Stefonknee, Rachel, Jewel, Gary, and Sandra.

Moderators: I am nobody, Deku Tree

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12692
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Been thanked: 19 times

#61

Post by I am nobody » Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:30 am

Theory in common English != scientific theory. Hypothesis and theory being synonyms would render the scientific method circular, for instance.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#62

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:32 am

[QUOTE="CaptHayfever, post: 1583064, member: 25169"]Wrong.
Scientific theories are explanations that have held up to repeated valid testing of one sort or another. Colloquially, people misuse the word "theory" when they should be saying "hypothesis" or "conjecture" or "assumption" or "wild guess". Scientists don't call their first guess a "theory"; they save that label until they're pretty freaking sure it's true.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"[/QUOTE]

Some of the most commonly known theories such as the Big Bang theory have problems. Even Albert Einstein was wrong, so let's not pretend that a theory is anything more than an educated guess, except that simply doesn't sound as good. There's a long history of disproven theories, here's a top ten list for you, actually. To compliment it, here's some simple questions science still can't answer.

I know I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know here, but your opinion doesn't trump mine, so I'm not wrong. Scientific theories are far from wild guesses, don't misunderstand me, but I don't think it's wise to take them all at face value; scientists are still human and therefore very prone to failure, even the best of them.

User avatar
Marilink
Supermod
Posts: 41170
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: MY TOE! MY TOE!
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 28 times
Contact:

#63

Post by Marilink » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:46 am

Failure in science isn't like failure in any other sense, though. A failure in science is a step toward a newer and better model. Theories have to be able to be proven wrong, or else they aren't theories.
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#64

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:28 am

[QUOTE="Marilink, post: 1583093, member: 23215"]Failure in science isn't like failure in any other sense, though. A failure in science is a step toward a newer and better model. Theories have to be able to be proven wrong, or else they aren't theories.[/QUOTE]

Good way to view it but doesn't really detract from my point that there's not a very meaningful difference between a theory and an assumption. We could very well tack "scientific" to "assumption" and get the same thing. There's this quote from a scientist as well:

"A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas J. Futuyma"

There's no way around assumptions in science, as far as I can tell, and I don't see a point in squabbling over trivalialities.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41083
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 8 times
Contact:

#65

Post by е и ժ е я » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:51 am

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE POKEMON!, post: 1583040, member: 18119"]You never saw anyone post a picture or even a video that's not entirely related to the topic at hand? I can go find a dozen such examples, if you'd like.[/QUOTE]
It either was an image shared to provoke, which goes against the rules in this subforum or you posted it entirely inconsequentially to the discussion and it is of no value to you and you would have no business expressing dissatisfaction. Try to exercise more scrutiny.[DOUBLEPOST=1453647118,1453646305][/DOUBLEPOST]The article still presented an ill-considered and biased assumption regardless of whether or not you call it an ignorant assumption. We are not talking about framing an idea but rather rationalising an actual decision made without sufficient information. Anyone who implies that transitioning leads to suicide of its own merit without substantial evidence to prove a causal relationship is not worth our consideration, and should probably not be in any position to influence its practice. He's using peripherally related data to rationalise his past decisions. That is confirmation bias.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
Kil'jaeden
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: in your mind

#66

Post by Kil'jaeden » Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:59 pm

And saying that it isn't connected is also confirmation bias. So I guess you are back to neutrality. What would qualify as evidence?

Also, people tend to have an awful idealized and neat view of science. The reality is not always the case. Many experiments have gotten results by accident or on a mere hunch. Also, there is the issue of finding what you want or expect to find. Data does not come neatly packaged with an interpretation.

The doctor says that transsexuals after a surgery have a very high suicide rate compared to the general population. You could pick on his sample; maybe they were people more unstable than usual. You could pick on his rationale for the results. What you can't dispute is that those were the results. You have your idea, which is that others are at fault for the high suicide rate(lack of acceptance). Do other people kill themselves for not being accepted? How do they compare to other groups? How would you design an experiment to test your claim? You could argue that other studies do show a difference based on other factors(thank you RU). This is how these studies are done. You don't dismiss results as "not worth your consideration." Even interpretations that you disagree with are valuable data. No one ignores that, even if they disagree, unless they see egregious reasons to do so. Even then, they need reasons. No amount of PC defense of trans anything will change results for what they are, whether they are ones you like or not. Someone going in to assume that these surgeries are going to show positive outcomes would be just as biased.
The man who is blind, deaf,and silent lives in peace.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#67

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:29 am

[QUOTE="Hell Orb, post: 1583102, member: 25415"]It either was an image shared to provoke, which goes against the rules in this subforum or you posted it entirely inconsequentially to the discussion and it is of no value to you and you would have no business expressing dissatisfaction. Try to exercise more scrutiny.[/quote]

Perceiving it as provocational is personal misinterpretation. The gesture is a display of smugness, being "contentedly confident of one's correctness." It applies. I can understand removing it, though, as a way to undermine that. Just goes to show how overly sensitive everyone is.

And as for if it were posted inconsequentially, like I said, there's plenty of examples of pictures and videos posted that are not entirely related to the subject at hand which aren't removed. Not that it matters, the original question was rhetorical; I already knew exactly why it was removed and that it wasn't against the rules, I just wanted to see how and if anyone would attempt to fairly justify it.

[quote="Hell Orb]The article still presented an ill-considered and biased assumption regardless of whether or not you call it an ignorant assumption. We are not talking about framing an idea but rather rationalising an actual decision made without sufficient information. Anyone who implies that transitioning leads to suicide of its own merit without substantial evidence to prove a causal relationship is not worth our consideration"]

You might be right. It seems to be well researched and Vgf said it was by a prominent figure, so I'd side with it having some credibility and wouldn't dismiss it entirely offhand, but neither can I assume it's correct (I should be especially critical of it since it validates my initial assumptions, actually). So I look forward to your answer to Kil's question, "what would qualify as evidence?"

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”