks such as yourself seem to have this fictional conception of some sort of pure science, unadulterated, committed to altruistically, in pursuit of truth for truths sake. When this is just a fantasy. It doesn’t exist. A scientists hired whether in academia, or even the private sphere, is merely means to the selfish ends of their particular organizations, whether the employee realizes it or not. At a university, these goals are aspects like attract donors, increase enrollment, move up in ranking, increase prestigious, etc….

"This is where the compartmentalization occurs."

No, that is where conflict of interest can occur for companies that employ technicians who use methods derived by science to produce a product.

"The meaning of what science does, is what scientists do."

No, this is completely fucking backwards. Science defines what scientists do, scientists DON'T define what science is by doing whatever they want.

"If you’re speaking of what science does, you're making a generalized statement as to what scientist do as a whole, either that or trying to pull a no true scotsman."

Scientists work within the context and framework of the peer reviewed scientific method. This isn't a no true scotsman, nor is it even a generalized statement. It is what the definition is for a scientist.

"Scientists are employees of wide variety of organizations, both public and private, and only a small fraction of those with higher degrees in science work in academia."

So while you assert this, you also assert that your generalizations about science and scientists hold true for the whole group. This is simply hypocritical.

The reality is that many people hold science degrees and work for organizations performing tests, but these people are better classified as science TECHNICIANS as opposed to SCIENTISTS. A high school science teacher is not a scientist by default. Nor is someone who works for an environmental consultant.

Here is a very simple explanation (that you either won't understand or won't read), scientists define the research that they do, employees (technicians) have their work assigned for them.

A scientist identifies a problem and works independent of whoever their "employer" is to solve it. For instance, a professor at a university is an employee of the university in that they are paid to teach. THAT is what the university has some control over (that and other in-house responsibilities such as sitting on hiring committees or curriculum committees, etc). Their research is NOT defined by or assigned by the university. There is no pressure to do a certain type of test, reach a specific conclusion, or push the university's agenda (whatever that may be). The researcher is not beholden to the university with respect to their scientific research.

A technician on the other hand (the people YOU define as representatives of scientists) are assigned problems by their bosses and administrators to solve. Or they are assigned tasks to do. This is using methods derived from science, to do a job. It does NOT equate with being a scientist in the sense YOU keep alluding to.


"Folks such as yourself seem to have this fictional conception of some sort of pure science, unadulterated, committed to altruistically, in pursuit of truth for truths sake. "

YOU don't understand how science actually works nor how the scientific community polices itself.

"When this is just a fantasy. It doesn’t exist. "

Bullshit. Just because YOU fail to understand the difference between science and work or scientist and technician, does NOT mean that science is corrupted.

"A scientists hired whether in academia, or even the private sphere, is merely means to the selfish ends of their particular organizations, whether the employee realizes it or not."

Once again, this is patently false. Academic institutions don't hire research scientists to keep them beholden to an agenda. Once again, this is why TENURE is a thing that exists too.

But you also clearly don't know how scientists are hired at academic institutions. Scientists (the other research faculty) in a department are the ones who do the interviewing and decide on which candidate gets the job. The scientists within academia, are beholden (with respect to their science) to their peers. Department heads are SCIENTISTS. Faculty are SCIENTISTS. Departments run themselves and they are populated by SCIENTISTS.

"At a university, these goals are aspects like attract donors, increase enrollment, move up in ranking, increase prestigious, etc…."

Attracting donors. Yep, departments and universities are definitely interested in that. And no, that doesn't change how or what science the researchers do. Instead, they promote the research they are already doing to attract donors or alumni donations.

Increase enrollment. Yep, to a point. But that is not related to the scientific research. It defines absolutely nothing about what research the scientists do, or how, or why. Good enrollment keeps the introductory level classes filled which helps a department maintain a steady budget from the university for things like TA's (graduate students who do research most commonly).

Move up in ranking? Guess what? What research you are doing means jackshit for this. College rankings are based on graduation rates and publication rates and grant funding rates. Where the faculty publish or what the subject is of the grant that gets funded, is irrelevant. Administration doesn't give a rat's ass if the grant was about cats fucking dogs, climate change, or a new hair growth formula. If it got funded, it's good to them. Nor do they give a shit about what the publication is about. All they care about is if the researcher is actively publishing. They don't care about the topic of the metallurgy study published in a high ranking journal within that field, they just like that it was published.

YOU asserting bullshit, doesn't make bullshit true. Regardless of whatever job you had for whatever company, YOU clearly didn't learn shit about science or the scientific method or scientists. But your ignorance is dangerous because, as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." YOU think the observations YOU made based on YOUR bias and ignorance, gives you insight into an incredibly broad field where individuals research everything from behavior in animals to the radiation escaping from black holes. YOU keep spouting off ignorance and bullshit and YOU must not have a sense of smell because the rest of us smell it from a mile away Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
11-05-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 07:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 02:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes they have. It's called the scientific *method*, and peer review.

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the scientific method and peer review eliminate individual bias.

What evidence have you reviewed?

If you have something better than the scientific method for discovering truth, tell us.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
11-05-2016, 07:54 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 07:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 02:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes they have. It's called the scientific *method*, and peer review.

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the scientific method and peer review eliminate individual bias.

If you have a strong bias going into an observation, there's little reason to believe that this would be eliminated in the process of peer review. In fact just like here and else where, if we have strong biases we'd likely buckle down on those beliefs regardless.

Pointing to published studies, in which such strong biases, incentives, prejudices didn't exists in the first place, doesn't help. Nor would you likely be able to cite some well established studies in support of your claim about the effects of the scientific method, and peer review on people strongly held biases. This belief requires a steady stream of more fictions about the human mind itself.

"There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the scientific method and peer review eliminate individual bias. "

Yes there is, and it can be discovered by reading the scientific literature. This is how and why scientists are trained over the course of years, and why some schmuck fiddling with shit in his garage isn't a scientist. This is why scientists have academic advisors and go through a rigorous series of tests which require them to consult with those who are contrary about their research.

"If you have a strong bias going into an observation, there's little reason to believe that this would be eliminated in the process of peer review. "

Bull and shit.

First off, scientists do tests that are specifically designed to test for bias. If they don't someone else will. If they don't catch it, someone else will. That is what peer review is. This happens ALL THE TIME. My academic advisor is an editor for a journal and has sent back rejections because the authors didn't catch an inherent bias in their data that gave an artificially r^2 value in their linear regression.

"In fact just like here and else where, if we have strong biases we'd likely buckle down on those beliefs regardless. "

And in science, there exists a method for uncovering and exposing biases. Either correcting for them or eliminating them. I have to deal with this all the time as I look through the literature on research related to my field of study. I have to make corrections in order to move forward.

A scientists conclusions may not be correct in a study they publish for a variety of reasons, and people will actively look for it. How do I know this? Because it is what I and every other scientists I know does. Science is competitive that way, and it's intentional. One research group says bolide impact killed the dinosaurs in a catastrophic event, another group says the dinosaurs were already on their way out before then and the bolide impact is a red herring of sorts. They STILL publish against one another and have been for decades.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
11-05-2016, 07:56 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 07:53 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-05-2016 07:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the scientific method and peer review eliminate individual bias.

What evidence have you reviewed?

If you have something better than the scientific method for discovering truth, tell us.

He just fucking knows these things, Bucky. He claimed to know more about me than I do, he never followed up on that bullshit but...he still asserted it.

Maybe you should just pray for clarification? Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
11-05-2016, 07:58 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
And Tommy, it doesn't *matter* what the motives for *undertaking* research are.

If the research is done by valid techniques and peer reviewed, if necessary confirmed later by replication or whatever, then it can be confidently added to the body of knowledge that humanity has painstakingly acquired over the last couple of millenia. It doesn't *matter* that Monsanto commissioned it. It *will* be fact checked by people who's careers depend on it, and they *will* try their damndest to poke holes in it.

You seem to think science is like politics. I have no idea why you hold this view. Cite examples. Stop just spouting your bullshit opinions. Back up your claims. Otherwise you're just another idiot, even if you can use long words.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
11-05-2016, 08:12 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 06:48 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Name one example where a religious answer was right and the scientific explanation was wrong.

You mean when a religious person was right and a scientist was wrong? If not then I’m not sure what a religious answer is, at least as distinct from a scientific one. The only distinction I would make between the two is one primarily deals in ontology, the other in methodology. One deals with questions of the whole itself, while the other deals with parts of the whole.

I’d have you clarify with some other questions though:.

Are there scientific truths about reality, and non-scientific truths about reality? Are all truths about reality scientific truths? Or do they only become scientific truths, after they been tested extensively, and confirmed by a variety of scientists, who published the results in a peer review journal?

If science verifies that a common religious answer, is valid, truthful, does this answer then become a scientific answer, as opposed to a religious ones?

If the religious answer was right, and the answer derived by a variety of researchers was wrong, in such a scenario, wouldn’t you just say they didn’t evaluate the question properly, conduct the research in an effective manner. Because if they did, they would have confirmed the religious answer?

Quote:But here's the thing: No matter how much we fuck it up, science as a whole creeps along. It progresses slowly in spite of our flaws.

There will always be technological advances, medical break throughs, as long there’s a shit load of money to be made by this, making a defacto interest of corporations and private companies with shit loads of resources, to devout this to finding the next big thing. It's progress we can credit at the footsteps of a market economy.

It’s that thing called utility that drives science, not the pursuit of truth for truth sake, or some blind and idealic commitment to this. This is just the fairy tale we tell ourselves.

It does appear that for some demystifying science, equates to preaching despair and hopelessness. Which perhaps says more about those who feel this way, than about any comments that I've made.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 07:58 AM)morondog Wrote:  And Tommy, it doesn't *matter* what the motives for *undertaking* research are.

If the research is done by valid techniques and peer reviewed, if necessary confirmed later by replication or whatever, then it can be confidently added to the body of knowledge that humanity has painstakingly acquired over the last couple of millenia. It doesn't *matter* that Monsanto commissioned it. It *will* be fact checked by people who's careers depend on it, and they *will* try their damndest to poke holes in it.

You seem to think science is like politics. I have no idea why you hold this view. Cite examples. Stop just spouting your bullshit opinions. Back up your claims. Otherwise you're just another idiot, even if you can use long words.

Not only that, but ol' TommyBoy clearly doesn't understand what the subject matter is for the vast majority of research.

What politician (or politically motivated administration official or "boss") gives a rat's ass about the subjects of the following studies (this is what IS published from these universities that you continuously assert dictate what researchers publish and why they do the research they do, mind you. And this is only the tiniest sampling of studies related to two subjects):
A new Changhsingian (Late Permian) brachiopod fauna from the Zhongzhai section (South China), Part 2: Lingulida, Orthida, Orthotetida and Spiriferida

Clumped isotope signatures in modern brachiopod carbonate

Morphology and revision of late devonian (early famennian) Cyrtospirifer (brachiopoda) and related genera from South China and North America

Silicified Carboniferous (Chesterian) Brachiopoda of the Arco Hills Formation, Idaho

An incised valley fill and lowstand wedges in the Upper Devonian Foreknobs Formation, central Appalachian Basin: Implications for Famennian glacioeustasy

Upper Kellwasser carbon isotope excursion pre-dates the F–F boundary in the Upper Devonian Lennard Shelf carbonate system, Canning Basin, Western Australia

The astronomical calibration of the Givetian (Middle Devonian) timescale (Dinant Synclinorium, Belgium)

Magnetic susceptibility as a high-resolution correlation tool and as a climatic proxy in Paleozoic rocks - Merits and pitfalls: Examples from the Devonian in Belgium

Paleoecology of Middle Devonian Black and Gray Shales of Central NY

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
11-05-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 06:48 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Name one example where a religious answer was right and the scientific explanation was wrong.

You mean when a religious person was right and a scientist was wrong? If not then I’m not sure what a religious answer is, at least as distinct from a scientific one. The only distinction I would make between the two is one primarily deals in ontology, the other in methodology. One deals with questions of the whole itself, while the other deals with parts of the whole.

I’d have you clarify with some other questions though:.

Are there scientific truths about reality, and non-scientific truths about reality? Are all truths about reality scientific truths? Or do they only become scientific truths, after they been tested extensively, and confirmed by a variety of scientists, who published the results in a peer review journal?

If science verifies that a common religious answer, is valid, truthful, does this answer then become a scientific answer, as opposed to a religious ones?

If the religious answer was right, and the answer derived by a variety of researchers was wrong, in such a scenario, wouldn’t you just say they didn’t evaluate the question properly, conduct the research in an effective manner. Because if they did, they would have confirmed the religious answer?

Quote:But here's the thing: No matter how much we fuck it up, science as a whole creeps along. It progresses slowly in spite of our flaws.

There will always be technological advances, medical break throughs, as long there’s a shit load of money to be made by this, making a defacto interest of corporations and private companies with shit loads of resources, to devout this to finding the next big thing. It's progress we can credit at the footsteps of a market economy.

It’s that thing called utility that drives science, not the pursuit of truth for truth sake, or some blind and idealic commitment to this. This is just the fairy tale we tell ourselves.

It does appear that for some demystifying science, equates to preaching despair and hopelessness. Which perhaps says more about those who feel this way, than about any comments that I've made.

And tommyboy tries again to play word games while throwing out red herrings so as to avoid the question.

Name one time a religious answer was replaced by a scientific one. (this is incredibly easy. Age of the Earth. Shape of the Earth. Origin of life. Descent and relationship between all living things. How floods work. etc)

Now, do the reciprocal and name one time a scientific answer to a problem was replaced by a faith-based religious answer (such as an answer from the bible being considered established fact over what science would say for the same problem/observation).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2016, 08:22 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(11-05-2016 08:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s that thing called utility that drives science, not the pursuit of truth for truth sake, or some blind and idealic commitment to this. This is just the fairy tale we tell ourselves.
Please tell me what utility drove people to theorise that the planets revolved around the Earth?

Please tell me the utility of stratified L-spaces - I asked my masters supervisor this and he said to get back to him if I ever found one.

Please tell me the utility of the theory of relativity - I don't dispute that it *has* proved useful, I want to know how Einstein decided to study this particular thing for its utility before ever knowing about the technological advances it would bring (he didn't even see most of them, like GPS).

Please tell me the utility of the theory of evolution. Why did Charles Darwin decide that this particular theory would be useful.

You are so full of shit.

Quote:It does appear that for some demystifying science, equates to preaching despair and hopelessness. Which perhaps says more about those who feel this way, than about any comments that I've made.

You're an idiot. You aren't "demystifying science". We've studied various branches of science. You have claimed that you "science" (sic) which turned out to be "worked as some kind of HR person at a pharmacy company". What other grandiose delusions do you harbour?

What you are demystifying is your cognitive dissonance.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: