27 Aug 2021, 1:00 am
Brictoria wrote:
I'll let you do that... It fits in with part of the reply to the rubbish in the post above yours that I'm working on, but probably should be in a separate post..
We'll see how this goes, I'm honestly not sure it would help, and he'd try to spin his way out of it anyways, along with the replication crisis in the social sciences. I think I might have been the exact comic I was thinking of with the Galileo comment, or one very similar to it.
27 Aug 2021, 1:18 am
27 Aug 2021, 1:25 am
The word(s) "pharmaceutical social engeneering" comes to mind
Nothing to do with the church at all 
eg, quote, Stephen Hawking was a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, [Science and the Catholic Church]
or the believe of "progress" as another religious tentacle
https://realphysics.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... ardin.html
orthodoxy and heretics
you don't expect the inquisition, or you do?
(the next great work; the enneads at esalen------------disappeared, 
its theosophic racism was too obvious, let the dead rule, what could possibly be un-fair in coucou land)
--back to the future? & back to blasphemy laws??
27 Aug 2021, 1:29 am
27 Aug 2021, 1:35 am
27 Aug 2021, 1:36 am
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
As an ex-scientist (and perhaps the only person on this thread with a science degree)
A somewhat conceited (and incorrect) statement, I would think... Particularly as I am aware of at least one other member in the thread with a Science degree.
Does a degree in Humour count for anything/k?
Brictoria wrote:
Outside of what people here post about themselves, you have no way of knowing anything about them. It is entirely possible that the majority of the participants in the thread have degrees in real science (which excludes pseudo-science such as "political science", or "social science").
How about a palynologist that espouses climate change theories?
Any good?
Brictoria wrote:
Although, it does bring up an interesting point: Being an "Ex-scientist", you would be well aware of the importance of providing others with source material in order to validate claims being made, wouldn't you...
I have been itching to find out for years.
Brictoria wrote:
Maybe this might be of interest to those who like to at least attempt to validate claims (scientific or otherwise):
Quote:
This is not to say that there aren't folks in lab coats whose thinking is sloppy. Indeed, catching sloppy thinking is the kind of thing you'd hope a good general understanding of science would help someone (like a scientific colleague, or a science journalist) to do.
Like Peter Ridd does, you mean?
Quote:
At that point, of course, it's good to have backup -- other scientists who can give you their read on the pattern of reasoning, for example. And, to the extent that a scientist -- especially one talking "on the record" about the science (whether to a reporter or to other scientists or to scientifically literate members of the public) -- displays sloppy thinking, that would tend to undermine his or her credibility.
Do these scientists have to have total independence, or should they be beholding to the people holding the purse strings in say, grant funding?
Quote:
There are other kinds of evaluation you can probably make of a scientist's credibility without being an expert in his or her field. Examining a scientific paper to see if the sources cited make the claims that they are purported to make by the paper citing them is one way to assess credibility. Determining whether a scientist might be biased by an employer or a funding source may be harder. But there, I suspect many of the scientists themselves are aware of these concerns and will go the extra mile to establish their credibility by taking the possibility that they are seeing what they want to see very seriously and testing their hypotheses fairly stringently so they can answer possible objections.
There is a plan to employ a free speech system using anonymity to protect the identity of "scientists" and perhaps journalists, presenting discussions/research without the danger of career damaging repercussions.
The mere consideration of such a structure is telling and acknowledges the existence of corrupt influences.
Quote:
It's harder still to get a good read on the credibility of scientists who present evidence and interpretations with the right sort of logical structure but who have, in fact, fabricated or falsified that evidence. Being wary of results that seem too good to be true is probably a good strategy here. Also, once a scientist is caught in such misconduct, it's entirely appropriate not to trust another word that comes from his or her mouth.
Shades of William McBride.
Quote:
One of the things fans of science have tended to like is that it's a route to knowledge that is, at least potentially, open to any of us. It draws on empirical data we can get at through our senses and on our powers of rational thinking. As it happens, the empirical data have gotten pretty complicated, and there's usually a good bit of technology between the thing in the world we're trying to observe and the sense organs we're using to observe it. [b][u]However, those powers of rational thinking are still at the center of how the scientific knowledge gets built. Those powers need careful cultivation, but to at least a first approximation they may be enough to help us tell the people doing good science from the cranks.[/u][/b]
Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/evaluating-scientific-claims-or-do-we-have-to-take-the-scientists-word-for-it/[/quote]
Is rational thinking like critical thinking rather than groupthink?
27 Aug 2021, 1:41 am
Dox47 wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I'll let you do that... It fits in with part of the reply to the rubbish in the post above yours that I'm working on, but probably should be in a separate post..
We'll see how this goes, I'm honestly not sure it would help, and he'd try to spin his way out of it anyways, along with the replication crisis in the social sciences. I think I might have been the exact comic I was thinking of with the Galileo comment, or one very similar to it.
I guessed it was likely what you were talking about - took me a few minutes to track down in my reference library...
27 Aug 2021, 1:48 am
Brictoria wrote:
And this is an example of the "Science worshipper" approach - rely on "consensus" to try and prevent others questioning the theory rather than engaging in real science where testing of hypothesis\theories is welcomed, as it leads to either finding flaws in the base assumptions, or reinforces the initial hypothesis\theory.
In this context, "consensus" equates to "groupthink".
Quote:
Consensus science is a phrase used to describe a position on an issue that is primarily supported using existing or purported scientific consensus as an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority.
Source: https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Consensus_science
Source: https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Consensus_science
Quote:
Brictoria wrote:
It's certainly enlightening to see pseudo-science (in this case "systemc racism") being classed as "science", too...
27 Aug 2021, 1:50 am
Pepe wrote:
Is rational thinking like critical thinking rather than groupthink?
Close... This may help (or may not):
Quote:
rational thinking is about giving reasons; critical thinking is about using rationality to figure out what to believe.
Source: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-rational-thinking-and-critical-thinking
Along with:
Quote:
The first of the two types of thinking that I will describe will be rational thinking. Rational thinking is where an individual will think in a logically consistent way. Often, these individuals see the world as a puzzle or machine where their actions change the circumstances and thus end result. Most notably this type of thinking can be considered as A+B=C. Another way that it could be seen is when we see A we see or have a tendency to see B. Rationality is the ability to think about the cause, input, output, action, reaction, and have a logical progression from point 'A' to point 'B'. While many would try to be rational at any given point in time, there are some unseen side effects. These types of people often think in a manner that would be considered cold or unfeeling, and rationality does not do very well when thinking on human emotions, as emotional responses may not have a rational outcome. Empathy is often the weakness of rationality.
The second of the types that I will describe will be emotional thinking. Emotional thinkers often see the world through the lenses of how their actions make an individual or group feel. These individuals also have the ability to understand beauty, as they notice the value of things that do not directly benefit themselves, such as music or art. The other characteristics of emotional thinkers is their ability to empathize with the suffering of others. These individuals are often more social and are able to create a network around them in order to both help themselves and help others. These people are often passionate and bold, giving themselves over to their ideals and desires, but they also can be short-sighted and unwilling to accept when they cannot do something that needs to be accomplished. Their weakness is often this short-sighted nature.
The second of the types that I will describe will be emotional thinking. Emotional thinkers often see the world through the lenses of how their actions make an individual or group feel. These individuals also have the ability to understand beauty, as they notice the value of things that do not directly benefit themselves, such as music or art. The other characteristics of emotional thinkers is their ability to empathize with the suffering of others. These individuals are often more social and are able to create a network around them in order to both help themselves and help others. These people are often passionate and bold, giving themselves over to their ideals and desires, but they also can be short-sighted and unwilling to accept when they cannot do something that needs to be accomplished. Their weakness is often this short-sighted nature.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/rationality-or-emotions
As to groupthink - I'm not certain it has much to do with thinking, and is instead more focussed on the "group" and following what the "leader" says is "right", in order to avoid exile from the group... More of a "social" than an "intellectual" bond within the "community".
27 Aug 2021, 2:00 am
Brictoria wrote:
I'll let you do that... It fits in with part of the reply to the rubbish in the post above yours that I'm working on, but probably should be in a separate post..
He can take a beating.
I'll give him that.
27 Aug 2021, 2:13 am
27 Aug 2021, 2:17 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
If you teach people to think critically, which a solid "liberal" education is supposed to, it doesn't matter what the teacher's personal opinions are.
I see no evidence of this here in Australia.
Please refer to Bruce Pascoe's "Dark emu".
Left-wing politics has infiltrated Australia's skooling system.
I have heard a lot of people lament the substituting of traditional skooling with woke left-wing ideology.
Is it coincidental that Australia has an education crisis, atm?
I suspect not.
27 Aug 2021, 2:21 am
27 Aug 2021, 2:25 am
27 Aug 2021, 2:28 am
27 Aug 2021, 2:29 am
