Politics LGTBQIA+ community

Remove this Banner Ad

King Brown said:
Yes, we can count the number of tea leaves or lines on our palm, but that isn't science. We can measure the shape of people's heads and make associations between certain cranial shapes and criminality.

It must give rise to second order consequences, it must say something else. If it can't do that, it isn't science. It's cargo cult science.
Click to expand...
Ha! "Cargo cult science". You don't get to claim to be as clever as Feynman by using his terminology. You absolutely can count the number of things and make scientific deduction from it. Every heard of, oh I dunno, biology?
King Brown said:
Except it isn't, because a person can take the test many times and achieve wildly varying scores.
Click to expand...
That's unsurprising. Having the same person take a test many times will vary it if it is measuring their cognition - they'll inevitably get better at it.

Are you sure you know what science is? You're swinging wildly here.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Ha! "Cargo cult science". You don't get to claim to be as clever as Feynman by using his terminology.
Click to expand...
Where is that claim made? It's a commonly used term for bad science. The kind Malcolm Gladwell is known for peddling.

You absolutely can count the number of things and make scientific deduction from it. Every heard of, oh I dunno, biology?
Click to expand...
Yes I have, what point are you trying to make here about biology?

The scientific deduction you make must be replicable. The IAT makes a number of scientific deductions from what it intends to measure, none of those replicate.

That's unsurprising. Having the same person take a test many times will vary it if it is measuring their cognition - they'll inevitably get better at it.
Click to expand...
That's not the case with IAT - they get unpredictable results based on further tests. Trend improvement with further testing indicates something, completely random noise indicates nothing.

Are you sure you know what science is? You're swinging wildly here.
Click to expand...
I do. Swinging wildly is a brave accusation since you're the one who sounds like a neophyte.

Can you tell ShanDog what you studied?
 
I'm not engaging this any further. Ratts' ideology prevents there being any further discussion of worth. Regardless of whether the university and faculty themselves have publicly apologised, he can't see how his views on higher education are wrong. And why listen to me anyway? It's not like I should know...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ShanDog said:
I'm not engaging this any further. Ratts' ideology prevents there being any further discussion of worth. Regardless of whether the university and faculty themselves have publicly apologised, he can't see how his views on higher education are wrong. And why listen to me anyway? It's not like I should know...
Click to expand...
All the more amusing as I’d imagine Ratts bemoans lack of trust in experts.
 
ShanDog said:
I'm not engaging this any further. Ratts' ideology prevents there being any further discussion of worth. Regardless of whether the university and faculty themselves have publicly apologised, he can't see how his views on higher education are wrong. And why listen to me anyway? It's not like I should know...
Click to expand...
King Brown said:
All the more amusing as I’d imagine Ratts bemoans lack of trust in experts.
Click to expand...
You're correct. There are plenty of experts worth listening to. ShanDog is in training to be a teacher and has, ironically, shown indications of being concerned with ideology. I like free speech, so my ideology would actually mean I should side with the Teacher's Assistant, but I also suspect someone who goes into a meeting already recording it knows full well that they did something provocative. Hence I listened to the other side and tried to work out what I think likely happened. I'm not seeing that attempt to understand the faculty coming from ShanDog.

As for your expertise, KB, you segued science into STEM. That's kind of a giveaway, along with other comments you've made (e.g. not seeing the link between biology and why counting things might be an important part of that science), that you aren't in the science world. Of course there are plenty of scientists who can be myopic, and so not come across as particularly scientific, but I don't think you're really claiming to be an expert, are you?
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
As for your expertise, KB, you segued science into STEM. That's kind of a giveaway, along with other comments you've made (e.g. not seeing the link between biology and why counting things might be an important part of that science), that you aren't in the science world.
Click to expand...
A giveaway for what? I am not going to give away what I do, suffice to say, anyone with a science education who works as a scientist spends a vast majority of their time writing code and their career develops from there. I know an uncountable number of PhD accredited astrophysicists and biologists, among others, who spend their time writing machine learning algos in Python. They don't lose the accumulated practice and knowledge over many years.

What is the 'counting things' part of biology? At its heart, biology is not a quantitative science, it's a science that involves ontologies and classifications, similar to geology. But most importantly, biology does not create measurement tools that convey no further meaning, which is common to social science and psychology.
 
King Brown said:
What is the 'counting things' part of biology? At its heart, biology is not a quantitative science, it's a science that involves ontologies and classifications, similar to geology.
Click to expand...
Looks like an answer was hiding within the same sentence.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Jesus, mate. We've hijacked this thread enough. You're either wilfully pretending to misunderstand or you can't grasp even basic concepts as they're applied across disciplines.
Click to expand...
If I classify a mineral deposit as brecciated or supergene-enriched, what exactly am I measuring quantitatively?
 
King Brown said:
If I classify a mineral deposit as brecciated or supergene-enriched, what exactly am I measuring quantitatively?
Click to expand...
Hey, we can both ask irrelevant questions. I could ask 'If I count the amount of posts there have been since you first erroneously stated that counting things "isn't science" unless it leads to "second order consequences", will there be a second order consequence, and therefore, will I be a scientist?'.

Or you could agree this is all off-topic and move on.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
Hey, we can both ask irrelevant questions. I could ask 'If I count the amount of posts there have been since you first erroneously stated that counting things "isn't science" unless it leads to "second order consequences", will there be a second order consequence, and therefore, will I be a scientist?'.

Or you could agree this is all off-topic and move on.
Click to expand...
They’re not irrelevant at all, I’m simply following you down your rabbit hole of completely misunderstanding science.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I took that bias test and it said I had a bias against canteloupes which is bullshit because i love them.
 
So is anyone else concerned that in the next 10 years all these social justice warriors will be pushing for a P on the acronym? I most certainly am. I suppose that’ll offend the the SJWs on here but at the end of the day it is just another sexual tendency that some people will claim they were born with so we can’t discriminate against peadophiles. That’ll be the line. I couldn’t care less about the victimless tendency’s of any homosexuals but I want to know where the moral line is in all of this.
 
Longjohnmire said:
So is anyone else concerned that in the next 10 years all these social justice warriors will be pushing for a P on the acronym? I most certainly am. I suppose that’ll offend the the SJWs on here but at the end of the day it is just another sexual tendency that some people will claim they were born with so we can’t discriminate against peadophiles. That’ll be the line. I couldn’t care less about the victimless tendency’s of any homosexuals but I want to know where the moral line is in all of this.
Click to expand...

The line is a long way short of letting people rape kids. I don't think there's likely to be any serious push for legalizing paedophilia and if there was, it would have no hope of success.
 
fleabitten said:
The line is a long way short of letting people rape kids. I don't think there's likely to be any serious push for legalizing paedophilia and if there was, it would have no hope of success.
Click to expand...
Not paedophilia, but ephebophilia - I can see advocacy to lower the age of consent within our lifetimes.
 
King Brown said:
Not paedophilia, but ephebophilia - I can see advocacy to lower the age of consent within our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I don't think that would gain any traction if the push seemed to be coming from older men, though. Maybe if it was 15-17 year olds themselves campaigning for it. There's nothing magical that happens at 18 and it's not so long ago that marriage at 15-17 was reasonably common (it still is in many parts of the world).
 
fleabitten said:
Possibly. I don't think that would gain any traction if the push seemed to be coming from older men, though. Maybe if it was 15-17 year olds themselves campaigning for it. There's nothing magical that happens at 18 and it's not so long ago that marriage at 15-17 was reasonably common (it still is in many parts of the world).
Click to expand...
That's where it will come from.
 
fleabitten said:
The line is a long way short of letting people rape kids. I don't think there's likely to be any serious push for legalizing paedophilia and if there was, it would have no hope of success.
Click to expand...
I’d certainly hope so. But pedos don’t always rape they may just look at child pr0n aka that dog Ben McCormack or whatever that used to be an ambulance chasing journo for a current affair.

Point I’m trying to make is, Pedos can’t control how they feel just like any other LGBTQI person so in say 10 years when society is even more progressive than now, where will the line be? I’m worried I’ll be told I can’t discriminate against them when IMO they should be castrated so no kids in society are at risk. You can’t be rehabilitated for the way you feel about sexual attraction IMO.
 
Tucker Carlson would have to be top ten globally for most punchable faces, but yeah he made that guy look like a total clown without much effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top