Do you Compartmentalize?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2016, 01:02 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 12:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Institutional politics are relevant for any particular profession."

Your assertions and assumptions about injecting bias in science, are NOT a result of institutional politics.

Again, interjecting biases into scientist. Institutional politics interject biases into employees of that institution. Scientists who are employees of that institution are no less impervious to this than others.

And the SCIENCE they do and publish is not subject to what YOU think is a bias.

A tenured professor who takes on responsibilities (being on committees or faculty senate, etc) to appease the department head, dean, associate dean, or provost, is NOT reflected in the science they do. A graduate student volunteering to help proctor an exam, is NOT reflected in their science.

YOU assume it does because it fits your ignorant narrative.

Administrators care about 2 things from researchers:
1) how much of their research is funded from grants
2) are they publishing

WHAT they conclude in their publications is irrelevant.

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
10-05-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 01:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 12:54 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Seriously, can you not fucking read???


Are you even bothering to read the responses?

Despite what may have worked on the playground, saying "nuh-uh that aint true" does not count as a rebuttal.

No, I'm just correcting responses unrelated to what I have stated, which is questions of biases and prejudices, of scientist eliminating their own biases in the process of their work. If there are no vested interest in a specific result or a conclusion in a particular study, then there wouldn't be any biases or prejudices to eliminate in the first place.

You. Don't. Understand. Science.

A scientist who is testing a hypothesis, is not bias. It is SCIENCE. The scientist has as much vested interest in their hypothesis being wrong as they do in it being correct. Either way, they have produced results they can publish. If their hypothesis is incorrect or not validated by the data, they either find new tools to test the data or form a new hypothesis and test that.

YOU want to impart a bias in science that does not exist.

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
10-05-2016, 01:13 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2016 01:19 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
A scientist's "boss" or "employer" (that you keep vaguely referring to. Which indicates that you don't understand how scientists are employed. They aren't producing a product in the way you allude to) has no vested interest in what it (the hypothesis) is or what the data is or what the conclusion is. It would be CONTRA to hiring a scientist to do research if there were an expectation of predetermined conclusions. Not liking the data or conclusions, is IRRELEVANT. And THAT is why TENURE exists.

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
10-05-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
Christ Tommy. For a guy who doesn't do science you sure have a lot to say about science and scientists.

Before you come back over theism, *any* schmuck can do that shit and a large number of us did. Science is different. It requires ability.

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
10-05-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 10:14 AM)Aliza Wrote:  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.
Thanks for your response. It's great that you firstly embrace science as a method of discovery. I'm not sure about the presupposition that the Torah is correct and you are just misinterpretting it, makes it entirely unfalsifiable. At least some Christians understand the need for falsifiable claims. But that's religion for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 01:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  YOU want to impart a bias in science that does not exist.

You mean, I want to impart a bias on scientists, who don't have biases?

No, I'm not.

In fact my response are primarily directed to the belief in scientists eliminating their bias and prejudices in the process of conducting science. A claim that would require biases to exist, in order for them to be eliminated.

So as usual, you're barking up the wrong tree. If the claim is that biases aren't present when drawing conclusions, for which no invested interests exist one way or the other, than this would be just as true for scientists, as for everyone else.

"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, 01:31 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 01:19 PM)morondog Wrote:  Christ Tommy. For a guy who doesn't do science you sure have a lot to say about science and scientists.

Before you come back over theism, *any* schmuck can do that shit and a large number of us did. Science is different. It requires ability.

I science the shit out of stuff all the time.

"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, 01:34 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 06:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-05-2016 03:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  However, I would have thought that religious scientist are somewhat aware.
For example, if they are aware of the issues in discovery of knowledge based on the need for evidence, to avoid personal biases, to test ideas rather than simply believe.
Are they aware of this compartmentalisation? You would think that they would be.

I see little reason to believe that any particular scientist is aware of his biases anymore so than anyone else. Nor do I see any reason to believe that by simply desiring to put your biases aside, makes you aware of your biases, and allows you to dictate to your thought process to put them aside.
Scientist are taught not to accept anecdotal evidence, they are taught how to construct objective experiments, how to include falsifiable criteria. They are taught many important techniques and an awareness of easily people are fooled by intuition, perception, personal experience. The learn how to overcome these with carefully constructed experiments.
(10-05-2016 06:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote: if they are aware of the issues in discovery of knowledge based on the need for evidence

How much does evidence weigh? What it's height? It's physical properties? Can evidence be anything that elicits a sensory response? Are all things evidence? Is evidence a property of an object, or defined by use? If I say something is evidence, and you say it's not, is there a device we can use that will settle the matter?

Evidence means a variety of different things for different people. The broad meaning, is pretty much anything and everything a person uses to infer what's true. Someone on the autistic spectrum might need a different set of "evidence" to infer social cues, understand metaphors etc... than others. You might need to know you wife's exact whereabouts at any particular time of day to infer that she's not cheating on you, others might depend on what they understand about their wives character.

You should perhaps consider applying the thought process you often resort to, to question the meaning of moral and immoral, the meaning of good, to the meaning of evidence.
Evidence is a concept, it's not a belief system.

If we suspect that the Sun is hot, how do we go about testing this idea? What evidence can we collect?
Well, we don't rush to the bible to find out if the sun is hot. The bible isn't evidence. We might put a glass of water in darkness and measure it's temperature and put a glass of water in direct sunlight and measure its temperature. We might use a convex lens and see what happens when we concentrate sunlight into a small area on a piece of paper or on water. Does the water freeze, does the paper burn?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2016, 01:38 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
Science is the application of the scientific method.
The scientific method has rules to reduce biases and improve the liklihood of discovery of objective facts.

How do religions test their ideas? How do they seek to reduce biases? What is their method?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
10-05-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 01:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You mean, I want to impart a bias on scientists, who don't have biases?

No, I'm not.

In fact my response are primarily directed to the belief in scientists eliminating their bias and prejudices in the process of conducting science. A claim that would require biases to exist, in order for them to be eliminated.

So as usual, you're barking up the wrong tree. If the claim is that biases aren't present when drawing conclusions, for which no invested interests exist one way or the other, than this would be just as true for scientists, as for everyone else.

Congratulations. You are now playing word games with the word games you were playing to prop up your previous, baseless, invalid argument.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: