Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just speaking of debate and dialogue ... here I think is a really sweet example of dialogue.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 6, 2017 at 11:33 AM, romansh said:

And when the pieces don't fit when more evidence turns up then a new hypothesis is formed. Science is a process not an end point.

Science is not without error or backtracking. But contrary to assertions like cannot assess free will I would argue it can. There might be certain things we don't know how we might understand certain concepts, but that does not mean at some future date we won't.

Extrapolation is where we can falsify a hypothesis or even a theory. It is where scientists put their appendages on the chopping block.

Correlation is a measure of how well the data fits the hypothesis.

Probabilities ... eg statistical mechanics is a powerful for understanding the behaviour thermodynamics. You will have to explain why this is here dragons lie.

 

Sorry about the response lag here.  I'm on a mini vacay to NY for the wedding of an old friend and finding time for a thoughtful response is difficult.

"Lies, damned lies and statistics".  http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/CSE3/Lie_with_Statistics.pdf

The most common statistical error I find is a faulty assumption that the variables are normally distributed.  Normal distributions are rare (Prieto distributions are much more common) and assuming that the arithmetic mean is the best measure of central tendency.

ANOVA/MANOVA analyses are worthless if the variables do not conform to a normal distribution.  It is also very uncommon for randomly selected control groups to be truly random.

There is also a common inferential conclusion that group results can be applied to individuals.  "You are 50% more likely to get health problem X if you do or do not do Y".  This error is similar to the gambler's fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Tia is just indoctrinated, naïve and undereducated.  

For dialog all parties need to put forward their axioms and postulates.  This interviewer is just trolling Tia into looking foolish.  Note how the troll always asks questions without ever making a positive contribution.  He just barbs Tia with questions, and is deliberately trying to make her appear ignorant.  

The interviewer works from a hidden agenda.  He trolls Tia into following his lead and is always looking for her weak spots while being careful to avoid making any statement of his own thoughts and opinions.

The troll avoids an honest, two-way comparison of ideas.  He just wants to lure Tia into embarassing herself.

Edited by Burl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree statistics is an area where we have to apply care as to how we use them.

And I agree statistics especially in the human sciences a fraught with traps.

The presentation like you the one you provided show us the error of our ways ... in this sense science is self correcting over time. .Like many people saying there are errors in our current findings, completely and routinely miss the point of science. It is a process for getting closer to a more accurate description of reality. The fact that science (as a process) goes back and checks for errors is a plus and not some negative.

I would argue people in general use the scientific method more than the think   .... data, hypothesis, more data, confirm the data fits, do this for a few more loops, come to a tentative conclusion keep collecting more data. It is when people have come to definitive conclusion is when the fun starts.

And what is the alternative to getting models and data for the supposed immaterial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burl said:

The troll avoids an honest, two-way comparison of ideas.  He just wants to lure Tia into embarassing herself.

Funnily enough I did not feel sorry for Tia. I think she was brave and bright enough to understand she did not have the underpinnings to girder her faith.

I can't help thinking asking questions and answering them is a grand way to bring new stuff to the table, it might not be new to me or you but it could well be to some third party.

So the apocryphal Socrates was a troll. So learnt something new today. Poor Gorgias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burl,

In my view, it was handled very well and there need not be 2 way comparison of ideas in dialog for learning to occur on both sides. There seemed to me  no debate or verbal fight, only dialog with a willing person. His questions were thought provoking and not personal attacks. His questions were more to understand her reasoning and thinking, he never said she was wrong or her thinking was flawed as is often done. . Neither party seemed upset and she probably will go and do more studying afterwards which may be a good thing.

“The first and most difficult task of dialogue involves parking the ego and listening with an open spirit.  From this receptivity can come questions which lead to understanding.” (unknown)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JosephM said:

Burl,

In my view, it was handled very well and there need not be 2 way comparison of ideas in dialog for learning to occur on both sides. There seemed to me  no debate or verbal fight, only dialog with a willing person. His questions were thought provoking and not personal attacks. His questions were more to understand her reasoning and thinking, he never said she was wrong or her thinking was flawed as is often done. . Neither party seemed upset and she probably will go and do more studying afterwards which may be a good thing.

“The first and most difficult task of dialogue involves parking the ego and listening with an open spirit.  From this receptivity can come questions which lead to understanding.” (unknown)

 

No, a dialog is not where one person asks all the questions.  This was an interrogation.  

A dialog is two-sided.  Tia did not drill the microphone guy on his belief structure.  That would have been a dialog.  A good example is 

 

In debate no questions are allowed.  Each party presents their case for or against the proposal and the auditors judge the presentations.  A good example is 

 

I am willing to engage in a proper online debate here on any topic of interest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×