Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 2:14 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,792 Year: 9,828/19,786 Month: 2,250/2,119 Week: 286/724 Day: 11/114 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   Just a question...
itrownot
Member (Idle past 4170 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 181 of 199 (430697)
10-26-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by sidelined
10-26-2007 5:10 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by sidelined, posted 10-26-2007 5:10 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Chiroptera, posted 10-26-2007 8:32 PM itrownot has responded
 Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2007 1:00 AM itrownot has not yet responded
 Message 186 by anglagard, posted 10-27-2007 3:29 AM itrownot has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6645
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 182 of 199 (430698)
10-26-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by itrownot
10-26-2007 8:25 PM


The return of the black pot.
...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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 8:25 PM itrownot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 8:40 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
itrownot
Member (Idle past 4170 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 183 of 199 (430701)
10-26-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Chiroptera
10-26-2007 8:32 PM


Re: The return of the black pot.
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Chiroptera, posted 10-26-2007 8:32 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Chiroptera, posted 10-27-2007 1:32 PM itrownot has not yet responded

    
itrownot
Member (Idle past 4170 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 184 of 199 (430708)
10-26-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rahvin
10-26-2007 5:12 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rahvin, posted 10-26-2007 5:12 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 199 (430743)
10-27-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by itrownot
10-26-2007 8:25 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 8:25 PM itrownot has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 186 of 199 (430750)
10-27-2007 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by itrownot
10-26-2007 8:25 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 8:25 PM itrownot has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 187 of 199 (430784)
10-27-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
10-25-2007 9:05 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 10-25-2007 9:05 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 10-27-2007 6:04 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 191 by nator, posted 10-27-2007 7:48 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 188 of 199 (430785)
10-27-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by nator
10-25-2007 6:06 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by nator, posted 10-25-2007 6:06 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6645
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 189 of 199 (430786)
10-27-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by itrownot
10-26-2007 8:40 PM


Re: The return of the black pot.
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 8:40 PM itrownot has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


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 yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 191 of 199 (430818)
10-27-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by riVeRraT
10-27-2007 1:02 PM


quote:
Mator said, back in message 61 "Science is biased in favor of the evidence as observed. "

The evidence as obsevered is unbiased.


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by riVeRraT, posted 10-27-2007 1:02 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by riVeRraT, posted 10-28-2007 1:21 AM nator has responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 192 of 199 (430871)
10-28-2007 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by nator
10-27-2007 7:48 PM


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by nator, posted 10-27-2007 7:48 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by nator, posted 10-28-2007 7:09 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 193 of 199 (430901)
10-28-2007 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by riVeRraT
10-28-2007 1:21 AM


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. 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:
The evidence is the root, and if that is unbiased, then so is science.

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:
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.

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:
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.

quote:
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.

I know you think that.

quote:
Bias is usually used to describe an unfair, or subjective view on things, not what flavors you like.

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:
You just like them, you are not biased towards them.

That's bias, riverrat.

quote:
Thats just the way I see it, and reading the definition in wikipedia kind of confirms that for me.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by riVeRraT, posted 10-28-2007 1:21 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by riVeRraT, posted 10-30-2007 11:17 AM nator has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 194 of 199 (431301)
10-30-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by nator
10-28-2007 7:09 AM


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:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bias

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:
A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective. However, one is generally only said to be biased if one's powers of judgment are influenced by the biases one holds, to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or deny the truth of a claim, not on the basis of the strength of the arguments in support of the claim themselves, but because of the extent of the claim's correspondence with one's own preconceived ideas. This is called confirmation bias.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by nator, posted 10-28-2007 7:09 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 10-30-2007 2:23 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


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 responded

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

    
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019