Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,393 Year: 3,650/9,624 Month: 521/974 Week: 134/276 Day: 8/23 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just a question...
Percy
Member
Posts: 22479
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 160 of 199 (430426)
10-25-2007 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by riVeRraT
10-25-2007 8:57 AM


riVeRraT writes:
If science is biased on unbiased objective evidence, then that makes science unbiased, not biased. Negative plus positive, equals negative.
This seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of what Nator wrote in Message 61:
Nator in Message 61 writes:
Science is biased in favor of the evidence as observed.
I can't make sense of how you're misinterpreting this, but it definitely does not mean "science is biased on unbiased objective evidence," which reads nonsensically to me.
All Nator was saying is that science places great emphasis on observational evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2007 8:57 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by riVeRraT, posted 10-27-2007 1:02 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22479
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 162 of 199 (430441)
10-25-2007 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by dwise1
10-25-2007 10:46 AM


He might have meant "negative times positive equals negative."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by dwise1, posted 10-25-2007 10:46 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22479
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 190 of 199 (430809)
10-27-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by riVeRraT
10-27-2007 1:02 PM


All Nator was saying is that science places great emphasis on observational evidence.
No, that is not what she was saying, that's what I was saying.
Then you're both saying the same thing and are in agreement.
Like most words in the English language, bias has more than one definition. When you paraphrase Nator as having said, "Science is biased in favor of unbiased evidence," you're actually using two different definitions of bias. The first occurrence uses the definition, "An inclination," while the second uses, "An inclination that inhibits impartial judgment." While the former definition is not as common, it is still typical enough to be encountered daily.
So another way to say the same thing would be, "Science is inclined toward unbiased evidence."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by riVeRraT, posted 10-27-2007 1:02 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22479
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 195 of 199 (431327)
10-30-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by riVeRraT
10-30-2007 11:17 AM


riVeRraT writes:
Science is biased in favor of empirical evidence.
That is an example of the word bias being used incorrectly.
I rebutted this in Message 190, you didn't reply. Once again:
Percy in Message 190 writes:
Like most words in the English language, bias has more than one definition. When you paraphrase Nator as having said, "Science is biased in favor of unbiased evidence," you're actually using two different definitions of bias. The first occurrence uses the definition, "An inclination," while the second uses, "An inclination that inhibits impartial judgment." While the former definition is not as common, it is still typical enough to be encountered daily.
So another way to say the same thing would be, "Science is inclined toward unbiased evidence."
Of course, you're commenting on your attempted paraphrase of what Nator said, not on something she actually said.
Without blaming anyone, I'd like to request that you and Nator stop going round and round on this particular point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by riVeRraT, posted 10-30-2007 11:17 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by riVeRraT, posted 11-01-2007 8:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22479
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 197 of 199 (431639)
11-01-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by riVeRraT
11-01-2007 8:40 AM


riVeRraT writes:
But you've posted two different definitions of the word bias, and I have yet to see a link showing those definitions.
I didn't use an online dictionary. I have a rather large dictionary at home that is far more thorough than online dictionaries, but poking around I found what you're looking for. If you go to this webpage:
You'll see that definition 3a is the definition Nator was using.
But lengthy discussions about what someone really meant are a waste of time, plus you're critiquing your own paraphrase of what Nator said and not anything she actually did say.
So I'm still requesting, for the sake of all participants in this thread, that you stop going round and round about what you claim Nator said. It would really help move things along if you just accepted Nator's clarifications of what she meant.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by riVeRraT, posted 11-01-2007 8:40 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by riVeRraT, posted 11-02-2007 11:08 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024