23 Sep 2014, 2:22 pm
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
It is mind-boggling stupid to disregard the best way we have of getting knowledge simply because some studies are badly designed. Criticise the methods, criticise the statistics, point out that other, equally-good or better studies have found different things.
Depends on who's doing the study (or paying for it) and what their existing beliefs are.
The little ad hominem attack about stupidity didnt go unnoticed either but it's only a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Quote:
Don't say "yeah but science doesn't work".
Now a straw man attack.
I never said or even implied that science doesnt work.
The_Walrus wrote:
That is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem (Latin for "to the person") would be "that can't be right because you think it and you are a conservative". Ad hominem is when you claim that someone is wrong because of some irrelevant information about who they are, not because their statement is wrong.
Quote:
ad ho·mi·nem
ˈad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1. (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
2. relating to or associated with a particular person.
ˈad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1. (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
2. relating to or associated with a particular person.
The_Walrus wrote:
It is mind-boggling stupid to disregard the best way we have of getting knowledge simply because some studies are badly designed. Criticise the methods, criticise the statistics, point out that other, equally-good or better studies have found different things.
I rest my case.Quote:
Of course, you can criticise the funding body or the scientists themselves. That is perfectly legitimate, particularly if there is something else slightly fishy about the study.
However, to say you "don't put much stock in studies" ("studies" and "science" are all but synonymous, so I was not straw manning you) is handwaving away the way we reliably find things out. It implies that you don't care about new information. You don't need to believe every study, but at least consider them, and have good reasons for disregarding. This is seriously very hard and most of us have neither the skill nor the time (I don't read studies from outside of ecology/zoology very often at all), but don't just roll your eyes at them - that's how people get entrenched in their views even when they are clearly incorrect (e.g. the anti-gun crowd). Normally if someone is citing it they're not going to have read it, they're going to have read a summary praising it. A quick Google can often find a summary pointing out the flaws. Having said that, it is really satisfying when you can say "actually the author's own statistics show that the results are not statistically significant" because you spotted it yourself
However, to say you "don't put much stock in studies" ("studies" and "science" are all but synonymous, so I was not straw manning you) is handwaving away the way we reliably find things out. It implies that you don't care about new information. You don't need to believe every study, but at least consider them, and have good reasons for disregarding. This is seriously very hard and most of us have neither the skill nor the time (I don't read studies from outside of ecology/zoology very often at all), but don't just roll your eyes at them - that's how people get entrenched in their views even when they are clearly incorrect (e.g. the anti-gun crowd). Normally if someone is citing it they're not going to have read it, they're going to have read a summary praising it. A quick Google can often find a summary pointing out the flaws. Having said that, it is really satisfying when you can say "actually the author's own statistics show that the results are not statistically significant" because you spotted it yourself
You do realise what forum this is, don't you?
Quote:
I apologise if I did not accurately represent your position.
That takes all the fun out of it. Where's all the indignation and accusations of incivility and trollery? 
Quote:
It is fine not to believe everything you see in a scientific paper, but have a good reason to disregard it rather than doing so a priori.
Yeah sure, I'll just have to remember that.
:
23 Sep 2014, 8:53 pm
23 Sep 2014, 9:07 pm
24 Sep 2014, 12:12 am
24 Sep 2014, 2:38 pm
Dersino wrote:
Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, gives an evolutionary explanation to the higher IQ of liberals that is found in most studies: he says that liberalism didn't exist in traditional societies and is thus an evolutionarily novel trend; hence it must be related to higher intelligence, since the capacity to evolve and adapt reflects higher intelligence. He describes liberalism as "the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others". In his study, liberals were more intelligent than conservatives and more intelligent people agreed that federal income taxes should be raised and blacks should be helped by the government. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010.pdf
He also says vegetarians, atheists, people who value sexual exclusivity and people who take some types of drugs, among other groups, are also more intelligent for the same reasons, and gives evidence about this.
He also says vegetarians, atheists, people who value sexual exclusivity and people who take some types of drugs, among other groups, are also more intelligent for the same reasons, and gives evidence about this.
24 Sep 2014, 6:16 pm
Dox47 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I wonder if straw manning is correlated with political views.
Nah, I think that one is a pretty equal opportunity offense, as a libertarian I get it from the left and right pretty equally.
I do believe you just contradicted yourself.
Apparently the straw man is not correlated with political views, whilst also being correlated with not being a libertarian - a political view in itself. Checkmate
24 Sep 2014, 6:16 pm
26 Sep 2014, 12:01 am
26 Sep 2014, 1:15 am
27 Sep 2014, 1:06 pm
rvacountrysinger wrote:
Everyone thinks Conservatives are stupid. I don't agree with this. Its simply a different view point. I have a 130 IQ which is about average,
I presume you mean above average
. But your remark made me think about an article I have read about this issue. One of the points made is that American liberals are better with the abstract and American conservatives with the concrete. Now this does translate in higher IQ scores on average for US-liberals, because IQ-test are focused on the former and not the later.Quote:
and I don't support large Government spending.
Does this include spending on the military?
Dersino wrote:
He describes liberalism as "the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others".
So he takes a possible definition of altruism and then proceeds to call it liberalism. Also are those private resources their own or those of others (this includes calls for higher taxes while at the same time making sure that their own income and property are taxed as little as possible).
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Oct 2014, 3:14 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
04 Oct 2014, 3:15 pm
04 Oct 2014, 5:53 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I wonder if straw manning is correlated with political views.
Nah, I think that one is a pretty equal opportunity offense, as a libertarian I get it from the left and right pretty equally.
I do believe you just contradicted yourself.
Apparently the straw man is not correlated with political views, whilst also being correlated with not being a libertarian - a political view in itself. Checkmate
What he meant, at least in my mind, was that straw men are used pretty much regardless of politics and where you stand on the issue. People use straw men all the time when they argue over all kinds of different things. He was observing that because of his unique political position, he has seen the majority of people argue against him and even though they consider themselves basically diametrically opposed to one another they all commit this same basic error of logic when debating with him.
The truth is folks, that many of the rules of logic are counter-intuitive to most people and they even find them annoying. As people on the spectrum I don't think I'm speaking a foreign language to you when I say that argument for the majority of people has social motivations and they often care little about the subjects themselves that are being argued. So they are either intellectually dishonest, form careless arguments, or they even specialize in forming the most persuasive arguments (logic be damned) like many lawyers excel in doing. Some of the most intelligent attorneys I've ever met couldn't tell you heads from tails when it comes to what it deductive or inductive, modal or planal, what all of the common fallacies are, or how to build on syllogisms to make a solid argument. Chances are they might not even know the technical definition of an argument: to support a position. Arguments are not browbeating, they are a clinical process.
04 Oct 2014, 5:55 pm
04 Oct 2014, 6:08 pm
Lukecash12 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I wonder if straw manning is correlated with political views.
Nah, I think that one is a pretty equal opportunity offense, as a libertarian I get it from the left and right pretty equally.
I do believe you just contradicted yourself.
Apparently the straw man is not correlated with political views, whilst also being correlated with not being a libertarian - a political view in itself. Checkmate
What he meant, at least in my mind, was that straw men are used pretty much regardless of politics and where you stand on the issue. People use straw men all the time when they argue over all kinds of different things. He was observing that because of his unique political position, he has seen the majority of people argue against him and even though they consider themselves basically diametrically opposed to one another they all commit this same basic error of logic when debating with him.
Sure, I did acknowledge that I was straw manning him, I just saw the joke and went for it. I have a dislike for "libertarian exceptionalism" that underpinned the joke, but I was not attempting to construct an argument or even make Dox appear slightly foolish.
04 Oct 2014, 6:10 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Is This Normal? |
04 Apr 2024, 5:20 pm |
| Does liking Looney Tunes as an adult make me not normal? |
17 Apr 2024, 10:34 am |
