News:

PD.COM:  Mindlessly hitting the refresh button for weeks on end.

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Kai

#76
I just realized I need some help with this figure. The proportions don't seem right. Need some Bayes up in this here thing. LMNO?

#77
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 24, 2013, 06:34:58 PM
Andrew Wakefield.

Oh. Well, what's worse, finding out about him later, or never finding out? Even if peer review works 99.9% of the time, 0.1% are still going to get through. Admittedly, the numbers are worse than that. The difference between the two is that in one, Science is aware of this and works to self correct it, and in the other, Science ignores the ever constant dilemma of peer review. I refuse to pretend that it can be perfect, that would really make the assholes "my people".
#78
Now I don't want to ask for cookies.  :eek:
#79
Okay. I'm done with the butthurt. Here's some food for Germans.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

QuoteAcademic scientists readily acknowledge that they often get things wrong. But they also hold fast to the idea that these errors get corrected over time as other scientists try to take the work further. Evidence that many more dodgy results are published than are subsequently corrected or withdrawn calls that much-vaunted capacity for self-correction into question. There are errors in a lot more of the scientific papers being published, written about and acted on than anyone would normally suppose, or like to think.

Various factors contribute to the problem. Statistical mistakes are widespread. The peer reviewers who evaluate papers before journals commit to publishing them are much worse at spotting mistakes than they or others appreciate. Professional pressure, competition and ambition push scientists to publish more quickly than would be wise. A career structure which lays great stress on publishing copious papers exacerbates all these problems. "There is no cost to getting things wrong," says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who has taken an interest in his discipline's persistent errors. "The cost is not getting them published."

The whole article is on mistakes and falsehoods in scientific publishing, and why replications (which are a kind of post publication peer review) are absolutely necessary and not happening. And you know what? This DOES upset me. I accept completely that peer reviewed journals are going to slip up sometimes, that peer reviewers are going to fail, that mistakes and falsehoods are going to be published. It happens, it's going to continue to happen, there's not a damn thing anyone can do to eliminate it completely. Which is why follow ups are so damn important.

Maybe Science really /is/ broken/short circuit, and if it IS, then the broken part is that it's become like media. The entire point is to pour out stories, with not a bit of thought to questioning whether the stories that just got poured out were any good. THATS the supposed self correcting, and since we've been letting the journalists do it FOR us, the letters are still PR but pronounced "public relations" and not "peer review". This is disturbing. And I don't know fuck all I can do about it.

Also, I've been wondering who the hell that guy in the picture is.
#80
Holy crap, man. You weren't kidding about "malice aforethought".  :eek:
#81
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on October 24, 2013, 04:38:32 AM
In essence, I see Atheists as people who look at reality and say "I want to be a member of an identity club that allows me to either wield my intellectual aspirations as a bludgeon, or to chuckle approvingly at those who do so".

The atheist (note the small a) population, by and large, fails to speak out against the Atheist community's bigotry, thereby tacitly accepting and endorsing it as a representation of all atheism.

Did you not see my post? http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,35654.msg1306825.html#msg1306825

How are the statements you are making any different than the nonsense I asked years ago, "If the good Muslims disapprove, why do I never hear them speaking out?"
#82
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 11:28:20 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 06:00:25 PM
Dude, be more specific with your terminology, or SHUT UP.

What do you want? Atheists. People who identify as Atheists. People who revolve a portion of their identity around being part of a group that believes that God doesn't exist.

Atheists. How much more specific do you want me to get? It's an ugly group that's getting uglier, which is why, although at one time I would have called myself an atheist, I won't anymore, because there is now a group identity of "Atheist" that I want nothing to do with.

And every Muslim is an extremist.

Islam is a group of closely related religions. Atheism is...?

A label taken by people who reject belief in a supernatural entity. Which, as I'm pretty sure we've talked about in your other threads, is a statement of belief ("I believe there is nothing" as opposed to the agnostic "I dunno"). As a group, atheists have been subject to forms of discrimination for centuries, and they've only just recently started to get uppity about it. And the uppity ones are a minority of the people who identify as Atheist.

The ones who choose the capital-A label seem to be forming a consensus and group identity, unlike people who simply hold an atheistic viewpoint. Unfortunately, it's a group identity that I find extremely alienating and have little respect for.

Not all of them have this problem. PZ Myers's crew are pretty awesome. Take something he wrote today on the aftermath of a well known science blogger being accused of assault:

Quote from: Part of http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/23/do-better-please-just-do-better/I contrast [the treatment of this event] with the atheist community. We also have some amazingly good people — as I travel around, I run into them all the time, at all levels of organization, and all doing good work — but we also have a substantial number of amazingly awful people...and as it turns out, it doesn't take many sexist jerks clawing at the structure of your organization to distract and disrupt and impede progress. We have enough atheist asshats to provide shelter and support to exploiters — and too many of us are willing to overlook the content of our leaders' characters, as long as they are willing to say the right words about the sacred atheist cause.

I've been astounded at how many people demand that we plaster over an atheist's human flaws simply because, well, he's The Man. We've been building up a body of revered saints, rather than recognizing that every one of us is human and needs to be held accountable. Face reality: if Bora had chosen to be a leader of the atheist community, rather than the online science community, right now there would be a huge battle going on, with loud voices shouting that "He only talked to these women; aren't they strong enough to resist?" And the women who spoke out would be flooded with death threats and rape threats, and would be endlessly lampooned on our little hate nests scattered about the internet. Youtube would be full of videos expressing outrage that a Good Man should have been chastised by the Shrill Harpies of Feminism.

In other words, broad brush strokes. Myers is about as capital-A Atheist as possible, yet he is neither sexist nor racist.
#83
Or Kill Me / Re: The German Guide to Arguing.
October 23, 2013, 11:54:11 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:58:03 PM
Funny, when I do that, it's called "Being a dick."   :lulz:

Either you're intending it to be personal, or they're taking it personally. Or both.
#84
Or Kill Me / The German Guide to Arguing.
October 23, 2013, 09:53:42 PM
There's a Bavarian professor in my department. Originally from Munich, he moved to get his PhD, married a Canadian citizen, and ended up moving again to the US (his kids are tri-citizens, which is pretty cool, but irrelevant to this story).

Having spent many hours speaking with Germans, Canadians, and Americans, he found that our conversations are kind of broken, that the way we argue (or avoid arguing) is a bit unhealthy. Given my German heritage, I have been following his instruction in the German fine art of arguing, and have gleaned a few rules which may or may not be of interest. As I internalize these lessons, I am becoming less full of butthurt, and more prone to having fun.

1. Never take anything personally. In a German argument, insults are often thrown, people get excited, and it may seem outwardly that the interlocutors really hate each other. Do not be fooled! German arguments are almost always in the spirit of kind contentiousness. When a topic is exhausted, the discussion moves on, and there are no hard feelings. This is of course, opposed to the American spirit of argument, which is to wound, and the Canadian tendency to avoid argument all together. Arguing like a German should always be done in good spirits. If the situation truly gets nasty, you'll know because the talking stops.

2. Never intend anything personally. This goes with lesson one. When insults are intended to be personal, then you no longer have a German argument, you have a German fight, which, in contrast to arguing and similar to Discordia, is not nice at all.

3. Be quick to forgive incorrectness, and to correct when incorrect (i.e. give and take). When an argument becomes stuck in a circle, it stops being fun. If no one is willing to give in, to allow room for consideration, you have entered the American school of argument. Recommended actions are giving in, if even momentarily. Or just not arguing with this person in the future.

4. Go balls out. Part of the fun of German arguing is getting excited. Don't be afraid to raise your voice. And while keeping in mind lessons one and two, don't be afraid to throw insults. If it starts getting personal, then it's time to back things off. This is about having fun, not making enemies.

5. Surround yourself with people who know the German school of arguing. If the only people you argue with practice the American school, chances are they will take everything you say personally, even if (in the true spirit of German argument) you never intend it as so. Local pubs can be good for this, sometimes. Universities are often hotbeds of people trained in German argument. Put the two together, and you'll usually find at least one person to practice with. It also takes time and effort to master Lesson One, which is only possible in the presence of others trained in this art. There's no sign for the German school, and on the internet it can be even more difficult to feel this out, even for people with low autism ratings.

6. Mastery of the German school is difficult. Especially for Americans. We are so used to taking and giving offense, to digging our feet in and breaking up flow, or to the opposite, to backing out of any situation where things get heated. Practicing these lessons has added benefits as well: lower butthurt levels, higher fun levels, and stabilized stress levels.


Or, you know, we could all just attempt to wound each other until everyone stops talking.
#85
I think Scooter is a shill, being paid here to front these particular opinions and make these arguments, and given that he /is/ getting paid, this is why he refuses to leave. Apparently this is becoming a popular way to spread propaganda these days, so I wouldn't put it past the FDA.
#86
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2013, 04:58:31 PM
Joshua Foust, everyone's favourite college-dropout and military-industrial complex shill, is crying about the Foreign Affairs article, because it holds the USA to a higher standard than Russia and China.  Also something something Greenwald and Snowden are high-tech terrorists something.

So much for American Exceptionalism. More like the Nation of Mediocrity. "Lower the standards far enough, and we're still the best!"
#87
In Ohio, the laws are already "operating while impaired", meaning, /any/ impairment can be counted. From exhaustion to cannabis to alcohol. I don't think anything would have to be changed to account for the "new threat". These things are not hard to implement. But it was never about that.
#88
If looking at reality and finding it devoid of supernaturalism, including deities, puts me in the "atheist" slot, then so be it.

As it is, I very much like that the Atheism+ community is going after sexism/misogynists. But it honestly feels like they're more humanists than anything. If I could choose a label, I like scientist much better.
#89
Snow this morning. SNOW. It's all gone now, but this definitely marks the end to the field season. I feel bad for the entomology students who are going out aquatic collecting today. Doing aquatic collecting in cold weather is one of my least favorite things. I am happy to be inside and warm, entering data.
#90
You have some beautiful places, though. Dangerous, but beautiful.

Too bad about that human infestation.