General Discussion

[Strangesam]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

InfiniteStates wrote:

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

By your apparent belief that human beings are objective analytical entities, able to readily discard opinions and bias, and with the capacity and inclination to plough through reams of research data and identify that which establishes the absolute truth.

---

Sounds like you're putting your spin on what he said too.

---

Then go to another site and call me names behind my back, like you usually do.

---

That's childs play...

[WJB1]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

By your apparent belief that human beings are objective analytical entities, able to readily discard opinions and bias, and with the capacity and inclination to plough through reams of research data and identify that which establishes the absolute truth.

---

We aren't objective analytical entities but the notion that we're unable to analyse anything objectively is absurd.

[InfiniteStates]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

InfiniteStates wrote:

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

By your apparent belief that human beings are objective analytical entities, able to readily discard opinions and bias, and with the capacity and inclination to plough through reams of research data and identify that which establishes the absolute truth.

---

Sounds like you're putting your spin on what he said too.

---

Then go to another site and call me names behind my back, like you usually do.

---

There are currently no conversations about you I feel I can contribute to, but well done for dodging the unrefutable hypocrisy.

[PatC_PSN]

---

InfiniteStates wrote:

There are currently no conversations about you I feel I can contribute to, but well done for dodging the unrefutable hypocrisy.

---

Thanks.

[PatC_PSN]

---

WJB1 wrote:

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

By your apparent belief that human beings are objective analytical entities, able to readily discard opinions and bias, and with the capacity and inclination to plough through reams of research data and identify that which establishes the absolute truth.

---

We aren't objective analytical entities but the notion that we're unable to analyse anything objectively is absurd.

---

I don't see it as absurd if you take that to mean absolute objectivity, entirely free of any bias. Or if you apply it at any level in the real world, to the average consumer of study findings.

[BettySwollocks92]

---

WJB1 wrote:

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

By your apparent belief that human beings are objective analytical entities, able to readily discard opinions and bias, and with the capacity and inclination to plough through reams of research data and identify that which establishes the absolute truth.

---

We aren't objective analytical entities but the notion that we're unable to analyse anything objectively is absurd.

---

yes but the notion that we're able to analyse everything objectively is equally absurd wouldn't you agree?

the vast majority of people don't analyze everything to the point that you and zinep do and their own bias will take over when reading two different studies of equal integrity which come to two opposing conclusions which is the point being made here. Nor will the average person decide that "more studies need doing" especially at the tax payers expense

if studying studies is your bag no doubt you'd consider otherwise however the majority of folks aren't like that and from the long winded replies I'm not sure that's a bad thing

[BettySwollocks92]

---

InfiniteStates wrote:

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

InfiniteStates wrote:

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

By your apparent belief that human beings are objective analytical entities, able to readily discard opinions and bias, and with the capacity and inclination to plough through reams of research data and identify that which establishes the absolute truth.

---

Sounds like you're putting your spin on what he said too.

---

Then go to another site and call me names behind my back, like you usually do.

---

There are currently no conversations about you I feel I can contribute to, but well done for dodging the unrefutable hypocrisy.

---

hypocrite!

[Domino2097]

I bypassed it within a minute of finding out so I won't be saying bye.

[zinep]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:
[---]

I don't see it as absurd if you take that to mean absolute objectivity, entirely free of any bias. Or if you apply it at any level in the real world, to the average consumer of study findings.

---

"entirely free of any bias" isn't relevant -- we only need to be unbiased enough for the results to be valid on a target scale (again, very basic scientific theory, things I shouldn't have to explain). (Specifically in this case, we want to know how society works so we can make the appropriate policy changes, if needed).

The way it's typically done in good science is that one team releases a paper, which includes detailed information on how the measurements were done. Others read it through and try to find flaws in the methodology, etc. If they don't find any problems, but they are still sceptical of the results, they redo the test. Sometimes they try to do it as similar to the original test as they can, other times they have suspicions about what may be causing a systematic error, and they try to find a method to correct for this, to verify their hypothesis. Sometimes they just redo the test to see if they get the same results. Obviously, there's a lot more to it, but the point is that there's progress and statistics involved, not a "make paper, draw immediate absolute conclusion.".

It's when many studies and many peer reviews are done, and "all" point to the same results, that we can say we have a so-called "temporary truth"; it remains "the truth" until someone proves it to be wrong. What's important to realize about temporary truths is that generally anyone claiming they are wrong are making extraordinary claims -- and as they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Note that this has happened thoughout our history and in some cases the extraordinary claims have been shown to be true, causing lots of new research in the respective fields. But in the field we're talking about here I don't think these paradigm-shifts happen very often, considering the type of information we're working with (though that's just speculation).

It's not about absolute truths, it's - in this specific case - about quantifiable truths and statistical significance.

If one would be the kind of person who has already decided what the outcome is ("No pirate would pay for something they can get for free", etc), I can understand that research on the subject can seem a little scary. But these people should look at it this way instead: The research may show that they are right.

I don't make any claims to knowing what the outcome would be; I have a hypothesis, but I know my hypothesis has no bearing on reality (it's why we call it a "hypothesis"). It's funny I'm supposed to be the arrogant one, but I don't claim to possess knowledge I don't actually possess (and I try to be careful to say when I'm speculating, and when something is merely anecdotal evidence (though sometimes I may forget to add a qualifier)).

We'll never get perfect results, but then again, we don't need them -- we just need them to be "good enough", which we can get with good peer reviews, followups, etc.

If you believe that consumer studies can - by definition - never be accurate enough to be usable, then .. well, good luck with that.

[fenian]

---

Domino2097 wrote:

I bypassed it within a minute of finding out so I won't be saying bye.

---

Out of curiosity, is bypassing legal?

From what I have seen, some look legal, but i was wondering if there is anything written that says bypass is illegal?