1847: "Dubious Study"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

The Devils Engineer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:44 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby The Devils Engineer » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:50 pm UTC

Image

Title Text: "Sounds fine. I looked up the Academy, and it says on their MySpace page that their journal is peer-viewed and downloaded biannually."

Nothing says Legit more than having your Academy on a MySpace page. :D
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.”
“The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”

― Mark Twain

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:56 pm UTC

On the internet, nobody knows your co-author is a dog.*




*No, really, some guy has been listing his dog as co-author or co-reviewer.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

Zinho
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Zinho » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:10 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:On the internet, nobody knows your co-author is a dog.*




*No, really, some guy has been listing his dog as co-author or co-reviewer.


What's his dog's Erdős number?

User avatar
pkcommando
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:22 pm UTC
Location: Allston, MA

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby pkcommando » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:22 pm UTC

But the people behind the study all have degrees, issued by institutions!!

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5475
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:17 pm UTC

What infuriates me is professional-looking studies from the journals of professional-sounding organizations actually staffed by real people of the profession in question... who all have a particular ideological bent (these particular professionals at this journal, not all people of that profession) and formed their professional organization with the sole purpose of pushing that ideological agenda in opposition to the message backed by the real general-purpose professional organization for that profession, the general consensus within which is contra these people's ideology.

I didn't know that was a thing until a year or two ago when, in an online argument, some conservative idiot made a ludicrous claim about (I think it was) some LGBT issue and when refuted backed it up with a professional-looking report from some American Journal Of Real Actual Medical Doctors or something less parodic-sounding than that, which for a moment had my jaw dropping until I thought of this possibility, googled for the organization in question, and found that they are well-known for existing solely to push a conservative viewpoint on issues relating to medicine, even though they are actually staffed with real medical doctors who should know better.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:32 pm UTC

Oh, wow. It's like the generic-named nonprofits used to give authentic-sounding endorsements for things, but on another level again. Yuck. = [
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

DanD
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby DanD » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:17 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:What infuriates me is professional-looking studies from the journals of professional-sounding organizations actually staffed by real people of the profession in question... who all have a particular ideological bent (these particular professionals at this journal, not all people of that profession) and formed their professional organization with the sole purpose of pushing that ideological agenda in opposition to the message backed by the real general-purpose professional organization for that profession, the general consensus within which is contra these people's ideology.

I didn't know that was a thing until a year or two ago when, in an online argument, some conservative idiot made a ludicrous claim about (I think it was) some LGBT issue and when refuted backed it up with a professional-looking report from some American Journal Of Real Actual Medical Doctors or something less parodic-sounding than that, which for a moment had my jaw dropping until I thought of this possibility, googled for the organization in question, and found that they are well-known for existing solely to push a conservative viewpoint on issues relating to medicine, even though they are actually staffed with real medical doctors who should know better.


The American College of Pediatricians is one such. Total membership of ~500 (or less), and they split of from the American Academy of Pediatricians (membership ~64k) when the latter endorsed adoption by same sex couples. The founder has specifically referred to their practices being based on Judeo-Christian values rather than, say, evidence.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby ucim » Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:27 am UTC

DanD wrote: The founder has specifically referred to their practices being based on Judeo-Christian values rather than, say, evidence.
Did the founder actually use the word "evidence" or verbiage indicating that xe knew what xe was rejecting?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:02 am UTC

Wikipedia wrote: Founder Joseph Zanga has described it as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions" provided that they "hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."[7]

Presumably he's quite aware of the evidence-derived positions of notable medical authorities on the subjects, such as those of, say, the AAP. "Your evidence is good as long as it confirms our core beliefs" is pretty much by definition a rejection of evidence. (And the particular exceptions made are irrelevant, even if the tenets were wholly valid ones, because you can't elevate anything above evidence and claim to be evidence-based.)
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

AkodoGilador
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:35 pm UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby AkodoGilador » Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:05 am UTC

Paraphrase of the Syntax Directed Quality Processes article, really...

Alex

sotanaht
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby sotanaht » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:37 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:
Wikipedia wrote: Founder Joseph Zanga has described it as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions" provided that they "hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."[7]

Presumably he's quite aware of the evidence-derived positions of notable medical authorities on the subjects, such as those of, say, the AAP. "Your evidence is good as long as it confirms our core beliefs" is pretty much by definition a rejection of evidence. (And the particular exceptions made are irrelevant, even if the tenets were wholly valid ones, because you can't elevate anything above evidence and claim to be evidence-based.)


You're both making the mistake of assuming that because one group is smaller, the other must be legitimate. The fact is that mainstream everything tends to have a rather extreme liberal bias that more or less runs on the same principle; "Your evidence is good as long as it confirms our core beliefs". These conservative splinter groups tend to exist for the sole purpose of opposing that.

Of course, that pretty much amounts to both sides sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "I can't hear you" at each other. The end result being that if there is a legitimate, fact-centered group out there, they are probably even smaller than both.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:51 am UTC

So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

sotanaht
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby sotanaht » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:53 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Yes, reality has a well-known liberal bias.


That's just what the liberal media want you to believe.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:41 am UTC

It's really not, and you're just appealing to the golden mean fallacy. The fact that you have two interests shouting at one another does not mean that the compromise position is automatically correct. Nor does it mean that the two groups can't share a whole host of other biases that may well be more consequential than the ones that only exist on one side or the other of the divide; it doesn't tell you a damn thing about how those groups' perspectives correspond to reality at all.

Bias has to be defined against some reference point. I could see making a case that the mainstream is biased about an individual issue, where you could make a case for how the evidence and the perception are disjoint. I think it's a lot harder when the thing you're taking to task is the whole implicit political ideology of the mainstream.

If all of our experts in every field of study or discipline in the United States are all biased by an ideology that also happens to be even more prevalent in the rest of the developed world than it is here, you'd need to make a case for where the fundamental assumptions of that whole complex have gone wrong. Meanwhile, while you're writing your treatise, I'm going to be pointing and laughing at, but also deeply concerned by, these organizations presenting themselves as ordinary academic or industry organizations while existing solely to advance an ideological agenda that's only explicitly referenced in a couple of sentences tucked away at the bottom of the About pages on their websites.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

sotanaht
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby sotanaht » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:06 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:It's really not, and you're just appealing to the golden mean fallacy.


Not true, I never said that the middle position (between conservative and liberal) was correct, merely that both sides ignore the other and any evidence in favor of their own beliefs, The truth could easily lie with either at least as far as this conversation is concerned, but neither is really looking.

But anyway, if you want to know where it all went wrong, look to the universities, where conflicting (non-liberal) opinion is shouted down if not violently opposed. This leads to creating an environment (in the relative absence of openly conservative targets) where people compete to be "more liberal" than each other, and then it is these very people who go on to become the next generation of professors and media.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:27 am UTC

I just want to say that, from a foreign perspective, the US political landscape appears to be made up of right-wing and ultra-right-wing, and the majority of the "liberal-biased" universities are still right-wing by our standards, which makes the whole argument seem really weird...

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:27 am UTC

Quite so.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

DanD
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby DanD » Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:07 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:You're both making the mistake of assuming that because one group is smaller, the other must be legitimate. The fact is that mainstream everything tends to have a rather extreme liberal bias that more or less runs on the same principle; "Your evidence is good as long as it confirms our core beliefs". These conservative splinter groups tend to exist for the sole purpose of opposing that.

Of course, that pretty much amounts to both sides sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "I can't hear you" at each other. The end result being that if there is a legitimate, fact-centered group out there, they are probably even smaller than both.


No, I'm assuming that because one group is (significantly) smaller, it is problematic that they appear, to the lay reader, to be equally valid. While this may be true, it is the case that, in scientific matters, the larger group is more likely to be correct, per an application of Occam's razor.

Also relevant in this, exact, case, is that one of the groups has an assumed conclusion as a membership requirement. That indicates in an inherent defect in thinking. Just like, as a mechanical engineer, I would not join a group that requires it's members to state that over unity machines exist, I would not trust any pediatrician who joins a group that requires its members to state "that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children".

(Don't get me wrong, if anyone produces conclusive evidence of an over unity device, I'm fine with that, and it would be cool, but I'll wait on evidence, not unsupported statements).


ETA: It's one thing if they hold that position based on evidence (typically the Regenerus Study), but are amenable to changing it as new evidence arises (University of Australia, Melbourne. University of Virginia, etc). However they are not open to accepting new evidence as it arrives.
Last edited by DanD on Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:14 pm UTC

I still want to know what a liberal bias across academics and industry would even mean. Seems far more likely to me that liberals have an academic "bias".
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

DanD
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby DanD » Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:17 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:I still want to know what a liberal bias across industry would even mean.


Industry tends to be biased towards what works and produces profits. So apparently liberal ideals work and produce profits.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5475
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:04 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:But anyway, if you want to know where it all went wrong, look to the universities, where conflicting (non-liberal) opinion is shouted down if not violently opposed. This leads to creating an environment (in the relative absence of openly conservative targets) where people compete to be "more liberal" than each other, and then it is these very people who go on to become the next generation of professors and media.

I keep hearing this repeated in recent years, and things may have changed since I was in college, but outside of one professor in one class I had, that whole picture looks completely alien to me.

On the other hand, a few decades before that you could have your entire life ruined by the Federal government just by holding excessively left-wing views that were deemed "Un-American". The after-effects of that were still so strong when I was younger that when I got to college and a cultural anthropology class had us reading Marx (who along with Weber, Durkheim, and so on, is one of the early big names in the field), I was actually shocked that they were allowed to "teach communism", not out of personal outrage or anything but because I had grown up with the vague impression that Marxism was basically illegal.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby ManaUser » Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:23 pm UTC

DanD wrote:Industry tends to be biased towards what works and produces profits. So apparently liberal ideals work and produce profits.

Possibly, but people can make mistakes, industry leaders would only need to think that's true. Entertainment is probably where this is most relevant. If say movie execs think they can make more money by scoring politically-correct points, they'll do it. But sometimes it turns the people making the most noise aren't really their audience and it doesn't pay off that well.

DanD
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby DanD » Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:58 pm UTC

ManaUser wrote:
DanD wrote:Industry tends to be biased towards what works and produces profits. So apparently liberal ideals work and produce profits.

Possibly, but people can make mistakes, industry leaders would only need to think that's true. Entertainment is probably where this is most relevant. If say movie execs think they can make more money by scoring politically-correct points, they'll do it. But sometimes it turns the people making the most noise aren't really their audience and it doesn't pay off that well.


So the market doesn't correct bad assumptions? Not a very conservative idea there.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby ManaUser » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 am UTC

DanD wrote:So the market doesn't correct bad assumptions? Not a very conservative idea there.

Did I ever claim to be a conservative?

But I do think "the market" will probably correct such mistakes in time, it just might take a few failures before the suits figure it out.

DanD
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby DanD » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:37 pm UTC

ManaUser wrote:
DanD wrote:So the market doesn't correct bad assumptions? Not a very conservative idea there.

Did I ever claim to be a conservative?

But I do think "the market" will probably correct such mistakes in time, it just might take a few failures before the suits figure it out.


This still has the fundamental flaw of durability. If media has a persistent liberal bias, then it is because that liberal bias produces profits. If it were a few outliers and then it reverted to a neutral or conservative mean, then you could make an argument otherwise. But, according to people who hold the view that media is biased, almost all media is, and it remains so for an extended period of time.

Any study of market forces untainted by ideology would suggest that, on average, either a liberal bias is correct, or it is not biased.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:17 pm UTC

DanD wrote:
ManaUser wrote:
DanD wrote:So the market doesn't correct bad assumptions? Not a very conservative idea there.

Did I ever claim to be a conservative?

But I do think "the market" will probably correct such mistakes in time, it just might take a few failures before the suits figure it out.


This still has the fundamental flaw of durability. If media has a persistent liberal bias, then it is because that liberal bias produces profits. If it were a few outliers and then it reverted to a neutral or conservative mean, then you could make an argument otherwise. But, according to people who hold the view that media is biased, almost all media is, and it remains so for an extended period of time.

Any study of market forces untainted by ideology would suggest that, on average, either a liberal bias is correct, or it is not biased.


The problem is most people arguing that the media has a persistent liberal bias seem to be (from my limited sample size) from a country that thinks most of the rest of the world has a persistent liberal bias...

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:51 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
DanD wrote:
ManaUser wrote:
DanD wrote:So the market doesn't correct bad assumptions? Not a very conservative idea there.

Did I ever claim to be a conservative?

But I do think "the market" will probably correct such mistakes in time, it just might take a few failures before the suits figure it out.


This still has the fundamental flaw of durability. If media has a persistent liberal bias, then it is because that liberal bias produces profits. If it were a few outliers and then it reverted to a neutral or conservative mean, then you could make an argument otherwise. But, according to people who hold the view that media is biased, almost all media is, and it remains so for an extended period of time.

Any study of market forces untainted by ideology would suggest that, on average, either a liberal bias is correct, or it is not biased.


The problem is most people arguing that the media has a persistent liberal bias seem to be (from my limited sample size) from a country that thinks most of the rest of the world has a persistent liberal bias...

Also they often support an ideology in the liberal conservative to conservative liberal range and their idea of liberalism consistently approximates social liberalism.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby da Doctah » Sat Jul 15, 2017 12:47 am UTC

Conservatives think the media has a liberal bias.

Liberals think the media has a conservative bias.

This is the definition of "the sweet spot".

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1847: "Dubious Study"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:21 am UTC

If you feel the news media's purpose is to make the leading political parties happy, yes.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acunning40, Solra Bizna, ZoomanSP and 106 guests