The greater point I'm trying to make is that your ethical bias is making you a worse scientist. I will acknowledge that you cannot remove biases entirely, perhaps my issue is that I wish scientists went to greater lengths to keep their biases in check than they do.
This is what rigorous experimental design and peer review are for.
I, of course, am displeased with the modern efficacy of this, but I guess I always will be until I finish those science robots that do science all day without bias or ethics.
Speaking as a programmer, science robots would be worse.
Not if they're built by other robots to be built without bias, which were in turn built by other robots to be built without bias!
Actually I've been reading Kuhn lately and I think from his position someone entirely without bias would be incapable of doing science.
Well, no, this gets away from the point of my hypothetical but it's not a very good one and won't stand up to much scrutiny so let's move on.
The greater point I'm trying to make is that your ethical bias is making you a worse scientist. I will acknowledge that you cannot remove biases entirely, perhaps my issue is that I wish scientists went to greater lengths to keep their biases in check than they do.
Well, if there was any reason to believe child abuse was beneficial (you don't just create a hypothesis because of an idea you had while day-dreaming) then you could probably create an experiment that avoids doing any harm to children (some kind of survey?), though the most effective experiment would be to round up children and abuse them and then see how they turn out in 20 years. I'm not sure if that's an experiment anyone ought to engage in.
The greater point I'm trying to make is that your ethical bias is making you a worse scientist. I will acknowledge that you cannot remove biases entirely, perhaps my issue is that I wish scientists went to greater lengths to keep their biases in check than they do.
This is what rigorous experimental design and peer review are for.
I, of course, am displeased with this, but I guess I never will be until I finish those science robots that do science all day without bias or ethics.
See, I'm saying that science "without bias or ethics" isn't merely a human impossibility due to our imperfect minds. I'm saying that it is a meaningless notion. Science has to be guided by ethics - "lying is bad and we shouldn't submit false data to journals" is an ethical statement. It has to be guided by expectations - as I said above, if we're studying PDE5 inhibitors instead of ground up tiger penis, it's because we have an expectation about what PDE5 inhibitors are going to do. Without ethics, expectations, and even biases, science is actually nonfunctional. So the best possible scenario is one in which all of our ethical notions, expectations, and biases are laid bare and effectively directed.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The greater point I'm trying to make is that your ethical bias is making you a worse scientist. I will acknowledge that you cannot remove biases entirely, perhaps my issue is that I wish scientists went to greater lengths to keep their biases in check than they do.
This is what rigorous experimental design and peer review are for.
I, of course, am displeased with this, but I guess I never will be until I finish those science robots that do science all day without bias or ethics.
See, I'm saying that science "without bias or ethics" isn't merely a human impossibility due to our imperfect minds. I'm saying that it is a meaningless notion. Science has to be guided by ethics - "lying is bad and we shouldn't submit false data to journals" is an ethical statement. It has to be guided by expectations - as I said above, if we're studying PDE5 inhibitors instead of ground up tiger penis, it's because we have an expectation about what PDE5 inhibitors are going to do. Without ethics, expectations, and even biases, science is actually nonfunctional. So the best possible scenario is one in which all of our ethical notions, expectations, and biases are laid bare and effectively directed.
but if people know of and suspect terminators, they'd be wary of taking in strangers looking for help in the wasteland
so a traitor probably wouldn't be so effective against an estabished group he was not a part of already
This alone would have made a better movie then T4.
just have the movie start with a guy walking through the wasteland showing it off
then some other humans notice him eventually and watches him for signs that he's a terminator
he joins them eventually and the rest of the movie is just about this group surviving
as the movie progresses the encounters with skynet forces increases from a drone flying in the distance to gunships searching, ground assets combing the area etc
eventually they get made and have to get away and survive
lots of tense action scenes follow
lots of people die
maybe only a few people survive
the main character among them
then, final scene, Main character sitting in a interrogation room-thing
with the reflection of a ominous machine with a glowing red eye-thing in the mirror glass behind him as he says
but if people know of and suspect terminators, they'd be wary of taking in strangers looking for help in the wasteland
so a traitor probably wouldn't be so effective against an estabished group he was not a part of already
This alone would have made a better movie then T4.
just have the movie start with a guy walking through the wasteland showing it off
then some other humans notice him eventually and watches him for signs that he's a terminator
he joins them eventually and the rest of the movie is just about this group surviving
as the movie progresses the encounters with skynet forces increases from a drone flying in the distance to gunships searching, ground assets combing the area etc
eventually they get made and have to get away and survive
lots of tense action scenes follow
lots of people die
maybe only a few people survive
the main character among them
then, final scene, Main character sitting in a interrogation room-thing
with the reflection of a ominous machine with a glowing red eye-thing in the mirror glass behind him as he says
"I'm your Man."
God damn I just came.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
I consider 'critically thinking human being' to be more broad and 'scientist' includes additional connotations. To me 'scientist' implies someone who doesn't just think well but also possesses a great amount of knowledge and applies that knowledge using the scientific method. I think any critically thinking human being can carry a scientist's spirit, so to speak, but I'm not sure if I would consider every one a scientist.
It doesn't matter too much though, I don't want to ascribe sacred meaning to the term.
I consider 'critically thinking human being' to be more broad and 'scientist' includes additional connotations. To me 'scientist' implies someone who doesn't just think well but also possesses a great amount of knowledge and applies that knowledge using the scientific method. I think any critically thinking human being can carry a scientist's spirit, so to speak, but I'm not sure if I would consider every one a scientist.
It doesn't matter too much though, I don't want to ascribe sacred meaning to the term.
no, no. I think that makes sense.
Course my reaction is that based on those definitions I would much, much rather consider myself a scientist.
but if people know of and suspect terminators, they'd be wary of taking in strangers looking for help in the wasteland
so a traitor probably wouldn't be so effective against an estabished group he was not a part of already
This alone would have made a better movie then T4.
One thing I liked about Terminator SCC was that the future was a lot more fleshed out. Instead of humans vs. machines and two time travellers, we had human collaborators, machines that opposed skynet, and a large-scale time war.
Wouldn't a person who frequently drinks and dates be more at risk of "random" rape (ignoring the whole fact that most happen at home by significant others) overall if we are going by the stereotype?
but if people know of and suspect terminators, they'd be wary of taking in strangers looking for help in the wasteland
so a traitor probably wouldn't be so effective against an estabished group he was not a part of already
This alone would have made a better movie then T4.
just have the movie start with a guy walking through the wasteland showing it off
then some other humans notice him eventually and watches him for signs that he's a terminator
he joins them eventually and the rest of the movie is just about this group surviving
as the movie progresses the encounters with skynet forces increases from a drone flying in the distance to gunships searching, ground assets combing the area etc
eventually they get made and have to get away and survive
lots of tense action scenes follow
lots of people die
maybe only a few people survive
the main character among them
then, final scene, Main character sitting in a interrogation room-thing
with the reflection of a ominous machine with a glowing red eye-thing in the mirror glass behind him as he says
"I'm your Man."
God damn I just came.
Strange that good movies simply don't test well...
Wouldn't a person who frequently drinks and dates be more at risk of "random" rape (ignoring the whole fact that most happen at home by significant others) overall if we are going by the stereotype?
Get this outta here
So It Goes on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
I consider 'critically thinking human being' to be more broad and 'scientist' includes additional connotations. To me 'scientist' implies someone who doesn't just think well but also possesses a great amount of knowledge and applies that knowledge using the scientific method. I think any critically thinking human being can carry a scientist's spirit, so to speak, but I'm not sure if I would consider every one a scientist.
It doesn't matter too much though, I don't want to ascribe sacred meaning to the term.
no, no. I think that makes sense.
Course my reaction is that based on those definitions I would much, much rather consider myself a scientist.
Basically when I think about how I ought to identify myself I think about what is most important to me. While accumulating knowledge and applying that knowledge is important to me the underlying processes that allow me to think well is most important.
I am also really averse to labels so the more general or fundamental the better.
Edit: By that I mean I prefer labels that label more of me at more fundamental level rather than ones that only define a part of me.
I need to figure out a way for him to say "Man" capitalized though
When he says the line we're looking through the viewpoint of a terminator/machine and it transcribes the things he's saying into text on its heads up display
Posts
This alone would have made a better movie then T4.
pleasepaypreacher.net
:?
Not if they're built by other robots to be built without bias, which were in turn built by other robots to be built without bias!
Actually I've been reading Kuhn lately and I think from his position someone entirely without bias would be incapable of doing science.
you angry?
I refuse to believe this
Get him treated for schizophrenia.
Well, if there was any reason to believe child abuse was beneficial (you don't just create a hypothesis because of an idea you had while day-dreaming) then you could probably create an experiment that avoids doing any harm to children (some kind of survey?), though the most effective experiment would be to round up children and abuse them and then see how they turn out in 20 years. I'm not sure if that's an experiment anyone ought to engage in.
See, I'm saying that science "without bias or ethics" isn't merely a human impossibility due to our imperfect minds. I'm saying that it is a meaningless notion. Science has to be guided by ethics - "lying is bad and we shouldn't submit false data to journals" is an ethical statement. It has to be guided by expectations - as I said above, if we're studying PDE5 inhibitors instead of ground up tiger penis, it's because we have an expectation about what PDE5 inhibitors are going to do. Without ethics, expectations, and even biases, science is actually nonfunctional. So the best possible scenario is one in which all of our ethical notions, expectations, and biases are laid bare and effectively directed.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Whethers its ethical to rape canadian professors who post on gaming forums.
pleasepaypreacher.net
how to be a good person
On the black screen
knowing accounting makes it even worse
You should self-identify as a critically thinking human being first.
Then be disgusted by the amount of bloatware and blow it away with a fresh Win7 install.
Not much 6 head.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm still deciding how I feel about this.
There is no difference between the first and third term in my mind.
This is to say the latter is how I literally define the former.
just have the movie start with a guy walking through the wasteland showing it off
then some other humans notice him eventually and watches him for signs that he's a terminator
he joins them eventually and the rest of the movie is just about this group surviving
as the movie progresses the encounters with skynet forces increases from a drone flying in the distance to gunships searching, ground assets combing the area etc
eventually they get made and have to get away and survive
lots of tense action scenes follow
lots of people die
maybe only a few people survive
the main character among them
then, final scene, Main character sitting in a interrogation room-thing
with the reflection of a ominous machine with a glowing red eye-thing in the mirror glass behind him as he says
"I'm your Man."
Errbody is stealing from their grocery stores and no one feels bad about it.
don't insult jokers penis like that
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
God damn I just came.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It doesn't matter too much though, I don't want to ascribe sacred meaning to the term.
I feel like shit. Terrible mood type of shit.
So I'm gonna eat a couple of Xanax, smoke this here super ganj, and polish off whatever liquor I can find.
487 steal cabbage erry day. erry day
Speaking of H/A, I am so glad that Ceres is a mod again.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
no, no. I think that makes sense.
Course my reaction is that based on those definitions I would much, much rather consider myself a scientist.
Like I said earlier, I grab people rougly from behind and whisper in their ear "JUST KIDDING LOL!"
pleasepaypreacher.net
So couldn't the humans end the war simply by agreeing to stop fighting?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Strange that good movies simply don't test well...
so close and yet so far.
Get this outta here
Basically when I think about how I ought to identify myself I think about what is most important to me. While accumulating knowledge and applying that knowledge is important to me the underlying processes that allow me to think well is most important.
I am also really averse to labels so the more general or fundamental the better.
Edit: By that I mean I prefer labels that label more of me at more fundamental level rather than ones that only define a part of me.
When he says the line we're looking through the viewpoint of a terminator/machine and it transcribes the things he's saying into text on its heads up display
seriously STFU already