Another wonderful illustration of this principle, from the world of science (taken from my current reading "On Our Minds: How Evolutionary Psychology is Reshaping the Nature-versus-Nurture Debate"):
QuoteMorton, a physician by training and a research scientist by vocation, lived in Philadelphia during the early and mid–nineteenth century. He was so well respected as a scientist that upon his death in 1851 the New York Tribune wrote that ''probably no scientific man in America enjoyed a higher reputation among scholars throughout the world, than Dr. Morton.''
It would be ghoulish, but not unfair, to say that Morton's reputation as a scientist rested on a foundation of over a thousand human skulls. It would also not be unfair to say that what he did with those skulls may have made him one of the best friends a Southern slaveholder could have. As part of the research for his enormously popular books (including Crania Americana, 1839, and Crania Aegyptiaca, 1844), Morton took measurements of several hundred skulls that had belonged to individuals of different races. He ''scientifically'' established that, on average, whites had the biggest skulls, American Indians the next biggest, and blacks the smallest. Indeed, Morton's work was so meticulous he even established that, among whites, Anglo-Saxons had bigger skulls than Jews or ''Hindoos,'' i.e., individuals from the Indian subcontinent. Of course no one was at all surprised by Morton's discoveries, which were taken as scientific proof of the intellectual superiority of whites over those of other races, and which were quickly used to justify the political and social practices of the day. The assumption was that those who had big skulls had big brains, and those who had big brains were more intelligent than those with smaller brains. From this, everything else followed.
Indeed, Morton's work led one of the South's most respected medical journals to print this acknowledgment: ''We of the South should consider [Morton] as our benefactor, for aiding most materially in giving to the negro his true position as an inferior race.
[..]
Gould tells us that he spent several weeks during 1977 reanalyzing the raw data that Morton had used more than a century earlier to draw the conclusions I reported earlier about differences in cranial size among the races. By raw data Gould does not mean the actual skulls Morton used but rather the lists of skulls, the races of those to whom they belonged, their size measured in various ways, and so forth. It turns out that Gould could subject Morton's conclusions to interpretative scrutiny more than a century after Morton's own death precisely because Morton himself was such a meticulous data collector and organizer. Working with this raw data, Gould demonstrates that even if cranial size correlated with intelligence—and Gould argues that it does not—Morton's conclusions about differences in average cranial size among races simply are not sound. In fact, Gould argues that his own analysis of the data ''reveals no significant differences
among races'' with respect to cranial size.
How could Morton have managed to misinterpret these data so drastically? Pulling no punches, Gould argues that Morton's interpretation represents nothing more than ''a patchwork of fudging and finagling in the clear interest of controlling a priori convictions.'' In other words, Morton knew what he wanted to prove and he simply massaged the data until they appeared to yield the conclusion he desired. Some of the fudging and finagling that Gould identifies is so blatantly obvious that we must wonder how Morton himself managed to remain blind to it. For example, Gould notes that ''Morton often chose to include or delete large subsamples in order to match group averages with prior expectations.''
Hence, when a particular racial subgroup, say the Inca Peruvians, showed average skull sizes that were below the average for their racial group (North and South American Indians in general) they were included in the sample of all Indians in order to drive down the overall average. But when another racial subgroup, say Hindus, showed average skull sizes that were below the average for their racial group (Caucasians) they were excluded from the sample of all Caucasians in order to drive up the overall average. The result, of course, was
to make it appear as though Caucasians on average had bigger skulls than Indians on average—precisely the claim Morton was trying to establish.
Gould notes that this little bit of fudging and finagling was not unique to Morton's work. It was common to many of his contemporaries. Nor was this the only fudging and finagling that was going on in Morton's work. Gould actually spends a considerable chunk of The Mismeasure of Man detailing the various ways that Morton's data simply do not fit the conclusions that were presented. But after all of the errors, omissions, and miscalculations have been identified and corrected, Gould then renders this somewhat surprising judgment on Morton:
Through all this juggling, I detect no sign of fraud or conscious manipulation. Morton made no attempt to cover his tracks and I must presume that he was unaware he had left them. He explained all his procedures and published all his raw data. All I can discern is an a priori conviction about racial ranking so powerful that it directed his tabulations along preestablished lines. Yet Morton was widely hailed as the objectivist of his age, the man who would rescue American science from the mire of unsupported speculation.
perfect example of cognitive bias, thinker thinks/prover proves, Law of Fives, etc.
Quote from: Kai on June 27, 2009, 03:36:24 PM
perfect example of cognitive bias, thinker thinks/prover proves, Law of Fives, etc.
another example of hokey holy scientific method too.
Quote from: Honey on June 27, 2009, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 27, 2009, 03:36:24 PM
perfect example of cognitive bias, thinker thinks/prover proves, Law of Fives, etc.
another example of hokey holy scientific method too.
the method is only as bias aware as the person using it
Quote from: Honey on June 27, 2009, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 27, 2009, 03:36:24 PM
perfect example of cognitive bias, thinker thinks/prover proves, Law of Fives, etc.
another example of hokey holy scientific method too.
The scientific method works. Period.
If you distort the results you gain, that's hardly the fault of the method, is it?
The scientific method is based on observations. If the observations are flawed, the output is in error. It's still a subjective game. The only thing that saves the scientific method is peer review, and even then, depending on the peers, they may have the same social or institutional blinders as the original author. In this case, it was a peer from a later social group that didn't have blinders that found the flaws in the data.
Method + Review from people that disagree with you = Something that might approach reality
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2009, 06:42:40 PM
Another wonderful illustration of this principle, from the world of science (taken from my current reading "On Our Minds: How Evolutionary Psychology is Reshaping the Nature-versus-Nurture Debate"):
Quote...
How could Morton have managed to misinterpret these data so drastically? Pulling no punches, Gould argues that Morton's interpretation represents nothing more than ''a patchwork of fudging and finagling in the clear interest of controlling a priori convictions.'' In other words, Morton knew what he wanted to prove and he simply massaged the data until they appeared to yield the conclusion he desired. Some of the fudging and finagling that Gould identifies is so blatantly obvious that we must wonder how Morton himself managed to remain blind to it. For example, Gould notes that ''Morton often chose to include or delete large subsamples in order to match group averages with prior expectations.''
Hence, when a particular racial subgroup, say the Inca Peruvians, showed average skull sizes that were below the average for their racial group (North and South American Indians in general) they were included in the sample of all Indians in order to drive down the overall average. But when another racial subgroup, say Hindus, showed average skull sizes that were below the average for their racial group (Caucasians) they were excluded from the sample of all Caucasians in order to drive up the overall average. The result, of course, was to make it appear as though Caucasians on average had bigger skulls than Indians on average—precisely the claim Morton was trying to establish.
The underlined is the part I was referring to as not aligning with the scientific method. When the data, observations, etc. do not fit or prove your hypothesis, it's "back to the ole drawing board." & Yes! Cognitive bias, etc. is probably one of the underlying root causes. Scientific method is good
when used it leads to
new hypotheses to examine & explore.
IGNORANCE =
ITWHAT I KNOW ABOUT IT
TRUTH =
WHAT I THINK HAPPENEDWHAT REALLY HAPPENED
(trying to express these^ as mathematical equations)
Well, I'm glad that we're far past the point where we need to distort the evidence to suit our a priori conclusions. No one would ever be able to get away with that these days.
...So, anyone want to talk about global warming?
About what?
Oh, you mean about the secret conspiracy by scientists and god-haters and socialists to tax us to death and regulate everything?
I really don't remember why, but the Gould research and its fouled data was always the jumping-off point in the more basic of linguistic classes when I was in university. I think because of the inductive reasoning behind the study(ies), but truly, I don't remember what the actual premise was. Must've been the cautionary tale behind it while doing research.
Quote from: LMNO on June 29, 2009, 03:16:28 PM
Well, I'm glad that we're far past the point where we need to distort the evidence to suit our a priori conclusions. No one would ever be able to get away with that these days.
They get away with it
here on this very forum.
Hence, the use of what was intended to be heavy sarcasm.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 01:34:18 PM
Hence, the use of what was intended to be heavy sarcasm.
It was. Very heavy indeed.
Quote from: LMNO on June 29, 2009, 03:16:28 PM
Well, I'm glad that we're far past the point where we need to distort the evidence to suit our a priori conclusions. No one would ever be able to get away with that these days.
...So, anyone want to talk about global warming?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 01:34:18 PM
Hence, the use of what was intended to be heavy sarcasm.
Well. Lemme put it this way. There seems to be certain *buzz words* on this
very forum (oh my!). Start talkin' about magic (
any fukkin' way you spell it) & all the blood sucking (not to mention attention whoring) ensues. Magic is just
one of the buzz words. It is a
safe subject however.
Question a neo-confederate about their Orwellian double speak, sophistry & rhetoric? Wo ho ho! & THIS becomes an untouchable subject. Too fukkin' close to the American home base.
& I thought it was pretty much well understood the main purpose of the
Sub Genus offshoot was to make Discordia more palatable for rednecks?
(While I'm at IT) the obsession with the bloody idiotic internet traditions? I thought
that was for assholes who worship the internet as a god? THAT fukkin' notion is even
more stupid than the Sub fukkin' genius rednecks.
Oh & Robert Anton Wilson et al are not gods (nor do
I think they set themselves up to be). There's a difference between the writings of the Principia Discordia & the Illuminati/world-domination conspiracy jokes of the Illuminatus written (again I thought THIS was pretty much well understood?) to separate people who "get it" from the gun toting, neo-confederates, right-wing assholes et cetera (who don't).
Just call me baffled. (Please understand I've been called a lot worse &
right here on this forum as a matter of fact & easily discovered upon exploring the terrain.)
Chaos is everywhere.
Um... I think you've completely sailed past the point here.
To put it plainly: My post was a mocking finger-pointing at anyone who believe that confirmation bias in such a grotesque manner no longer exists.
Bias as blatant as the OP is as strong today as it ever was, in all walks of life, including Discordianism.
I hope I made that as plain as possible.
Fine sailing here!
QuoteI hope I made that as plain as possible.
Hope I did the same.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:51:54 PM
Um... I think you've completely sailed past the point here.
To put it plainly: My post was a mocking finger-pointing at anyone who believe that confirmation bias in such a grotesque manner no longer exists.
Bias as blatant as the OP is as strong today as it ever was, in all walks of life, including Discordianism.
I hope I made that as plain as possible.
Yes, this is the correct motorcycle... and I think Honey is riding the same one. On some topics, I find some Discordians rather dogmatic and closed minded, on other topics I find other Discordians rather dogmatic and closed minded. The difference between Discordians and the rest of the spags running around dogmatically hanging on to this or that idea... is that they can occasionally mock themselves.
... in some sense!
:lulz:
Well put, Rata.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 07:01:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:51:54 PM
Um... I think you've completely sailed past the point here.
To put it plainly: My post was a mocking finger-pointing at anyone who believe that confirmation bias in such a grotesque manner no longer exists.
Bias as blatant as the OP is as strong today as it ever was, in all walks of life, including Discordianism.
I hope I made that as plain as possible.
Yes, this is the correct motorcycle... and I think Honey is riding the same one. On some topics, I find some Discordians rather dogmatic and closed minded, on other topics I find other Discordians rather dogmatic and closed minded. The difference between Discordians and the rest of the spags running around dogmatically hanging on to this or that idea... is that they can occasionally mock themselves.
... in some sense!
:lulz:
I agree with this, however imho, Discordians have an extra hurdle to leap because they often factor in the ever present Chaos (ie life) rather than ... .
Starting with something simple, ok? Rigid, literalist, dogmatic thinking is NOT compatible with the ever present Chao.
Not absolutely against mind altering substances however
in my experience, people addicted to
anything are the most rigid, literal thinking, dogmatic people I have ever encountered. 'nuff said?
Exceptionalism. 2 different notions here:
When someone mentions a theory, concept, idea, notion (makes an off-the cuff remark) or whatever, there's the irresistible (on HERE it seems) urge for some (black sheep) to come up with sort of scenario which is the exception. Fine & dandy. How unusual too. Being different just to differ. A whole herd of black sheep (or headless dancing chickens). NOT talking about peer review. Talking about the kind of stuff that makes some people too anxious to even mention one goddamn sentence for fear of the .0001% scenario that will invariably bring your original thought to its knees. :roll: Similar to the notion of the lazy pessimist that I've mentioned before.
Exceptionalism in the historic sense: Americans use this friggin' one to this very day. When YOU (they) do it, it's (fill in the blanks) fr'instance, terrorism, blankism, whatever-the-hell you wanna say-ism. HOW-THE-FUKKIN'-EVER when WE (I) do it, IT'S A (waaay) DIFFERENT STORY. Why so? WE (I) are/am exceptional! :roll:
I could say more but who even reads? & I have go now.
So long.
I read, btw.
Some people look for the exception here, IMO, partially because they don't want to settle for what someone just told them as reality without poking and prodding it to figure out if it works or not, and partially because its fun to throw wrenches into the works just to see what happens. The former is intelligent tinkering, the latter is a spanner in the works for curiosity's sake. And theres also the times when some like to fuck with people.
Sigh.
Kai? I didn't mean people cannot read, I meant people most likely will not read what I'm posting here anyway, so why bother?
& I did specify there is a difference between something approaching peer review & tedious pettiness (here in this thread & in others).
This is getting tiresome for me. I'm losing interest in this whole forum. I'm not trying to be nasty here (god knows there's enough people here with that area of expertise), just trying to express how I feel.
I know you're familiar with Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi? I'll try to express what I sometimes feel here by using flow metaphor? Conversation, dialogue, communication, etc. (to me) is like the element of water. Water has different forms, freely flowing water (rivers, streams, etc), all types of wavy, jumpy water (Oceans, waterfalls, etc.), stagnant water (ponds, swamps), blocked water (dammed & pressured), forced water (made to go through conduits, etc.) ice (frozen water, etc.), snow (similar to ice,), steam (hot, moist, steamy). All of these forms & still the same substance. What makes them different? Lots of things, temperature, the way the molecules are "stacked" & more. For me the most important is the movement or motion.
Comparable (to me) to conversation, dialogue, communication, etc. Some flow & some don't. Some types appeal to some & some types appeal to others, & maybe this is dependant upon the individual's nature & innate preferences, etc.
I find the control quotient & OCD quality to some of the discourse here to be oppressive. Makes me want to bolt.
Quote from: Honey on July 01, 2009, 06:43:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 01:34:18 PM
Hence, the use of what was intended to be heavy sarcasm.
Well. Lemme put it this way. There seems to be certain *buzz words* on this very forum (oh my!). Start talkin' about magic (any fukkin' way you spell it) & all the blood sucking (not to mention attention whoring) ensues. Magic is just one of the buzz words. It is a safe subject however.
Question a neo-confederate about their Orwellian double speak, sophistry & rhetoric? Wo ho ho! & THIS becomes an untouchable subject. Too fukkin' close to the American home base.
& I thought it was pretty much well understood the main purpose of the Sub Genus offshoot was to make Discordia more palatable for rednecks?
(While I'm at IT) the obsession with the bloody idiotic internet traditions? I thought that was for assholes who worship the internet as a god? THAT fukkin' notion is even more stupid than the Sub fukkin' genius rednecks.
Oh & Robert Anton Wilson et al are not gods (nor do I think they set themselves up to be). There's a difference between the writings of the Principia Discordia & the Illuminati/world-domination conspiracy jokes of the Illuminatus written (again I thought THIS was pretty much well understood?) to separate people who "get it" from the gun toting, neo-confederates, right-wing assholes et cetera (who don't).
Just call me baffled. (Please understand I've been called a lot worse & right here on this forum as a matter of fact & easily discovered upon exploring the terrain.)
Chaos is everywhere.
Optimus Pinecone?
Honey, I don't read most of what you write anymore because I think you're kind of unintelligent and you miss people's points 40% of the time, misconstrue them another 40% of the time, and are throwing some kind of hissy-fit at least 50% of the time. Why should I waste my time with your dull, contrarian shrewing? If you're just here to complain about the status quo and other users, at least do it interestingly.
Every once in a while you write something insightful and worth reading. Hasn't happened lately though. In fact, lately your posts have seemed increasingly disorganized and disconnected, and you've been pitching a lot of fit-throwing hell-rides based on complete misreadings of other people's posts, and then never bothering to apologize. Frankly it's made me wonder if you have some sort of mental illness flaring up.
There you go. You've been hunting desperately for some sort of secret subtle put-down in people's posts; I just gave you some you don't have to invent.
The last post of Honey's I bothered to read was some sort of epic brown-nosing. :kingmeh:
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on July 03, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
The last post of Honey's I bothered to read was some sort of epic brown-nosing. :kingmeh:
It's often this, but lately I've been seeing a lot more of what Nigel is describing.
Honey, there has been a significant downturn in the readability of your posts lately. I have a harder time understanding what you're saying than I used to, and I'm pretty good at parsing people's writing.
Quote from: Honey on July 03, 2009, 04:51:37 PM
Sigh.
Kai? I didn't mean people cannot read, I meant people most likely will not read what I'm posting here anyway, so why bother?
& I did specify there is a difference between something approaching peer review & tedious pettiness (here in this thread & in others).
This is getting tiresome for me. I'm losing interest in this whole forum. I'm not trying to be nasty here (god knows there's enough people here with that area of expertise), just trying to express how I feel.
I know you're familiar with Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi? I'll try to express what I sometimes feel here by using flow metaphor? Conversation, dialogue, communication, etc. (to me) is like the element of water. Water has different forms, freely flowing water (rivers, streams, etc), all types of wavy, jumpy water (Oceans, waterfalls, etc.), stagnant water (ponds, swamps), blocked water (dammed & pressured), forced water (made to go through conduits, etc.) ice (frozen water, etc.), snow (similar to ice,), steam (hot, moist, steamy). All of these forms & still the same substance. What makes them different? Lots of things, temperature, the way the molecules are "stacked" & more. For me the most important is the movement or motion.
Comparable (to me) to conversation, dialogue, communication, etc. Some flow & some don't. Some types appeal to some & some types appeal to others, & maybe this is dependant upon the individual's nature & innate preferences, etc.
I find the control quotient & OCD quality to some of the discourse here to be oppressive. Makes me want to bolt.
Sometimes its good to take a break, especially if you've got other things going on in your life that are giving you trouble. I don't know if you do, but it might be good to examine that. I find when I'm doing really well, the things that happen on here don't affect me so much.