Actually it's about ethics in research

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby PAstrychef » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:24 pm UTC

Here's one fact: you are behaving like an asshole. If everyone replying to you fails to find what you believe you posted, your post was unclear.
To answer the first question-science doesn't codify truths. Science is a method of exploring phenomena. The results of that exploration may be more or less palatable to a given culture at a given time, but science doesn't care. For some people, the fact that their child died is all they can handle. For others, knowing everything about the truck, the driver, the physics of the event may be needed to cope with the situation.
If you want to look at how experimentation can be done when societal restrictions dissolve, look at the human experiments done on prisoners at Auschwitz and Treblinka. There was serious debate about the ethics of using the results of any of that "research" , even though the information was potentially valuable.
I'm interested in why you use the term mean. Being mean is a totally contextual description of behavior. Facts cannot be mean. They can't be nice, either.
As far as I know, there are no realms so unspeakable and horrible that science has declared them off limits. There have been methods of discovery that have been found to be horrible and consensus has made it difficult to persue them. It's hard to imagine anyone successfully attempting the Tuskegee Airmen study today, for one example.
For any question that makes one person gag in a social context there will be someone working to prove/disprove it. Their findings may be disputed if they run counter to accepted beliefs, but if they can be shown to be factual then they will change the direction of scientific discourse-evolution is a good example of this. Even plate techtonics was disputed because it contradicted biblical comments on how the world was formed.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Kewangji » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:25 pm UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:It's a little bit like the Stanford Prison Experiment which was linked to earlier. It's usually used as an explanation about how 'people are terrible' but the cross section was mainly well off white men in their 20s. We used a test which had an incredibly small amount of diversity to extrapolate to the 'people are terrible' conclusion - why was the conclusion not 'well off white men in their 20s will abuse power after a short amount of time if given the chance?' Is that a less palatable truth than 'people in general are terrible?'

Edit: was replying to Kewangji, not Sabredog.
Edited again for spelling.

Totally. There's a saying somewhere that goes, in my utterly poor rendition of it, "psychology studies are good for figuring out the workings of the minds of twenty-something, mostly privileged psychology students." I think white men (ie people like me) in our society are raised to pay very little attention to empathy or consequences. We're not othered or really demonstratively taught to see things from other people's perspectives. Only in the very most abstract sense are we told the Golden Rule, but at least in my upbringing and those around me, we were never taught to implement it. So the Stanford Prison Experiment makes sense from that point, you are right, more sense than the traditional interpretation.

Edit:
PeteP wrote:Well they were also all students and people who volunteered. Without follow-up studies you just can't really isolate whether it's a common trend or a specific common factor and if so which one. People have an unfortunate tendency to overstate the meaning of a single experiment.
Indeed. And it was a very sloppily carried out experiment too, with Zimbardo participating in it as well as supervising it.

Have y'all seen the Veronica Mars (if I'm not crossing my wires completely here) episode where they do the experiment because some psychology professor also wants Zimbardo fame?
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:29 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:Well they were also all students and people who volunteered. Without follow-up studies you just can't really isolate whether it's a common trend or a specific common factor and if so which one. People have an unfortunate tendency to overstate the meaning of a single experiment.

I'll take that. I think the 'people are terrible' implications have been hugely overstated. Is the type of person who will abuse their power also the type of person who thinks that they're interesting enough for a psychology experiment? Is it men? Is it white people? Is it the well off? Is it just this small subset of people who happen to have all of these traits? Is it people from Stanford University? (sidenote, I used to live close to a place called Stamford, so if I ever misspell Stanford as Stamford, you know where I'm referring to).

Angua wrote:Obviously my mind went with a mental block on that memory then.

I also didn't see it on the first read 'round but I'm pretty sure it was there before the edits. Gross before the edits, gross after the edits - fact.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:30 pm UTC

Are we just moving this to a general discussion of research ethics? I've got a lot to say about that.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:34 pm UTC

Motion to move the discussion to ethics in research specifically with the aim of tackling badly drawn conclusions?
Or some such?

I was more interested in the discussion of: What happens when the 'truth' that is stumbled across is counter to what is societally accepted?
With emphasis on the Stanford Prison Experiment as a starting point.

But we can make the conversation fluid.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Quercus » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:39 pm UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:Motion to move the discussion to ethics in research specifically with the aim of tackling badly drawn conclusions?
Or some such?

I was more interested in the discussion of: What happens when the 'truth' that is stumbled across is counter to what is societally accepted?
With emphasis on the Stanford Prison Experiment as a starting point.

But we can make the conversation fluid.


Motion seconded on all counts

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Kewangji » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:43 pm UTC

Sorry for not picking that thread up at first!

What tends to happen in those cases, I think, is that society sweeps it under the rug and we just don't assign it any importance. In the SPE, the white men are treated as representative of humanity, so the fact that white men did this gets generalized into people do this. That especially happens when it's something bad people do. American mass shootings are committed by white men more often than not, and this is a fact, but it's not portrayed as a problem with whiteness or masculinity in most public discourse. I think the invisibility and 'generalizability' of white men saves us from a lot of accusations. We are default, and the default is never bad, is it?
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:25 pm UTC

Kewangji wrote:What tends to happen in those cases, I think, is that society sweeps it under the rug and we just don't assign it any importance
I sort of disagree - I think the opposite often happens! People will fixate on a false or half truth and use it to fit their narrative. See the Minnesota Twin Study.

I don't really know of any particularly tenable 'morally reprehensible truths'. Rushten and Jensen will shout from the rafters that blacks are cognitively inferior, but most of their work doesn't hold to any sort of scrutiny. You can 'find' just about anything if you tailor your test to the answers you seek.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:30 pm UTC

I'd never heard of the Minnesota Twin Study before and after a quick wiki, I'm a little confused as to why it's been pointed out. Would you mind explaining this in more detail?
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:45 pm UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:I'd never heard of the Minnesota Twin Study before and after a quick wiki, I'm a little confused as to why it's been pointed out. Would you mind explaining this in more detail?
The long and short of it is that it was a twin study conducted in the 80s (90s?) that found that environment (parenting, socioeconomic status, etc) had a smaller impact than genetics in determining the intelligence of children. It had a lot of flaws, bluntly. Racists use it as proof that white people are superior to black people, because it means that any IQ test gaps cannot be explained by bad environment.

I'm being brief because I spend a lot of time arguing this on reddit with racist scumfucks, and I don't want to bring up that sort of scumfuckery here, so, that's a reasonable summary I suppose. EDIT: The point I was getting at by referencing it is that often people cherry pick 'studies' to support their own world view.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Kewangji » Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:50 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote: EDIT: The point I was getting at by referencing it is that often people cherry pick 'studies' to support their own world view.

That is my point too. One of the ways that cherry-picking works, I posit, is that studies that show the undesirable things such as white people are more violent than black people tend to be ignored or generalized to be "all people are like this; not just us." The rest of my post after what you quoted was me giving examples of that. I don't see how you are disagreeing with me. :p
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:55 pm UTC

Sabredog wrote:There so much painfully wrong with some of these replies it actually stresses me mildly.

"We can trivially demonstrate that truth does NOT equate to meanness by finding an inoffensive truth or by finding an offensive lie. Both of these should be extremely easy."

I don't even...what is this...I...

Do me one favour, and rephrase my key points. Please. Show me you understand the simple premise, which has complicated consequences.

"Everyone else is simply too dull to comprehend the greatness of your idea"

Greatness of the idea? Laughable. That's not what I even remotely have suggested.

I do worry that reading comprehension on the internet is extremely poor.


Your idea, which appears to be based on some sort of "honesty is mean" premise, is that science is also mean. Presumably because of some sort of truth == honesty and science == truth or whatever. That's really all you've got. However, this, and the manner in which you've stated it, appears to be revealing of other assumptions.

In short, you've got a bit of an ego. That's not necessarily bad. I do too. However, it seems like you have very high expectations regarding your idea and your post to the point where you're not giving fair consideration to others. You seem really stuck on the idea that other people must have misunderstood your idea, rather than other possibilities like "we understand, but think it's a stupid idea". I would normally make slightly more effort to avoid offense, but frankly, you haven't, so fuck it.

Or maybe, because you've written your posts poorly, we aren't understanding them. Assuming that everyone is dumb because they don't understand you is a really sketchy metric. It gives you a false positive when you're babbling nonsense. Your basic idea, and the questions that follow, are sadly not very unique. They're all things that you'll bump into in any philosophy class, or some light sci fi reading. Hell, bad knowledge is the basic premise of most things Lovecraft. They are not hard questions. They're really basic questions, but your initial premise is weak, and since nobody really accepts that, nobody feels compelled to go down the rabbit hole.

Sabredog wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:
Sabredog wrote:I am actually cringing at how bad your reading comprehension is.

And I'm cringing at how bad your writing ability is. In all sincerity, I have no idea what non-facile thoughts you might be trying to express. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.


An alternative hypothesis: You are a dunce or mental mediocrity. Do you think that could be it?


Or A mental mediocrity. Or suffering from mental mediocrity.

Yeah, I'm going to go with bad writing ability.

Fractal_Tangent wrote:Ok, ok, srs face on.

Could we talk about what happens if science finds that white people are less intelligent than black people? That white people have in general uglier faces than black people? That men are actually worse at leading companies and governments than women? That men are worse drivers than women?

Because all of the conversations I hear about 'science finding an unpalatable truth' generally fall into the same racist/homophobic/sexist bullshit that we're so used to seeing anyway. What happens if science finds that men are just shit? We never consider this and I find that interesting. It feels like we're all waiting around for a scientific reason to say 'Ahha! That's why women are bonkers and are better suited towards child rearing and should stay at home where they're out of the way!'

Edit: I've also been skeeved out by Sabredog's original post because of sexualizing a teenage girl example. That was an unnecessary example.


It's a fun hypothetical in the "what would you do if you found out for certain that #currentlyacceptedidea is false", where the currently accepted idea is something controversial, or whatever. Sure, that's happened some in history.

But yeah...it usually is the "I don't actually have any proof for this offensive thing, but let's play what if". It seems sketchy, sometimes. Pick an uncomfortable truth that's uncomfortable to you as well, not just to other people. That's just glorifying being an asshole.

I agree with moving this towards discussing research ethics in general.

Kewangji wrote:Sorry for not picking that thread up at first!

What tends to happen in those cases, I think, is that society sweeps it under the rug and we just don't assign it any importance. In the SPE, the white men are treated as representative of humanity, so the fact that white men did this gets generalized into people do this. That especially happens when it's something bad people do. American mass shootings are committed by white men more often than not, and this is a fact, but it's not portrayed as a problem with whiteness or masculinity in most public discourse. I think the invisibility and 'generalizability' of white men saves us from a lot of accusations. We are default, and the default is never bad, is it?


Whiteness is less strong a factor for this than maleness, but yeah...mass shooting, I'll just straight up assume it's a guy before hearing any information. This is, to a degree, steriotyping, and isn't *entirely* fair, but there is an extremely strong statistical basis for it.

Normalization is a strange thing. Whatever's normal doesn't get a whole lot of scrutiny in general.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Fractal_Tangent wrote:I'd never heard of the Minnesota Twin Study before and after a quick wiki, I'm a little confused as to why it's been pointed out. Would you mind explaining this in more detail?
The long and short of it is that it was a twin study conducted in the 80s (90s?) that found that environment (parenting, socioeconomic status, etc) had a smaller impact than genetics in determining the intelligence of children. It had a lot of flaws, bluntly. Racists use it as proof that white people are superior to black people, because it means that any IQ test gaps cannot be explained by bad environment.


Yeah, it's...kind of awful. I mean, sure, genetics are likely a factor, but you're also sharing non-genetic traits. Epigentic things like health of the mother are probably relevant. Certain factors, like malnutrition, are really huge for cognition, but a US-centric study probably isn't covering that well.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:00 pm UTC

@Kewe: I wasn't clear, sorry - I was 'sort of disagreeing' insofar as I feel sometimes the opposite happens too. Yes, undesirable truths ('white people are violent!') are ignored to fit a narrative. Untenable or since refuted truths ('black people are savage beasts of burden with no cognitive capacities!') are fixated upon to fit a narrative. Scumfucks gonna scumfuck. People need to learn how to use information to inform their views, and recognize when views are not supported by reality.

Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, [Minnesota Twin Study]...kind of awful. I mean, sure, genetics are likely a factor, but you're also sharing non-genetic traits. Epigentic things like health of the mother are probably relevant. Certain factors, like malnutrition, are really huge for cognition, but a US-centric study probably isn't covering that well.
I have a lot to say on this, but I really hesitate to put on this hat unless someone posts something particularly egregious. The above is absolutely true.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Whizbang » Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:01 pm UTC

This probably should have been referenced earlier in the thread. Correcting.

Carry on with more interersting discussion.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:02 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, [Minnesota Twin Study]...kind of awful. I mean, sure, genetics are likely a factor, but you're also sharing non-genetic traits. Epigentic things like health of the mother are probably relevant. Certain factors, like malnutrition, are really huge for cognition, but a US-centric study probably isn't covering that well.
I have a lot to say on this, but I really hesitate to put on this hat unless someone posts something particularly egregious. The above is absolutely true.


I'm interested to hear it, if you're willing to put it out there. Genetics/Biology is kind of a weak point for me, so I like learning more.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:18 pm UTC

Lets hold off for now, since no one is bringing up these arguments. It'd be off topic to provide arguments for why racists claims are factually untenable for now. I can PM you a bunch of information if interested for now.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Neil_Boekend » Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:21 pm UTC

Off topic, but:
SecondTalon wrote:As I side, I disagree with Neil. No amount of restatement of the sentence changes an opinion to a fact. You can discuss a person's sincerely held opinion, sure, but the only fact is that someone holds sincere opinions..

I'll assume that was to:
Neil_Boekend wrote:IMHO: no matter how many people agree, "You are ugly" is not a fact. It is an opinion.
"I think you are ugly" can be a fact.

We agree. I worded it crappily.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26254
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:25 pm UTC

Yep. I've just always rejected the common description of opinion vs. fact being "it's my opinion that I think cake is awesome, but it's a fact that I think cake is awesome" because it's not a fact. It's still an opinion, one I can only verify by asking you. The only fact being stated is that you have an opinion. (Gosub:My prior argument as I'm repeating myself)
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Neil_Boekend » Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:37 pm UTC

At the risk of thread hyjacking:
Hmm, in that case we may actually disagree. Is something not a fact if it can't be verified?
Isn't that a bit like: "when a tree falls and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?", or a discussion about the definition of the word "fact"?

If I reword your words, do you feel different?
"it's my opinion that cake is awesome, but it's a fact that I think cake is awesome"
Does that ring true?
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:50 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Fractal_Tangent wrote:I'd never heard of the Minnesota Twin Study before and after a quick wiki, I'm a little confused as to why it's been pointed out. Would you mind explaining this in more detail?
The long and short of it is that it was a twin study conducted in the 80s (90s?) that found that environment (parenting, socioeconomic status, etc) had a smaller impact than genetics in determining the intelligence of children. It had a lot of flaws, bluntly. Racists use it as proof that white people are superior to black people, because it means that any IQ test gaps cannot be explained by bad environment.
Even if the study was perfect, it wouldn't necessarily show that, because all it (purportedly, in my understanding from your description of it right there) showed was that genetics had more of an impact, not that only genetics had any impact.

So if a 10% change in some genetic factor corresponds to a 10 IQ point difference while a 10% change in some environmental factor only corresponds to a 5 IQ point difference, that doesn't mean a 10 point difference must be genetic, because it could also mean that there's actually a 20% difference in the environmental factor (or whatever--I know it's not as straightforward as that which is part of why the study itself was flawed in the first place).
---
I tend to think of "fact" and "opinion" as corresponding pretty closely to "objective" and "subjective", but it's tricky because so much common parlance cuts it slightly differently, and a lot of people seem to treat speculation as opinion even when you're speculating about factual matters.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26254
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:12 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:At the risk of thread hyjacking:
Hmm, in that case we may actually disagree. Is something not a fact if it can't be verified?
Isn't that a bit like: "when a tree falls and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?", or a discussion about the definition of the word "fact"?

If I reword your words, do you feel different?
"it's my opinion that cake is awesome, but it's a fact that I think cake is awesome"
Does that ring true?

The argument on whether or not a tree falling makes a noise with no listener is about the nature of sound versus air vibrations. The sentence you provide is about confusing a fact of something's existence with an unneeded description of the thing that exists.

I'm not able to think of a fact that exists that cannot potentially be verified given my current understanding of our ability to peer in each other's heads (or lack thereof).

For example, it could possibly be a fact that I saw a clown on my drive to work this morning. Even if I was the only car on the road, another person could have potentially ridden with me and had the same experience, or another car could have been on the road passing me in opposite directions, directly ahead or directly behind me. The clown hanging out on the road is a fact that could be verified, even though it's impossible to do so as I am the only observer and could be lying. Because we all know clowns aren't people.

My insatiable love of grain-related products is not something that cannot be verified. Despite observation of me eating bread, pastas, cereals and other grain-related foodstuffs over other options and multiple statements from me declaring how much I love grains (...and possibly some third and fourth things), the entire thing could possibly be an act on my part, where I'm playing some incredibly long con for some secretive reason and I actually despise grains.

So statements of "It's a fact that I think bread is awesome" is not a fact, as I don't - and there's no way to verify it beyond assuming I'm trustworthy.

Of course, we can extend such logic to people experiencing things like depression and chronic pain and so on... and you'd kinda be an asshole to do so.

*edit* I forgot the not part of the cannot, making my second rambling about grain nonsensical.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Whizbang » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:17 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Of course, we can extend such logic to people experiencing things like depression and chronic pain and so on... and you'd kinda be an asshole to do so.


Except, theoretically, brain scans of various kinds could be done to determine depression or pain.

Could a brain scan be done to verify "I like pasta"?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26254
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:22 pm UTC

Hence my mentioning our current ability to peer in each other's heads.

At some point, we might be able to verify the truthfulness of "I like pasta". We currently cannot.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby PeteP » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:31 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Hence my mentioning our current ability to peer in each other's heads.

At some point, we might be able to verify the truthfulness of "I like pasta". We currently cannot.

Hmm do you only require that it could theoretically be verified or that a third party has verified it?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26254
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:46 pm UTC

Currently, given that I've not put much thought in to it to determine cases where a fact exists yet verification is independently impossible? Theoretical is fine.

There probably are cases where theoretical isn't even necessary, I've just not thought of them myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Weeks » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:55 pm UTC

You can't just leave mid-act! I demand my money back, Sabredog.
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby roband » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:59 pm UTC

Yo, let sleeping Sabredogs lie.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:25 pm UTC

Because I really don't want to hijack the thread or even really talk about this;
Spoiler:
gmalivuk wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Fractal_Tangent wrote:I'd never heard of the Minnesota Twin Study before and after a quick wiki, I'm a little confused as to why it's been pointed out. Would you mind explaining this in more detail?

The long and short of it is that it was a twin study conducted in the 80s (90s?) that found that environment (parenting, socioeconomic status, etc) had a smaller impact than genetics in determining the intelligence of children. It had a lot of flaws, bluntly. Racists use it as proof that white people are superior to black people, because it means that any IQ test gaps cannot be explained by bad environment.
Even if the study was perfect, it wouldn't necessarily show that, because all it (purportedly, in my understanding from your description of it right there) showed was that genetics had more of an impact, not that only genetics had any impact.

So if a 10% change in some genetic factor corresponds to a 10 IQ point difference while a 10% change in some environmental factor only corresponds to a 5 IQ point difference, that doesn't mean a 10 point difference must be genetic, because it could also mean that there's actually a 20% difference in the environmental factor (or whatever--I know it's not as straightforward as that which is part of why the study itself was flawed in the first place).
You're using them liberal Jew critical thinking skills there you meaniehead. (Ugh, please don't ban me for that, I just gagged a little, I hate people and reddit and have a problem and need to get off the internet)

One hilarious thing that you see a TON of with these idiot bigots is they'll see a study that says, say, genetics has a .7 correlate to intelligence (i.e., people with smart parents are more likely to be smart) and SES has a .5 correlate to intelligence (i.e., people who grow up poor are more likely to be less intelligent), so - and please pay attention to the correlates being drawn here - 'That means genetics are 70% of intelligence and SES is 50%. So obvi blacks are all dumb because it's in their genes to not be smart. Like Europeans. Asians are smarter, but not by much. And Ashkenazim are smarter, but that's because they're sneaky'.

Right? Right? Stupid liberals! (Send help, show me puppies I hate this shit)
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Deva » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:50 am UTC

Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
Changes its form depending on the observer.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby poxic » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:56 am UTC

So if I say "Deva is the best person because she finds everything for everyone," that's just an opinion and not a fact?

Because it should totally be a fact.
All empires fall.
Don't look back.
- The Secret Knots

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Weeks » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:08 am UTC

puppies :D

Spoiler:
Image
UzHGjzI.jpg
EkMPCli.png
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
e^iπ+1=0
Much, much better than Gooder
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:41 am UTC
Location: Lancaster

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby e^iπ+1=0 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:39 am UTC

Egosearch'd. Also, puppies:

Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
poxic wrote:You, sir, have heroic hair.
poxic wrote:I note that the hair is not slowing down. It appears to have progressed from heroic to rocking.

(Avatar by Sungura)

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Neil_Boekend » Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:09 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:*stuff about facts*

OK, then it is merely a slight difference in definition of the word "fact". When I get back from this job interview I'll research whether I have been using the word slightly wrong.
I have always seen "I like cake" as a fact, although it is not verifiable (within the assumptions of this discussion).
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:08 am UTC

My and my SO were having the conversation and decided that facts are only facts if they're verifiable but having the general case will allow you to extrapolate. In the sense of 'tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it', yes, but we know that every time a tree has fallen and people are around, there is a noise. So it is a fact that the tree will make noise. If you can't make meaningful extrapolations then you're not really doing science maybe.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Quercus » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:14 am UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:My and my SO were having the conversation and decided that facts are only facts if they're verifiable but having the general case will allow you to extrapolate. In the sense of 'tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it', yes, but we know that every time a tree has fallen and people are around, there is a noise. So it is a fact that the tree will make noise. If you can't make meaningful extrapolations then you're not really doing science maybe.


I think I agree with that. It ties into the notion (which I think is just that same thing stated more formally) that for a model to be scientific it must have some degree of predictive power.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:04 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:It ties into the notion (which I think is just that same thing stated more formally) that for a model to be scientific it must have some degree of predictive power.
Well, or observational power. Hypotheses can be generated from ideas and subsequently tested, or observations and subsequently tested.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26254
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:12 pm UTC

Neil_Boekend wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:*stuff about facts*

OK, then it is merely a slight difference in definition of the word "fact". When I get back from this job interview I'll research whether I have been using the word slightly wrong.
I have always seen "I like cake" as a fact, although it is not verifiable (within the assumptions of this discussion).

Possible. It's also possible that I'm the one using the word incorrectly.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby Quercus » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:24 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Hypotheses can be generated from ideas and subsequently tested, or observations and subsequently tested.

That's true, but it's very rare in my experience of practical science that purely one or the other applies in any situation. Pretty much all ideas are informed by previous observations, and the vast majority of observations are incorporated into at least an informal model before being used to generate hypotheses. Even explicitly data driven hypotheses (fitting mathematical models of biological systems for example) are usually tested on additional datasets to examine their predictive power.

N.B. My experience is limited to what can probably be most concisely summed up as "macromolecule to organ scale biology", with most experience with systems of interacting cells in tissues. Other areas of science may be different in this regard, and there may be other ways of approaching my area of science.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:09 pm UTC

Upon perusing this thread, I find it significant that Sabredog is an anagram of Sabregod. Note his refusal to explain himself to us petty mortals, whom he mocks in our ignorance, and his general attitude that all of us--individually and collectively (society)--are vastly inferior to his Almightiness. Are these things not telltale signs that he is, indeed, a deity?

The proper response to him is therefore to repent of our recalcitrance and fall into abject adoration of his wisdom, lest we be struck by the lightning of his displeasure. Heed my prophetic words, oh ye sinful ones, or writhe in neverending misery.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26254
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: If brutal honesty is just meanness, isn't science and tr

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:17 pm UTC

Nah, we've moved on from that. We're on puppies now.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests