|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Just a question... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
you seem to be missing the point, sidelined. It's not about Feynmen's quote, per se, it's about crashfrog's quote, in which he inserts the word "always" (as in, "you are ALWAYS the easiest person to fool"). The statement is NOT TRUE, scientifically speaking, as I demonstrated to crashfrog in Message 178. He has committed a minor error in critical thinking, that's all, but he's hung up on it, for, you see, Crashfrog is still struggling to justify his error--he simply cannot admit to a simple mistake, and several other posters are now carrying in the water for him, acting as if the stakes are high on the outcome of it. lol For example, he now says: "To the contrary. Just because it's possible to fool another person doesn't mean that one can't be fooled, oneself." This statement proves nothing, as I NEVER SAID anything of the kind--he's only reaching at this point, apparently to avoid the embarrassment he feels in being wrong, even on so minor a point.
Edited by itrownot, : edited for clarity & lol Edited by itrownot, : example added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
...but he's hung up on it.... He doesn't seem to be the only one hung up on it. Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
sorry, chiro--I didn't edit my last post (i.e. Message 181) in time to make the point clear as to why any of us are SO hung up on this minor point. Reread it and weep, black pot. lol
Edited by itrownot, : edited for clarity Edited by itrownot, : edited for clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
itrownot Member (Idle past 5998 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
Rahvin quote:
"Do you see why Crash get's to use the word "fact," and you get to use the word "anecdote?"" That's pretty funny, rahvin. I've already stated why "Crash get's to use the word "fact"" and I don't--it's cuz he's in the same club as rahvin and others who'll carry his water for him. I chose the word "anecdotal" because I knew that certain words are appropriate and others are not. You're really only making my case, rahvin, 'cause that's more than Crashfrog can say at this point (excepting of course that he has special license to say what he wants so long as so many others will defend his illogical statements to the bitter end--which is why we're STILL hung up on this, just in case sidelined isn't paying attention again.) My "anecdote" was only what it was, and it was an honest one, so far as that goes. BTW, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term "inspection"--we say "by inspection" to signify formally that a proof of an assertion is self-evident, and therefore unnecessary. It has nothing to do with "common knowledge" per se. oh, PS, rahvin--here's a new fallacy to be considered: proof by consensus majority. Edited by itrownot, : PS added
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You still don't understand, Itrow. I say "always" because there's no situation where the inherent uncertainty and potential for confabulation and fantasy associated with direct personal experience can simply be dismissed.
None. Nothing. There's no situation where one can justifiably set aside the uncertainty and inaccuracy of one's own experience.
and several other posters are now carrying in the water for him, acting as if the stakes are high on the outcome of it. I assure you, there's relatively few people here (apparently) who hold me in high enough esteem to "carry my water," and I don't need them to in any case. People are disagreeing with you because you're simply wrong. If I was wrong, I'd be the first to admit it. The problem is that I'm not - you are. That you refuse to believe it and can't convince any other person of the legitimacy of your position is simply more evidence of how easy it is to fool yourself. See? You're doing it now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
itrownot writes: Crashfrog is still struggling to justify his error--he simply cannot admit to a simple mistake, and several other posters are now carrying in the water for him, acting as if the stakes are high on the outcome of it. lol As one of the greatest critics in this forum of Crashfrog's methods and obstinacy when shown to be wrong, he is right on this one as he is about 98% of what he posts. It is always true that the easiest person to fool is oneself. I can't offer any better proof than this very discussion. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I don't understand what the problem here is. Nator said something that really doesn't make sense, and in a way, you just agreed with me.
Mator said, back in message 61 "Science is biased in favor of the evidence as observed. " The evidence as obsevered is unbiased. So in other words, she said, Science is biased in favor of unbiased evidence, which as you just put it is "nonsensical" I can only imagine if I had said the same thing that Nator said, how you would have all broke it down for me, and pointed out how ridiculous of a statment that was.
All Nator was saying is that science places great emphasis on observational evidence. No, that is not what she was saying, thats what I was saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I think you are getting caught up in the common misconception that bias is always a bad thing, which is isn't, of course. That was a direct quote from wikipedia, on the meaning of the word bias, write to them. Maybe you are not clear on the definition of the word bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I didn't edit my last post (i.e. Message 181) in time to make the point clear as to why any of us are SO hung up on this minor point. Don't worry. It's very clear to me who's hung up on this "minor" point. Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Evidence itself isn't biased. Evidence are just events or facts that are what they are. It is only subsequent conclusions drawn from the evidence, or the way the evidence was gathered or analysed that can be biased. When comparing "different ways of knowing about reality" as LindaLou had put it, it is very clear that science is biased in favor of the evidence when determining what we know. This is in contrast to philosophy or religion, which use sophistry of revelation to claim they know something about reality. Again, bias isn't always a negative thing. I am biased in favor of strong flavors as opposed to delicate ones, for example. Is that bad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Nator, I know you get it, but it was the way you worded it, and the way you accused me of being wrong, or not entirely correct. I can only imagine if I would have worded it the same way you did.
I still say, you cannot say, science is biased on unbiased evidence. The evidence is the root, and if that is unbiased, then so is science. Remember, science is only as good as us, and if we were to find a better way of doing science tomorrow, we would do it, so science itself is not biased on anything. Science can adapt much better BASED on unbiased evidence over things like religion, and your taste buds, which change over time. Bias - Wikipedia And I wouldn't use the word biased the way you used it to describe what flavors you like. I think that is an incorrect way of using the word. Bias is usually used to describe an unfair, or subjective view on things, not what flavors you like. You just like them, you are not biased towards them. Thats just the way I see it, and reading the definition in wikipedia kind of confirms that for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Did you mean "based" on unbiased evidence? If so, then you're wrong, I think. Evidence itself has no bias. Evidence is just the facts. It is things like the length of a tail, the structure of a molecule, the height of a sine wave. The measurement, interpretation, or method of gathering of that evidence, for example, can be biased, though.
quote: I agree that evidence is the root, but no evidence is ever biased. Bias is what happens when people try to describe nature. Nature is the evidence. If you don't agree, then perhaps you can explain to me how evidence itself, rather than the measurement or interpretation of that evidence, can be biased. How can a sine wave or molecule be biased?
quote: Sure it is. Science is biased in favor of empirical evidence. This is a good bias for it to have. Remember, science did not always have such a strong bias in favor of empiricism. It used to allow all sorts of religious and social "evidence". Creationism, by contrast, is biased in favor of revelation. This is fine for religion but terrible for making discoveries about the natural world.
quote: Please explain how evidence itself can be biased.
quote: I know you think that.
quote: And that is an incorrect, or at least incomplete and limited, definition of bias.
This is a short article from the Skeptical Inquirer that explains a little about "good" and "bad" bias.
quote: That's bias, riverrat.
quote: Well, the Wikipedia definition isn't a particularly good one, I'm afraid. Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Holy shit nator, I think you are losing it.
quote:I still say, you cannot say, science is biased on unbiased evidence. Did you mean "based" on unbiased evidence? If so, then you're wrong, I think. Evidence itself has no bias. What did you say?
or method of gathering of that evidence, for example, can be biased, though. Only if it is creationism.
I agree that evidence is the root, but no evidence is ever biased. When did I ever say it was biased? Haven't I been trying to say all along that it is unbiased, therefor so is science?
Science is biased in favor of empirical evidence. That is an example of the word bias being used incorrectly. From:Bias Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment That does not science's approach on empirical evidence, or any other evidence. The word bias, and scientific method, and or logical have nothing to do with each other. Bias describes the exact opposite of what science is. Science is BASED on empirical evidence, not bias towards it. There is no tendency towards empirical evidence, it is completely relied upon.
quote:Science can adapt much better BASED on unbiased evidence over things like religion, and your taste buds, which change over time. Please explain how evidence itself can be biased. Where are you getting the idea that I said evidence is biased? You'll have to explain in detail.
I know you think that. I don't just think that, it is that, according to the definition of the word biased. Your article does not explain what the word bias means, only uses it. Again, this is the definition from wikipedia, and I would love to see how you can possibly apply this definition to the way sciences uses, and is based upon empirical evidence:
quote: Science is never subjective, and never ignores the truth. Science is never preconceived, or prejudice. science is supposed to be the thing beyond our own biased views. Science does not have a mind, therefor cannot be biased. *edit*People doing "science" can be biased, i.e. creationism, but thats not real science right? Why? Because they are biased. True science is the opposite of biased. You have been drilling that into our heads for years. Now all of a sudden the story has changed? Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024