Beyond irrationality.

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you for your appreciation.

The subject material here isn't easy going and it is expected that few would devote the needed cerebral energy to "digest" it.

Yes, this thread was created with the intention of being an "information station" that I will refer to myself from time to time.
If I ever get back into the "perilous" discussion scene dominated by political correctness hugging "luvies", I will have a bunker of rationality to fall back on.

Source Credibility:

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy

https://youtu.be/hfil34ayaEU

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem

https://youtu.be/qBkj-AYYg7w

Argument from authority:

https://youtu.be/FgmvH5eKgww

Scientific Skepticism | Dr. Steven J. Allen:

https://youtu.be/stGBDI2SgEU

Red Herring - Critical Thinking Fallacies:

https://youtu.be/Af0STrY58i4

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:

https://youtu.be/5A7hSaoRv0g

Are you Begging the Question? - Gentleman Thinker:


https://youtu.be/OAXKc-rvMa8

Why Do Stupid People Think They're Smart? The Dunning Kruger Effect

https://youtu.be/GJz66wm95-M

How to Argue - Philosophical Reasoning: Crash Course Philosophy #2:

https://youtu.be/NKEhdsnKKHs

I came across an interesting article today. It basically says that many academic papers have stooped to become a form of click bait.

A study published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported on an association between e-cigarette use and depression. The cross-sectional study of nearly 900,000 e-cigarette users who self-reported into the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2016 to 2017 found that users had a higher likelihood of reporting a history of depression, and that incrementally higher frequency e-cigarette use was associated with an incrementally higher likelihood of reporting depression.

The authors mention that several earlier studies showed an association between tobacco smoking and depression, but there are few studies looking at an association between e-cigarettes and depression. Regarding the meaning of their findings, the authors stated:

These findings highlight the need for longitudinal studies to examine the association between e-cigarette use and depression, which may be bidirectional.

And in their conclusions, the authors note “the need for prospective studies analyzing the longitudinal risk of depression with e-cigarette use.”

Correlation does not imply causation. And the fact that nicotine delivered in liquid vaping cartridges carries an association with depression among its users similar to that known to exist with nicotine delivered in combustible tobacco cigarette smoke should not come as earthshaking news.

At first blush, one is moved to ask what the researchers were trying to accomplish. The authors admit that any association between e-cigarette use and depression "may be bidirectional.” Indeed. A Duke University study in 2006 found nicotine may decrease depression in nonsmokers, and many studies show nicotine has a calming effect, and aids in cognition. It has even been found to benefit patients with Parkinson’s Disease.

It is fair to say that this study provides no real useful information. True, if, as the authors recommend, a longitudinal prospective study was performed, it might help with the question of causation, because it can then be determined which came first—the nicotine use or the depression. But even then, underlying characteristics may be causes of both depression and a demand for nicotine. And nicotine use may be a way to self-medicate for depressive symptoms but may still display first.

So why, then, was this study published? I am reminded of the influence that public policy and media narratives have on modern science. This led Stanford University Professor John Ioannidis to discover in 2005 “Why Most Published Research Papers Are False.” It is the subject of a new book, “Scientocracy”. Sometimes confirmation bias and politics influence which studies get published. If the study appears to add fuel to media-driven panic—in this case, the media-driven panic surrounding e-cigarettes—it stands a good chance of getting published. It seems these days as if even peer-reviewed academic journals are succumbing to the tabloid journalist dictum: “If it bleeds it leads.”

Source: Scientific Studies As 'Click Bait?'

Zactly.
Cynicism is a "C" word,
But an important/vital "C" word.

Political interference in science is hardly new news, these days,
And those who ignore it or are unaware of it are hardly reliable information sources.

"Scepticism" is an essential part of scientific methodology, and if someone says differently, it comes down to questions of objectivity/impartiality, integrity and credibility.

Actually I coined this as the 40% rule, or jimmy's rule #1

In our world, newspapers are in the business of selling papers. This mission can sometimes be at odds with telling the truth. The truth is many times distorted. Many normal people are being led around like sheep to the slaughter.
Most normal people have learned herd instinct. They travel with the herd. If their teachers teach them something they accept it without question. If a politician says, “the debate is over” or “there is a consensus”, they accept this as true in blind faith. They do this for convenience. But this normal approach also has a severe weakness.

Around 40% of what you read is outright false or a misleading narrative.

On one day, the New York Times might publish an article titled Latest research indicates coffee is bad for you and drinking it will cause you to die prematurely.

The very next day another newspaper publishes an article titled Coffee is beneficial and scientist have proven that drinking it will extend your life.

So which headline is true and which is false?

The correct answer is probably both headlines are somewhat true. However, as first stated by Paracelsus, the #1 principle in toxicology is, “The dose makes the poison.” This means that below a certain dose (probably about 4 cups a day) coffee is beneficial to drink and above that threshold it can be destructive. In general, if you drink a few cups of coffee a day or not, it doesn’t really matter in extending or curtailing your life expectancy.

Consider even drinking too much water will kill you. Severe cases of hyponatremia (drinking too much water at once) can lead to water intoxication, an illness whose symptoms include headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, frequent urination and mental disorientation; and this condition can prove fatal. So do you really need to put a warning label on water! Or as in California, a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge just ruled that coffee must carry a warning label! Goodbye Starbucks!

Over 150 years ago Sir (Joseph) Norman Lockyer, a brilliant astrophysicist, found it very difficult to gain a voice and expand science. He created a new tool; he founded a great scientific journal called Nature and was its editor for a half century from 1869-1919. Nature encouraged controversy and vigorous debate within its pages. This was a tool he developed in gaining a voice.

But now the editors of many of these fine scientific journals have become corrupt and no longer encourage controversy and vigorous debate. They have made themselves the ultimate arbitrators. They have picked sides by deciding what is true and what is false, what to publish and what to censor. And many times they select the wrong side. They have lost their way.

Let the battles be fought out with logical arguments and research findings across the pages of the journal Nature or the many other scientific journals.

An article by the National Association of Scholars titled The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science of April 2018 confirms that the crisis of reproducibility exists and compromises entire disciplines of science. In 2012 the biotechnology firm Amgen tried to reproduce 53 “landmark” studies in hematology and oncology, but could only replicate six. In that same year the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration estimated that up to three-quarters of published biomarker associations could not be replicated. A 2015 article in Science that presented the results of 100 replication studies of articles published in prominent psychological journals found that only 36% of the replication studies produced statistically significant results, compared with 97% of the original studies. If scientific findings are not reproducible then modern science is being built on a foundation of quicksand.

Governments run by biased politicians tend to down-select slices of funding to confirmational research at the exclusions of all others approaches. They arbitrarily pick winners and losers. As a result, many times the winners of government grants are actually to defective approaches and the funding is totally wasted.

You might even wonder if the Theory of Special Relativity might not have even survived the selection process used by the scientific journal publishers of today. After all Einstein was an obscure government employee working as a clerk at the Swiss patent office.

The case is never closed. There is no such thing as scientific consensus until the fat lady sings.

For Albert Einstein and the other scientist in the Manhattan Project, the fat lady did not sing until they built a prototype of the first atomic bomb and successfully tested it.

Aspies who developed into nonconformist tend to question everything, examine everything, and test everything. And that is why Aspies are critical to society.

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Appeal to the People:

https://youtu.be/aF6EHTtyYqw

CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Equivocation

https://youtu.be/bmIqWT7qMj4