Do you Compartmentalize?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2016, 08:34 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 08:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 08:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because science is performed by HUMANS. This is NOT the same as anthropomorphizing something that exists or occurs without humans (like gravity or evolution), because science is a HUMAN invention utilized by HUMANS.

Yes, perhaps not the most accurate use of the term anthropomorphize.

No, now you demonstrate that you don't know what it means to "anthropomorphize" something. Anthropomorphizing something means to assign human traits, qualities, or behaviors to something that isn't human. Science is a HUMAN endeavor and creation that is populated by HUMANS.

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
10-05-2016, 08:34 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
You should stop trying to play word games, you suck at it. 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
10-05-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
I looked in my glove compartment and there was nothing there. Guess I don't compartmentalize.

[Image: OCFIAT8-1.jpg]

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
10-05-2016, 09:43 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I never understand why people such as your self often attempt to anthropomorphize science.
This is because referring to something by the use of a collective noun, such as "science" or "philosophy", or "art" and "history" is not anthropomorphising it; each of these is simply a body of works composed of aggregated human knowledge, or an application of human-postulated facts, theories or principles. Mickey Mouse, manga and anime, or Thomas the Tank Engine are true anthropomorphic examples.

Quote:What you should be saying is not science makes an effort, but scientist make an effort to eliminate prejudice and bias.
See above. You're just playing with semantics.

Quote:When stated accurately, it's perhaps not as true as you like, if a particular scientist has an invested interest in the results being presented in such a way, such as from the pressures to get published, monetary incentives, etc...
I've not seen any widespread evidence for your claim of vested interests affecting the outcome of scientific research, such that willful or intentional misrepresentations are made by an individual. You do scientists a disservice if you claim that they can't be trusted because of potential financial gains. I agree of course that there have been historically deliberate misrepresentations made by certain scientists: In 2010, former professor of psychology Marc D. Hauser of Harvard University, fabricated data, manipulated results, and incorrectly described the methods used in some of his studies of cognition in primates. And in Boston, forensic chemist Annie Dookhan who worked in a Massachusetts laboratory, admitted to falsifying evidence, affecting up to 34,000 criminal cases in 2012.

But these are only a couple of examples of isolated cases; would you care to cite multiple cases across the sciences, or are you only guessing about your claims of widespread scientific misconduct?

Quote:What folks such as yourself and others have done to science, rather than humanize a purely human endeavor, you mythologized it. And behave a bit like inerrantist do, when contradictions are pointed out to them.
Are you truly suggesting that the sciences amount in large part to mythology? That there's no empirical evidence supporting scientific theories? Or that an individual scientist will invariably accept without question what his peers have postulated? It's obvious you don't understand one of the basic tenets of science—every theory, new or old, is peer reviewed in an attempt to disprove it.

And as someone who largely accepts the Christian bible as the word of a supernatural entity, you qualify as the classic inerrantist LOL.

Quote:If a body of evidence can be interpreted differently by different people, then the evidence is weak.
Agreed. There are currently 2.2 billion people globally who accept the Christian god's existence, but there's also 1.1 billion atheists and agnostics who do not accept this [Secularization and the World Religions; Joas, Hans; Wiegandt, Klaus, eds. 2010] So yes; your "evidence" for the truth of scripture is indeed weak. Sorry.

Quote:Except of course the people disagree about the meaning of evidence routinely, even here.
Uh... nope. Only theists misappropriate the word "evidence". Theists rely on word of mouth, hearsay, fantasy, imagination, mistruths, rumour, and guesswork. Scientists rely solely on empirical evidence, which is evidence relating to or based upon experience and/or observation.

Quote:Nor do I think the strength of any particular piece of evidence, is merely a matter of a consensus. Interpretations are always at risk to all the flaws and prejudices of being human, and depending on prevalence of such factors, question the merits of any consensus. The consensus in fact could be deluded.
Which explains precisely why only a quarter of the world's population believes in the existence of the Christian god. And the other three-quarters doesn't LOL.

Quote:A person's acceptance of evidence has little relevance to the validity of the evidence itself.
Nonsense. Unless you're saying you can't even accept the evidence provided by your own senses of sight or hearing? Do you seriously worry that the apple you're about to eat could in fact be an orange? Or that CD of Beethoven could in fact be Metallica? Oh dear.

Quote:Evidence is an abstract concept.
Nope. Evidence is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". Totally material. The notion of Noah's Ark is an abstraction. The QEII is material.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
10-05-2016, 09:43 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 08:23 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  So, let's take a look at a very famous example. Andrew Wakefield.
Andrew Wakefield

He falsified a scientific study for financial gain. This goes a bit beyond prejudice, it was outright fraud. However the example is still valid. But I digress...

Who exposed Wakefield? Religion? god? Preachers?

The GMC, a variety of government agencies, reporters, etc….. A variety of individuals with a variety incentives of their own to disapprove Wakefields results. There are about 1.5 million scientific studies that get published a year, how many of them do you think get reproduced? How many of the ones published in prestigious journals, that get reproduced are likely to fail on reproduction?

The greatest offenders here are likely the pharmaceutical industries, with a heavy incentive to push through positive results, to get their meds to market, through an exploitable system of government oversight, such as the billions of dollars wasted on Tamiflu.

You imagine science as a system designed to weed out bias, but science is a human endeavor, fueled by a variety of human interests, monetary incentives, the desire to get published, professional and personal incentives, yielding sexy results that’ll get you published, etc.. You’ll more likely to find yourself a unicorn, than a scientist willing to sacrifice his personal incentives, for the sake of preserving the purity of science.

Quote:. There are rules and procedures that are integral to the scientific process that are designed to eliminate or reduce personal biases and prejudice. That counts as science as well as scientists.

That’s just a myth. To suggest that a scientists personal biases and prejudices are being eliminated in the process, would require us to know what those personal biases and prejudices are, and verify that they’ve been eliminated in the process. You likely have little to no support that this actually occurs in practice.

Take your example of Andrew Wakefield, were his biases and prejudices eliminated, when he was disputed by others? No he’ll likely hold firmly to them till the end. You might have stripped his license, and taken away his professional credibility, but haven’t reduced his personal biases and prejudices.

If you imagine that this would be different for you, or any other scientist regarding whatever strong personal biases and prejudices they might have, is just magical thinking. You might have gone into the process without being strongly biased or prejudiced one way or the other, but if you imagine that you can go in strongly biased and prejudiced, and have these prejudices and biases eliminated in the process is more fantasy than reality.

"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
10-05-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(09-05-2016 03:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-05-2016 10:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I don't dismiss my understanding of science when I'm in religious discussion with religious people. Instead, I try to make a case why both the bible and the science are true in hopes that I can open someone's mind to new interpretations and new avenues of thinking.
Hmmm, I don't think I've come across you before in this forum.

You sound considered.

I'd love to know how you make a case for biblical truth, or for the existence of supernatural entities and powers.

Is it based on faith or is there another method of discovery behind this case?

It’s important to note that I am not a Christian and the way that the Jewish culture approaches the bible is totally different than how Christians do. I think Christians aim to bend science to meet their understanding of creation. They look at their bible and think that the way it was understood 1,500 years ago is the only way that the bible can be interpreted. If they were wrong about one thing, then the whole thing must be wrong.

Jews think science and Torah are in perfect concert with each other and if the science is in and the evidence points us away from our understanding of Torah, then we misunderstood the Torah. This is a puzzle for us to solve we accept that maybe 1,500 years ago, our sages didn’t have the comprehension to understand the inner workings of creation.

I’d be happy to have a conversation with you about current Jewish views of creation and science, but I’m not presently in the right frame of mind to do this on the forums. You’re welcome to PM me and maybe we can chat privately.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There are about 1.5 million scientific studies that get published a year, how many of them do you think get reproduced? How many of the ones published in prestigious journals, that get reproduced are likely to fail on reproduction?

Name one example where a religious answer was right and the scientific explanation was wrong.

(10-05-2016 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Take your example of Andrew Wakefield, were his biases and prejudices eliminated, when he was disputed by others? No he’ll likely hold firmly to them till the end. You might have stripped his license, and taken away his professional credibility, but haven’t reduced his personal biases and prejudices.
He continues to defend his work. Unfortunately for him, since he deliberately falsified his work, he has nothing to defend, except delusion. Sounds familiar, eh?

More importantly, who gives a fuck what he believes? His work was proven wrong. Unambiguously, definitively wrong. His beliefs are no longer relevant.

(10-05-2016 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you imagine that this would be different for you, or any other scientist regarding whatever strong personal biases and prejudices they might have, is just magical thinking. You might have gone into the process without being strongly biased or prejudiced one way or the other, but if you imagine that you can go in strongly biased and prejudiced, and have these prejudices and biases eliminated in the process is more fantasy than reality.

FFS, is it possible for you to make a single post without assuming what I think or what is going on in someone else's head?

You are assuming that I, or whoever, has strong prejudices or biases.

You are assuming that I, or whoever, lacks personal integrity.

Perhaps you are subconsciously projecting your own faults onto others. That seems to be a common flaw among the religious.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
10-05-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
"There are about 1.5 million scientific studies that get published a year, how many of them do you think get reproduced? How many of the ones published in prestigious journals, that get reproduced are likely to fail on reproduction?"

That is the scientific process, one of constant correction and update. Everything I work on and publish, is both a revision and correction of previous work, and addition of new data. And YOU still miss what science is and how and why it gets published. Those studies are reviewed by independent scientists who are experts in the field the study is being published in. If the data weren't good, or the conclusions not valid, the study would (and do) get rejected.

Replication and correction (or omission of prior results) IS science.

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
10-05-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 09:43 AM)SYZ Wrote:  There are currently 2.2 billion people globally who accept the Christian god's existence, but there's also 1.1 billion atheists and agnostics who do not accept this

There’s maybe 1.1 billion individuals who are “nones”, who don’t associate with any particular religion, but this doesn’t make them atheists and agnostics, in fact atheists and agnostics only make up a small fraction of nones in general.

Quote:You do scientists a disservice if you claim that they can't be trusted because of potential financial gains

I trust scientists just as much I trust my local mechanic, news reporters, my doctor, my accountant etc.. who are also financially incentivized. They all have family’s to take care of, mortgages to pay, reputations to preserve, egos to defend, employers to be be accountable to, etc.. just like the rest of us. Their shit stinks just like the rest of us, but not necessarily more than the rest of us. Humanizing scientists, doesn’t equate to demonizing them.

Quote:? It's obvious you don't understand one of the basic tenets of science—every theory, new or old, is peer reviewed in an attempt to disprove it.

No, there isn’t some army out there attempting to disapprove the 1.5 million studies that get published in peer reviewed journals every year. If the company or organizations in which a particular scientists works for has an incentive to disapprove or discredit a particularly study, they’ll likely devote their resources to doing so, if not, they don’t.
Even peer reviewed journals, are driven by their readership, the preferences of their readers, etc… boards that selects studies that are “sexier” than “others”, etc… Studies resulting in a variety of click bate, draws media attention etc… more appealing than others, etc.. At the end of they day, they’re still concerned with their bottom lines.

A scientists as nice as any of them can be are still servants to their corporate and organizational interests of their employers, tied to their sources of funding etc.. They are not islands, nor autonomous agents in this regard.

Quote:And as someone who largely accepts the Christian bible as the word of a supernatural entity, you qualify as the classic inerrantist LOL.
Except I don’t

Quote:Are you truly suggesting that the sciences amount in large part to mythology?

No, I’m suggesting science fanboys peddle a variety of myths about science. Because that’s what fanboys do.

"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
10-05-2016, 11:13 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
"I trust scientists just as much I trust my local mechanic, news reporters, my doctor, my accountant etc.. who are also financially incentivized. They all have family’s to take care of, mortgages to pay, reputations to preserve, egos to defend, employers to be be accountable to, etc.. just like the rest of us. Their shit stinks just like the rest of us, but not necessarily more than the rest of us. Humanizing scientists, doesn’t equate to demonizing them. "

You're a moron. Scientists have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay, and it doesn't matter WHAT their results are. Their jobs aren't dependent upon specific results or conclusions. Period. They get paid the same regardless of what conclusions they draw or what data they collect.

"No, I’m suggesting science fanboys peddle a variety of myths about science. Because that’s what fanboys do."

What about the scientist telling the theist that he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about?

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: