It's impossible to be a scientist without expecting an outcome. Your very choice of what to study implies that you think that field is going to produce useful results. If you're studying the use of PDE5 inhibitors to fight erectile dysfunction rather than ground-up tiger penis, it's because you expect PDE5 inhibitors to be more effective than ground-up tiger penis.
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.
You know its never brought up in terminator, but you have to think there would be humans who turned on other humans and fought with the machines. Where are those guys?
I think the guys who said "hey wait I'm on your side" are in the same mass graves as the guys who said "oh shit I'm being murdered by my toaster"
Nah, eventually skynet would need traitors. I mean once the resistance was fully formed and showing its tenancity. I mean the idea the machines could do it all without a human flipping sides? Nah, I mean there are more then a couple Carter Burkes in our society.
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
Winky, I think a better position would be "objectivity vs. subjectivity" and that some things can be so obvious or so powerful that we can consider them "effectively true" even if they aren't actually objectively true and we should be aware of the difference.
I don't think we need to talk about alternate realities where poop tastes like chocolate or child abuse is awesome or whatever.
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Winky, self-identifying as any one thing is unrealistic and unhealthy.
True, but they could be spotted, defeated, couldn't achieve true sleeper status, where as a human could blend in and betray. I mean skynet had access to our records, clearly it would know that there are plenty of people who would fuck over mankind for their own percieved good.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
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 "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
It's impossible to be a scientist without expecting an outcome. Your very choice of what to study implies that you think that field is going to produce useful results. If you're studying the use of PDE5 inhibitors to fight erectile dysfunction rather than ground-up tiger penis, it's because you expect PDE5 inhibitors to be more effective than ground-up tiger penis.
True, but ground-up tiger penis still beats the pants off PDE5 when it comes to making my socks the whitest.
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
Winky, I think a better position would be "objectivity vs. subjectivity" and that some things can be so obvious or so powerful that we can consider them "effectively true" even if they aren't actually objectively true and we should be aware of the difference.
I don't think we need to talk about alternate realities where poop tastes like chocolate or child abuse is awesome or whatever.
we're just taking the principle to it's extreme
not really saying you should start doing child abuse experiments
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
But you have to acknowledge that your reaction is going to be biased more against it than your reaction towards cold fusion or perpetual motion, surely. The fact that you disagree will be at least partially highly motivated by your moral opposition to child abuse, will it not?
Winky on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
In order for Winky's hypothetical to mean anything I think the implication is that while it would be good in the long-term in the short-term it would still involve pain and terror.
I wouldn't support that even if there were long-term benefits.
I spent some time gazing at the beautiful scenery before me and searching for trees.
Then night started coming so I frantically walled myself in underground. Naturally, checking to see if day had come yet I peeked outside.
Of course, upon doing this I got to see that there was a BIG MOTHERFUCKING SPIDER staring at me from the other side. I'm now really scared.
I couldn't handle this game
it's like having a huge playground to yourself and then apparently monsters spawn out of pure darkness with the sole intent of scaring the shit out of you?
nooooooooo
Tarranon on
You could be anywhere
On the black screen
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
True, but they could be spotted, defeated, couldn't achieve true sleeper status, where as a human could blend in and betray. I mean skynet had access to our records, clearly it would know that there are plenty of people who would fuck over mankind for their own percieved good.
Hm. Yeah. Makes sense. Skynet had quite limited resources as well, I've read, after the nuclear war.
But any resistance would by neccessity be arranged in a cell structure with little or no knowledge of other groups so a traitor can't reveal that much
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
Winky, I think a better position would be "objectivity vs. subjectivity" and that some things can be so obvious or so powerful that we can consider them "effectively true" even if they aren't actually objectively true and we should be aware of the difference.
I don't think we need to talk about alternate realities where poop tastes like chocolate or child abuse is awesome or whatever.
we're just taking the principle to it's extreme
not really saying you should start doing child abuse experiments
I completely understand
I just think its an example that isn't going to be very useful, because it doesn't necessarily communicate the point very clearly
"Imagine a universe where child abuse is awesome!" is a hard place to start. "There are logical differences between things we can absolutely prove to be true and things we can accept as so rational and important that they we call them true even if they cannot be absolutely proven to be true" is, I think, the core of the argument and I don't see much merit in talkin' about child abuse or whatever instead.
But dat's just me. I understand and agree with what point I think is trying to be made.
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
OH GOD
I got outside and built myself a small wooden box of a house during the next day. I'm sitting inside waiting for this current night to be over and I hear squeaking, growling, and braaains from all around the outside.
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
Interesting. As would I. I honestly would have guessed you would go the other way Feral.
There are many ism's I happen to agree with. But if the evidense against any of them is strong enough then the ism' is what has to go. Not the evidense. Not the science.
This is what I thought Winky was saying originally and what I was sure was going to be ignored so a different reading of his post could be used against him in support of someones private agenda.
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
But you have to acknowledge that your reaction is going to be biased more against it than your reaction towards cold fusion or perpetual motion, surely. The fact that you disagree will be at least partially highly motivated by your moral opposition to child abuse, will it not?
Somewhat motivated, not necessarily highly motivated. I actually was discussing a reversal of a related position today. I used to consider male circumcision to be a form of child abuse. I don't any longer, because of a combination of data that suggests that it does not affect sexual satisfaction or performance and data that suggests that it lowers HIV transmission rates. So the benefits strongly outweigh the drawbacks.
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.
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
In order for Winky's hypothetical to mean anything I think the implication is that while it would be good in the long-term in the short-term it would still involve pain and terror.
I wouldn't support that even if there were long-term benefits.
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.
Winky on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Riemann, you don't have to worry about secret agendas against Winky, we're all working hard on our secret agenda against you. There's UFOs and everything.
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
In order for Winky's hypothetical to mean anything I think the implication is that while it would be good in the long-term in the short-term it would still involve pain and terror.
I wouldn't support that even if there were long-term benefits.
chemotherapy involves pain with great potential benefits!
would you withhold treatment if your child had cancer?
would you willingly let your child die of cancer, the last words on his lips being "why did you let me die, daddy"?
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.
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.
If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?
I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?
Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.
I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
But you have to acknowledge that your reaction is going to be biased more against it than your reaction towards cold fusion or perpetual motion, surely. The fact that you disagree will be at least partially highly motivated by your moral opposition to child abuse, will it not?
Winky, adjusting how high to place the bar for scientific proof based on one's feelings and past experience is fine. Scientists do it all the time (eg: the bar for disagreeing with certain things is, and should be, really damn high).
But the core point is there is a bar. It is not infinitely high. And one should be willing to drop any belief in the face of enough evidense to the contrary.
There are many ism's I happen to agree with. But if the evidense against any of them is strong enough then the ism' is what has to go. Not the evidense. Not the science.
This is what I thought Winky was saying originally and what I was sure was going to be ignored so a different reading of his post could be used against him in support of someones private agenda.
This is perhaps a more realistic position for me to take. Rather than attempting not to be a feminist, it is perhaps better to attempt to be a scientist first, and a feminist second.
Winky on
0
Options
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
Got it! Probably the latest package delivery I've ever had.
That's good then. Running late on a Friday?
Ups just fucking with him.
Pretty much. I missed going out to dinner with my friends like we do every Friday. A small price to pay, and they're coming back here to watch stuff off Netflix, so I'll get to see them.
Riemann, you don't have to worry about secret agendas against Winky, we're all working hard on our secret agenda against you. There's UFOs and everything.
woah what the I could have sworn they were for y-
yaminosenshi. fuck that guy. all inviting people into his house for good times and food. where does he...get off?
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.
There are many ism's I happen to agree with. But if the evidense against any of them is strong enough then the ism' is what has to go. Not the evidense. Not the science.
This is what I thought Winky was saying originally and what I was sure was going to be ignored so a different reading of his post could be used against him in support of someones private agenda.
This is perhaps a more realistic position for me to take. Rather than attempting not to be a feminist, it is perhaps better to attempt to be a scientist first, and a feminist second.
Sure. I'm fine with that. In fact, I think that's a pretty good way to live one's life in general.
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.
There are many ism's I happen to agree with. But if the evidense against any of them is strong enough then the ism' is what has to go. Not the evidense. Not the science.
This is what I thought Winky was saying originally and what I was sure was going to be ignored so a different reading of his post could be used against him in support of someones private agenda.
This is perhaps a more realistic position for me to take. Rather than attempting not to be a feminist, it is perhaps better to attempt to be a scientist first, and a feminist second.
Yes, this is exactly what I was alluding while hoping to not trip up any ego-searches for certain keywords.
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.
Posts
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
they had the terminators, though
Winky, I think a better position would be "objectivity vs. subjectivity" and that some things can be so obvious or so powerful that we can consider them "effectively true" even if they aren't actually objectively true and we should be aware of the difference.
I don't think we need to talk about alternate realities where poop tastes like chocolate or child abuse is awesome or whatever.
True, but they could be spotted, defeated, couldn't achieve true sleeper status, where as a human could blend in and betray. I mean skynet had access to our records, clearly it would know that there are plenty of people who would fuck over mankind for their own percieved good.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I self identify as healthyistic.
It means I'm healthy and realistic.
What now son? You just got servinated.
That's like being terminated except without the evil SkyNet robots.
I'm mixing subjects here.
My initial reaction to that study is going to be one of extreme suspicion since it goes against all prior data - in the same way that my reaction to a study that demonstrates cold fusion or perpetual motion or astrology is going to be one of extreme suspicion.
But if multiple studies from multiple sources all corroborate the conclusion that child abuse is great for your children, then I would support child abuse.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
True, but ground-up tiger penis still beats the pants off PDE5 when it comes to making my socks the whitest.
we're just taking the principle to it's extreme
not really saying you should start doing child abuse experiments
You're on the road to deliciousness, with stops in contenment and happiness.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I spent some time gazing at the beautiful scenery before me and searching for trees.
Then night started coming so I frantically walled myself in underground. Naturally, checking to see if day had come yet I peeked outside.
Of course, upon doing this I got to see that there was a BIG MOTHERFUCKING SPIDER staring at me from the other side. I'm now really scared.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Siggin this
But you have to acknowledge that your reaction is going to be biased more against it than your reaction towards cold fusion or perpetual motion, surely. The fact that you disagree will be at least partially highly motivated by your moral opposition to child abuse, will it not?
In order for Winky's hypothetical to mean anything I think the implication is that while it would be good in the long-term in the short-term it would still involve pain and terror.
I wouldn't support that even if there were long-term benefits.
Do it!!!
And then post in the rape thread. "Hey guys like my sig?"
pleasepaypreacher.net
I couldn't handle this game
it's like having a huge playground to yourself and then apparently monsters spawn out of pure darkness with the sole intent of scaring the shit out of you?
nooooooooo
On the black screen
You're going to be terrified often.
Hm. Yeah. Makes sense. Skynet had quite limited resources as well, I've read, after the nuclear war.
But any resistance would by neccessity be arranged in a cell structure with little or no knowledge of other groups so a traitor can't reveal that much
I completely understand
I just think its an example that isn't going to be very useful, because it doesn't necessarily communicate the point very clearly
"Imagine a universe where child abuse is awesome!" is a hard place to start. "There are logical differences between things we can absolutely prove to be true and things we can accept as so rational and important that they we call them true even if they cannot be absolutely proven to be true" is, I think, the core of the argument and I don't see much merit in talkin' about child abuse or whatever instead.
But dat's just me. I understand and agree with what point I think is trying to be made.
I got outside and built myself a small wooden box of a house during the next day. I'm sitting inside waiting for this current night to be over and I hear squeaking, growling, and braaains from all around the outside.
They're going to eat me, I know it.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Interesting. As would I. I honestly would have guessed you would go the other way Feral.
There are many ism's I happen to agree with. But if the evidense against any of them is strong enough then the ism' is what has to go. Not the evidense. Not the science.
This is what I thought Winky was saying originally and what I was sure was going to be ignored so a different reading of his post could be used against him in support of someones private agenda.
Cells at first, and he could work from within destorying individual cells, who by their own cut off nature would be easy to pick off one by one...
pleasepaypreacher.net
Somewhat motivated, not necessarily highly motivated. I actually was discussing a reversal of a related position today. I used to consider male circumcision to be a form of child abuse. I don't any longer, because of a combination of data that suggests that it does not affect sexual satisfaction or performance and data that suggests that it lowers HIV transmission rates. So the benefits strongly outweigh the drawbacks.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
chemotherapy involves pain with great potential benefits!
would you withhold treatment if your child had cancer?
would you willingly let your child die of cancer, the last words on his lips being "why did you let me die, daddy"?
no?
then you go up there and rape him
or you're a murderer
This is what rigorous experimental design and peer review are for.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Winky, adjusting how high to place the bar for scientific proof based on one's feelings and past experience is fine. Scientists do it all the time (eg: the bar for disagreeing with certain things is, and should be, really damn high).
But the core point is there is a bar. It is not infinitely high. And one should be willing to drop any belief in the face of enough evidense to the contrary.
This is perhaps a more realistic position for me to take. Rather than attempting not to be a feminist, it is perhaps better to attempt to be a scientist first, and a feminist second.
Pretty much. I missed going out to dinner with my friends like we do every Friday. A small price to pay, and they're coming back here to watch stuff off Netflix, so I'll get to see them.
What if your incestuous murder child was both stalin and hitler?
pleasepaypreacher.net
woah what the I could have sworn they were for y-
yaminosenshi. fuck that guy. all inviting people into his house for good times and food. where does he...get off?
On the black screen
pleasepaypreacher.net
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.
Sure. I'm fine with that. In fact, I think that's a pretty good way to live one's life in general.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, this is exactly what I was alluding while hoping to not trip up any ego-searches for certain keywords.
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
Speaking as a programmer, science robots would be worse.