Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Apple Talk => Topic started by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2017, 01:13:20 am

Title: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2017, 01:13:20 am
Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it.

There, I said it.

When approaching a problem, people tend to want to use either inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning, but successful problem-solvers use both.  Inductive reasoning is applied to generate a broad range of possible root causes, and then deductive reasoning is used to narrow the list until a solution is found.   The trick is to never allow a beautiful theory to blind you to what the data is telling you.  Logic relies on the brain structure of weaponized apes, and that structure imposes limitations that said apes must be able to look past by not ignoring what the actual, real-world results are.

In other words, Aristotle had it totally backwards and set humanity back a thousand years because he was one of the "ancients" and everyone had to listen to his stupid ass.

Know your own limitations.

I've been thinking about autism recently, and the perceived upsurge in the frequency in which it occurs.  It seems mostly to happen in developed areas, and seems to be a relatively recent thing.  In fact, the recorded frequency seems to have a direct correlation with increased calorie intake in a population.

Hypothesis:  Autism is related to the human mind's pattern recognition capability (people with mild autism are *really* good at spotting patterns), and people with autism simply have that part of their brain augmented by a decent diet during its development, similar to how well-nourished children tend to have better cognitive skills in general.

And since pattern recognition is so critical to our survival, maybe a higher level of development in that area could actually have adverse effects?  Like not being able to do anything but recognize patterns?

BUT:  I am not a neurologist.  And I am operating off of "data" that is largely not data at all, but rather general impressions.  For all I know, autism has always been around, but was referred to as "the village idiot" or "that guy who died from stepping on a bear."  Inductive reasoning has produced a really neat-looking hypothesis, but that's all it is...Neat-looking. 

And this is the part where a lot of people crawl up their own arse and go full David Avocado Wolfe.   The hypothesis is absolutely useless until it has been tested and data has been collected (again, fuck you, Aristotle) and the whole thing repeated, preferably by somebody else who really wants to tear you a very public new asshole.  If your hypothesis can survive that, it's probably worth taking seriously.

The universe doesn't lie to you, but YOU lie to you.

The universe follows exacting rules, no matter how it got there.  It never breaks its own rules, even when it seems to...If it looks like it's breaking the rules, you just don't know enough about the situation.  "Spooky action at a distance" is spooky because it's at a distance, or because you just flat out cannot see enough of the situation.  But humans will decide that the rules actually don't work at times, if it fits their comfort zone.

This is exactly why agnostics are so fucking annoying.  Everybody hates those guys...They're the only people who are doing it right, because you can't gather data on whether or not an omnipresent God or three are actually there or not.  Needless to say, agnostics are smug as hell about the whole thing, and should be kicked up and down the block until they wipe that smirk off of their faces.

To be continued.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 25, 2017, 01:34:00 am
You just had to go and drop something this good right after I finally finish Holy Nonsense, huh?  :argh!:
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2017, 01:48:47 am
You just had to go and drop something this good right after I finally finish Holy Nonsense, huh?  :argh!:

So maybe we gotta make another book.   

Everyone get off your asses.   :lulz:
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 25, 2017, 02:44:17 am


Had me from the first line. My inner Diogenes avatar or archetype or whatever actually appeared involuntarily in my head and snorted laughing.

Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it. 

I like the idea of humans as "weaponized apes". I know neither of these are the point of the post, but I love the style and rarified and humorous references in a lot of your work.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 25, 2017, 02:48:51 am


Had me from the first line. My inner Diogenes avatar or archetype or whatever actually appeared involuntarily in my head and snorted laughing.

Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it.

I like the idea of humans as "weaponized apes". I know neither of these are the point of the post, but I love the style and rarified and humorous references in a lot of your work.

Those lines are 75% of the post, if you think of it.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Wizard Joseph on July 25, 2017, 02:57:10 am


Had me from the first line. My inner Diogenes avatar or archetype or whatever actually appeared involuntarily in my head and snorted laughing.

Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it.

I like the idea of humans as "weaponized apes". I know neither of these are the point of the post, but I love the style and rarified and humorous references in a lot of your work.

Those lines are 75% of the post, if you think of it.

 :lulz: I guess so! Misguided Weaponized Apes kinda sums up the story.

Thanks Aristotle!  :x
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on July 25, 2017, 07:29:26 am
You just had to go and drop something this good right after I finally finish Holy Nonsense, huh?  :argh!:

So maybe we gotta make another book.   

Everyone get off your asses.   :lulz:

Holy Nonsense II: Horrible things by Horrible people
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Hoopla! on July 25, 2017, 01:42:44 pm
Aristotle was a toe-rag, and if his grave is ever located, people should crap on it.

There, I said it.

When approaching a problem, people tend to want to use either inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning, but successful problem-solvers use both.  Inductive reasoning is applied to generate a broad range of possible root causes, and then deductive reasoning is used to narrow the list until a solution is found.   The trick is to never allow a beautiful theory to blind you to what the data is telling you.  Logic relies on the brain structure of weaponized apes, and that structure imposes limitations that said apes must be able to look past by not ignoring what the actual, real-world results are.

In other words, Aristotle had it totally backwards and set humanity back a thousand years because he was one of the "ancients" and everyone had to listen to his stupid ass.

Know your own limitations.

I've been thinking about autism recently, and the perceived upsurge in the frequency in which it occurs.  It seems mostly to happen in developed areas, and seems to be a relatively recent thing.  In fact, the recorded frequency seems to have a direct correlation with increased calorie intake in a population.

Hypothesis:  Autism is related to the human mind's pattern recognition capability (people with mild autism are *really* good at spotting patterns), and people with autism simply have that part of their brain augmented by a decent diet during its development, similar to how well-nourished children tend to have better cognitive skills in general.

And since pattern recognition is so critical to our survival, maybe a higher level of development in that area could actually have adverse effects?  Like not being able to do anything but recognize patterns?

BUT:  I am not a neurologist.  And I am operating off of "data" that is largely not data at all, but rather general impressions.  For all I know, autism has always been around, but was referred to as "the village idiot" or "that guy who died from stepping on a bear."  Inductive reasoning has produced a really neat-looking hypothesis, but that's all it is...Neat-looking. 

And this is the part where a lot of people crawl up their own arse and go full David Avocado Wolfe.   The hypothesis is absolutely useless until it has been tested and data has been collected (again, fuck you, Aristotle) and the whole thing repeated, preferably by somebody else who really wants to tear you a very public new asshole.  If your hypothesis can survive that, it's probably worth taking seriously.

The universe doesn't lie to you, but YOU lie to you.

The universe follows exacting rules, no matter how it got there.  It never breaks its own rules, even when it seems to...If it looks like it's breaking the rules, you just don't know enough about the situation.  "Spooky action at a distance" is spooky because it's at a distance, or because you just flat out cannot see enough of the situation.  But humans will decide that the rules actually don't work at times, if it fits their comfort zone.

This is exactly why agnostics are so fucking annoying.  Everybody hates those guys...They're the only people who are doing it right, because you can't gather data on whether or not an omnipresent God or three are actually there or not.  Needless to say, agnostics are smug as hell about the whole thing, and should be kicked up and down the block until they wipe that smirk off of their faces.

To be continued.

Yes. Yes yes yes.

I actually don't know a whole lot about Aristotle, he never much interested me... but I know Ayn Rand liked him, so something's wrong there...
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: LMNO on July 25, 2017, 02:11:33 pm
Someone's got a case of the HoliesTM.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 26, 2017, 01:04:20 am


Yes. Yes yes yes.

I actually don't know a whole lot about Aristotle, he never much interested me... but I know Ayn Rand liked him, so something's wrong there...

He said that empirical evidence was for lesser minds, and you should be able to solve anything with logic.

In short, he was a fucking assbag.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 26, 2017, 01:06:16 am
Someone's got a case of the HoliesTM.

It's this job.  It's everything I ever wanted, and no annoying profit margins or ethical limitations or "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING TO THAT GUY".  It's just pure research on Improper Science for people with bags of money and mostly questionable motives.

It's the life I was promised as a kid.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2019, 04:25:36 am
You just had to go and drop something this good right after I finally finish Holy Nonsense, huh?  :argh!:

Resubmitted.

Also part 2.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 12, 2019, 09:44:55 am

I personally dont think autism is caused by better nutrition and the associated brain development... some professionals see it as a variation of narcissistic configurations, but not narcissistic in the usual sense.

The narcissism spectrum denotes the investment and use of your attention and energies upon oneself and a lack of attachment and interaction with other human beings... the malevolent version of narcissism is what in common parlance is understood as plain "narcissist", then theres psychosis which is a non-investment and non-interest in reality (even up to an active avoidance of it)... then theres autism, which is close to psychosis, but not quite there yet, but it does show detriments to the relation not only with others but with everyday tasks and reality itself.

Now, are autists smarter? Its been argued that a lot of scientists and brainy people are in the autism spectrum, so it is a possibility. One could argue that autists and psychotics have greater mental capabilities than the average person because otherwise they would be bored with themselves and could not have the capability to replace reality with their own or "entertain themselves", but these are the "born this way" cases which follow their tendencies.

But then theres trauma induced psychosis and autism which is a retraction from reality because THEY HAD TO. Absent care-takers in early stages of development, abusive family environments, deprivation... this is somewhat comparable to prisoners in solitary confinement which are so deprived of stimuli that their brain makes their own "entertainment", so if they are deprived from external stimuli, the mind creates its own internal stimuli... humans need stimuli, literally one can die from "boredom" and lack of stimuli - other results are self harm, violence or going catatonic.

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2019, 05:45:22 pm
I didn't claim that autistic people are smarter, though...And the whole point here was that I have this neat little hypothesis that has never been tested, in a field in which I am not educated.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 12, 2019, 06:18:28 pm
I didn't claim that autistic people are smarter, though...And the whole point here was that I have this neat little hypothesis that has never been tested, in a field in which I am not educated.

Maybe my english comprehension failed me a bit tbh; i think im only good at reading academia and news which is more straightforward than literature or essays.

I reread it and i think i understand now that it was merely an example of the types of reasoning and its limitations, rather than a correlation between Aristotles thought process and autism.  :oops:
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2019, 06:20:57 pm
I didn't claim that autistic people are smarter, though...And the whole point here was that I have this neat little hypothesis that has never been tested, in a field in which I am not educated.

Maybe my english comprehension failed me a bit tbh; i think im only good at reading academia and news which is more straightforward than literature or essays.

I reread it and i think i understand now that it was merely an example of the types of reasoning and its limitations, rather than a correlation between Aristotles thought process and autism.  :oops:

Happens to the best of us.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 15, 2019, 01:20:59 am

I personally dont think autism is caused by better nutrition and the associated brain development... some professionals see it as a variation of narcissistic configurations, but not narcissistic in the usual sense.

The narcissism spectrum denotes the investment and use of your attention and energies upon oneself and a lack of attachment and interaction with other human beings... the malevolent version of narcissism is what in common parlance is understood as plain "narcissist", then theres psychosis which is a non-investment and non-interest in reality (even up to an active avoidance of it)... then theres autism, which is close to psychosis, but not quite there yet, but it does show detriments to the relation not only with others but with everyday tasks and reality itself.

Now, are autists smarter? Its been argued that a lot of scientists and brainy people are in the autism spectrum, so it is a possibility.

This reminds me of a thought that I recently had concerning free will. Basically the freer an entity's will is, for certain values of "free", the more robotic-seeming it would paradoxially become. Specifically if we define "free" as its actions being determined from within rather than influenced by external factors; behaviors would become more stereotyped as the value of external stimuli shrank and the logical limit of this would be a form of solipsism

(http://th08.deviantart.net/fs7/PRE/i/2005/266/1/9/Hodge_Podge_Transformer_Render_by_toa267.png)

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

You know, eerily, the above thought came to me while trying to develop a balanced benefit+drawback type trait for a tabletop RPG, not from any consideration of autism or neurology or serious philosophy. Just the thought that if you ramped it up it would have benefits and drawbacks

EDIT:
Strike that, I just remembered that it actually started with the idle thought that the argument that punishment would be unjust and pointless if we didn't have free will (and would be just and effective if we did) is fallacious because if our will were truly free then we wouldn't be able to be intimidated and controlled by the threat of punishment and we'd just be locking people up to no good end.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 15, 2019, 01:48:16 am
As for Aristotle, I think the problem is that he was an expert who more often than not spoke outside his area of expertise. IIRC he made a lot of legitimate progress in the field of pure logic and pure mathematics, which are the only places where you can argue from a priori knowledge (and even that's not absolute; some forms of mathematics require the practical experimentation/demonstration of a compass and straightedge). But then he tried to generalize those a priori techniques to real world applications and consequently wound up just making a lot of shit up.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 16, 2019, 12:06:03 am
This reminds me of a thought that I recently had concerning free will. Basically the freer an entity's will is, for certain values of "free", the more robotic-seeming it would paradoxially become. Specifically if we define "free" as its actions being determined from within rather than influenced by external factors; behaviors would become more stereotyped as the value of external stimuli shrank and the logical limit of this would be a form of solipsism

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

You know, eerily, the above thought came to me while trying to develop a balanced benefit+drawback type trait for a tabletop RPG, not from any consideration of autism or neurology or serious philosophy. Just the thought that if you ramped it up it would have benefits and drawbacks

EDIT:
Strike that, I just remembered that it actually started with the idle thought that the argument that punishment would be unjust and pointless if we didn't have free will (and would be just and effective if we did) is fallacious because if our will were truly free then we wouldn't be able to be intimidated and controlled by the threat of punishment and we'd just be locking people up to no good end.

I dont follow how being "freer" would make a person seem "robotical" or "stereotyped"... and depending on the use of the terms, endogenous factors and exogenous factors can mean the same thing as weird as it sounds, there was this influential hypnotists called Bernheim and he supposedly cites M. Ribot who respectively cites Spinoza:

"Our illussion of free will is nothing more but the ignorance of the motives that make us act." (or something like that, it has been translated from french to english, then to spanish, and back to english.)

And yes, despite RPG character creation and point assignments is nothing but pure fantasy its holds certain truth to human skills and abilities... you spend all day on the computer, doing experiments and reading? its not shocking youre not gonna be able to run a marathon or compete at Mr. Universe contest... with the exception that some people were dealt a good hand and have more "points" to allocate, while others were a dealt a bad one and have less "points" with nothing to take in exchange for their defficiencies.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 16, 2019, 12:23:31 am

And on-topic, a small note regarding hypotheses and research in general:

I was trained in the soft sciences to do qualitative research, so im biased in that sense... but i really think that hypothesis driven research is just stating a preconceived notion or prejudice and then trying to rationalize how this is a true enunciation. Hypothesis can poison the results before you even start doing the experiments.

I dont feel like getting too technical right now, but, i think that good science involves being extremely attuned to what the "field" is trying to tell you despite your preconceived notions or questions you began with, and ill try to create a fictional example to illustrate.

Imagine some scientist from the 19th or 20th century, that KNOWS that "negroes" are inferior, but since hes a superior being and the representative of truth, wants to present it as "scientific" he would ask in his research:

"Are negroes an inferior race?"

Before the work even begins, we can observe that its just a statement, with a "?" added to it at the end, the hypothesis is poisoned by his preconceptions and hes gonna try his darnedest to prove it correct, most likely ignoring all methods or results that say the contrary.

In other words, the "a priori" that guides the research and establishes the hypothesis can be so overbearing that the process is just refined sophistry and rationalizations, completely detached from what the "field" and reality is trying to tell him.

Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 16, 2019, 01:02:50 am

And on-topic, a small note regarding hypotheses and research in general:

I was trained in the soft sciences to do qualitative research, so im biased in that sense... but i really think that hypothesis driven research is just stating a preconceived notion or prejudice and then trying to rationalize how this is a true enunciation. Hypothesis can poison the results before you even start doing the experiments.


That's why your peers exist.  To publicly tear you some new orifices when they catch you at it.

Quote
Imagine some scientist from the 19th or 20th century, that KNOWS that "negroes" are inferior, but since hes a superior being and the representative of truth, wants to present it as "scientific" he would ask in his research:

"Are negroes an inferior race?"

Before the work even begins, we can observe that its just a statement, with a "?" added to it at the end, the hypothesis is poisoned by his preconceptions and hes gonna try his darnedest to prove it correct, most likely ignoring all methods or results that say the contrary.

In other words, the "a priori" that guides the research and establishes the hypothesis can be so overbearing that the process is just refined sophistry and rationalizations, completely detached from what the "field" and reality is trying to tell him.

And if you don't mind being ridiculed for the rest of human history, you do that.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 16, 2019, 01:39:46 am
This reminds me of a thought that I recently had concerning free will. Basically the freer an entity's will is, for certain values of "free", the more robotic-seeming it would paradoxially become. Specifically if we define "free" as its actions being determined from within rather than influenced by external factors; behaviors would become more stereotyped as the value of external stimuli shrank and the logical limit of this would be a form of solipsism

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

You know, eerily, the above thought came to me while trying to develop a balanced benefit+drawback type trait for a tabletop RPG, not from any consideration of autism or neurology or serious philosophy. Just the thought that if you ramped it up it would have benefits and drawbacks

EDIT:
Strike that, I just remembered that it actually started with the idle thought that the argument that punishment would be unjust and pointless if we didn't have free will (and would be just and effective if we did) is fallacious because if our will were truly free then we wouldn't be able to be intimidated and controlled by the threat of punishment and we'd just be locking people up to no good end.

I dont follow how being "freer" would make a person seem "robotical" or "stereotyped"

Well, I was thinking free of outside influence. The far extreme of such a condition would be something resembling the broom from The Sorcerer's Apprentice that just keeps going about what it was doing regardless of attempts to dissuade it. Or one far extreme would be at any rate. The brooms were free of both outside and inside influence. If we add interior influences it becomes more complicated, but a consequence would be that strange or socially unacceptable behavior conceived by the interior factors would be acted out as they would not be blocked by the exterior factors
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 16, 2019, 01:43:27 am

And on-topic, a small note regarding hypotheses and research in general:

I was trained in the soft sciences to do qualitative research, so im biased in that sense... but i really think that hypothesis driven research is just stating a preconceived notion or prejudice and then trying to rationalize how this is a true enunciation. Hypothesis can poison the results before you even start doing the experiments.


That's why your peers exist.  To publicly tear you some new orifices when they catch you at it.

Quote
Imagine some scientist from the 19th or 20th century, that KNOWS that "negroes" are inferior, but since hes a superior being and the representative of truth, wants to present it as "scientific" he would ask in his research:

"Are negroes an inferior race?"

Before the work even begins, we can observe that its just a statement, with a "?" added to it at the end, the hypothesis is poisoned by his preconceptions and hes gonna try his darnedest to prove it correct, most likely ignoring all methods or results that say the contrary.

In other words, the "a priori" that guides the research and establishes the hypothesis can be so overbearing that the process is just refined sophistry and rationalizations, completely detached from what the "field" and reality is trying to tell him.

And if you don't mind being ridiculed for the rest of human history, you do that.

The issue is that my example is clear cut because its ideological and racial, and at least we, now, can see its flaws from a mile away. But id venture to say that today science is distorted by capitalistic interest.

From what ive heard, this is common practice with "pharma R&D", they manipulate the results, not in the sense of presenting false results as true, but in modifying the tests and trials so the metrics are misleading and show what is required or convenient for them - for example, the construction of the "ADHD epidemic" and its treatment.

So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science, but could there be other areas where ideology would affect its legitimate process? and the outright lying and misleading that pharma does seems like a very niche case, but what other branches or variants of science get affected by capitalistic interest, i do wonder.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 16, 2019, 01:52:57 am


So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science,

Gonna argue that.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 16, 2019, 01:53:25 am
I can tell you that astronomy is just fine, but climate science has become a big bag of Exxon whores.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 16, 2019, 02:00:54 am
This reminds me of a thought that I recently had concerning free will. Basically the freer an entity's will is, for certain values of "free", the more robotic-seeming it would paradoxially become. Specifically if we define "free" as its actions being determined from within rather than influenced by external factors; behaviors would become more stereotyped as the value of external stimuli shrank and the logical limit of this would be a form of solipsism

So yup, in short, extraordinary abilities usually come with extraordinary deficiencies, at least in this case.

You know, eerily, the above thought came to me while trying to develop a balanced benefit+drawback type trait for a tabletop RPG, not from any consideration of autism or neurology or serious philosophy. Just the thought that if you ramped it up it would have benefits and drawbacks

EDIT:
Strike that, I just remembered that it actually started with the idle thought that the argument that punishment would be unjust and pointless if we didn't have free will (and would be just and effective if we did) is fallacious because if our will were truly free then we wouldn't be able to be intimidated and controlled by the threat of punishment and we'd just be locking people up to no good end.

I dont follow how being "freer" would make a person seem "robotical" or "stereotyped"

Well, I was thinking free of outside influence. The far extreme of such a condition would be something resembling the broom from The Sorcerer's Apprentice that just keeps going about what it was doing regardless of attempts to dissuade it. Or one far extreme would be at any rate. The brooms were free of both outside and inside influence. If we add interior influences it becomes more complicated, but a consequence would be that strange or socially unacceptable behavior conceived by the interior factors would be acted out as they would not be blocked by the exterior factors

But that example seems flawed, because the broom started to act because Mickey through "magic" commanded the broom to do a certain action... the broom is doing Mickeys original will, regardless that it got stuck in an infinite loop and didnt follow the change of will of Mickey. The brooms are acting from "outside influence" that had so much inertia that it couldnt be changed afterwards.

Exterior factors indeed act as prohibitions or limitations to "unacceptable behavior" whatever that is given the context, but i still dont agree that that would equate to the behaviour coming out as neither "robotical" nor "stereotyped"... it could be "excentric" in which others dont understand the behaviour, it could be "psychopathic" in which the uncaring of others actively injures them.... like i dont know if youre talking about compulsive actions and rituals or  :?.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 16, 2019, 02:08:23 am


So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science,

Gonna argue that.

Oh, its a shame, but i do believe you; what have you run into?

I can tell you that astronomy is just fine, but climate science has become a big bag of Exxon whores.

Makes sense, the money factor and all... I wonder if military contractors could get away with cheating the results or the punishment would be too harsh for them to dare, like in metrics regarding cost/reliability/safety. Although this is more of an engineering thing than scientific "doctrine".
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: chaotic neutral observer on March 16, 2019, 02:13:41 am
The issue is that my example is clear cut because its ideological and racial, and at least we, now, can see its flaws from a mile away. But id venture to say that today science is distorted by capitalistic interest.

From what ive heard, this is common practice with "pharma R&D", they manipulate the results, not in the sense of presenting false results as true, but in modifying the tests and trials so the metrics are misleading and show what is required or convenient for them - for example, the construction of the "ADHD epidemic" and its treatment.

So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science, but could there be other areas where ideology would affect its legitimate process? and the outright lying and misleading that pharma does seems like a very niche case, but what other branches or variants of science get affected by capitalistic interest, i do wonder.

You seem to be implying that capitalistic interest necessarily corrupts the scientific process.  In some cases it does, but some legitimate branches of science are almost entirely driven by a profit motive.  Materials science, for example, is largely motivated by practical applications.  There is also less room for distortion, since if you get the science wrong, your product Just Doesn't Work.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 16, 2019, 02:50:20 am

Oh, its a shame, but i do believe you; what have you run into?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Troublesome_Inheritance

2014.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 16, 2019, 03:33:16 am
The issue is that my example is clear cut because its ideological and racial, and at least we, now, can see its flaws from a mile away. But id venture to say that today science is distorted by capitalistic interest.

From what ive heard, this is common practice with "pharma R&D", they manipulate the results, not in the sense of presenting false results as true, but in modifying the tests and trials so the metrics are misleading and show what is required or convenient for them - for example, the construction of the "ADHD epidemic" and its treatment.

So i wonder which areas of science are particularly compromised... racism has been fortunately driven out of science, but could there be other areas where ideology would affect its legitimate process? and the outright lying and misleading that pharma does seems like a very niche case, but what other branches or variants of science get affected by capitalistic interest, i do wonder.

You seem to be implying that capitalistic interest necessarily corrupts the scientific process.  In some cases it does, but some legitimate branches of science are almost entirely driven by a profit motive.  Materials science, for example, is largely motivated by practical applications.  There is also less room for distortion, since if you get the science wrong, your product Just Doesn't Work.

Within the context of all thats been discussed in this thread, what im saying is that interests, be it ideological or economic, have been the great historical distorters of science... on the ideological front one can speak of religion and racism... and well, economic is about profit.

Legitimate science first figures out how a process works, then it seeks to figure out how this understanding can be put into practice and THEN finally one can start to think about profit.

How does one think about profiting from nuclear energy, if one doesnt know how to use/make it, or even more importantly if one doesnt know it exists?

One could venture that the greatest patrons of science in the XXIst century have not been capitalists, but the military, because they dont care about how much it costs or the profit it will make, but that its done right and that its pragmatic.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: The Johnny on March 16, 2019, 04:00:07 am

Oh, its a shame, but i do believe you; what have you run into?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Troublesome_Inheritance

2014.

Wade seems to have a BA in Natural Science... does being a "Bachelor of Arts" in Natural Science mean he doesnt really have a real education in natural science? I dont know the US nomenclature, so to me thats a first warning sign, but maybe im wrong.

2nd thing is that his occupation seems to be more of a journalist/writer than a real scientist... a commentator of science, not a maker of science, catch my drift?

3rd thing related to the previous one... the science hes interpreting and commentating, he had no part of in creating.

So in a way, hes an ideologue using his certifications to appear as a scientist, which he really isnt - which is the equivalent of wrestlers, millionaires and actors playing the role of politicians.

Its kind of comforting that I can think that it seems like shitposting passing off as science by some random journalist, and that it wasnt actually made by a real hands-on geneticist.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: chaotic neutral observer on March 16, 2019, 04:15:42 am
Within the context of all thats been discussed in this thread, what im saying is that interests, be it ideological or economic, have been the great historical distorters of science... on the ideological front one can speak of religion and racism... and well, economic is about profit.
This is true, but all science is a human activity, and is inherently biased in that it only answers questions that humans can conceive of.  I do not know if even mathematics is immune to this effect.

Quote
Legitimate science first figures out how a process works, then it seeks to figure out how this understanding can be put into practice and THEN finally one can start to think about profit.
Science only figures out how things work.  Putting things into practice is a job for the engineers.  Thinking about profit is a job for the business side.  If the bean-counters invest in scientific research because they think it might be profitable, that does not, in itself, delegitimize that science.  It may introduce bias, but science should be judged on its own merit, not on who paid for it, or why.

Quote
How does one think about profiting from nuclear energy, if one doesnt know how to use/make it, or even more importantly if one doesnt know it exists?
And how would you get a few billion in investment to study nuclear fusion, if there was no possibility of a practical application?  This is a chicken and egg problem.  Fundamental research has a lot of potential value, but it is not the only way to do science.  Pure research gets you semiconductors; applied research gives you smartphones.

Quote
One could venture that the greatest patrons of science in the XXIst century have not been capitalists, but the military, because they dont care about how much it costs or the profit it will make, but that its done right and that its pragmatic.
The scientific and technological advances made as a result of WW2 and the Cold War would be consistent with that hypothesis.
Title: Re: The Dataist Manifesto, part I
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on March 16, 2019, 04:47:41 pm
Quote
One could venture that the greatest patrons of science in the XXIst century have not been capitalists, but the military, because they dont care about how much it costs or the profit it will make, but that its done right and that its pragmatic.
The scientific and technological advances made as a result of WW2 and the Cold War would be consistent with that hypothesis.

I guess the Aztecs were right