I am so smrt

JeremyBeanis

I'm not.
I'm just wondering about the rise of 'logic' and 'reason' and the way some smug lads use these words to refute everything. I'm talking not about logic and reason just the use of the words. The way nothing is real or happened unless there is a peer reviewed study on it. Simple things. And that people can't have an opinion unless they also provide a link. There is too much faith in the ‘scientific community’ isn’t it possible that these lads are biased somehow?
It almost feels that you are not allowed to think for yourself. And you cannot comment on something with a view coming from real life experience unless you also provide a link. Someone may post a link with x no. of participants and as long as it’s published this means anyone with an opposing argument is definitely wrong, because this tiny study says so, after all it was published.
So, I guess the point I’m trying to make is: are peoples’ beliefs/viewpoints (the self pronounced ‘smart’ lads) as easily lead as the daily mail reader they so often deride?

endacl

Link to a study please.

SeantheMan

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Some people like to use big words though to appear smarter etc

And no, because there was x number of participants and it was published does not make it true.

I would take the stance that if something was generally accepted as true and fact in the scientific community then it would be true.

The internet lies sometimes. Wikipedia isn't always fact, but students nowadays seem to rely on it, even though articles can be written by random people.

MadsL

<hufffffffffffffffttttttt!>










Yeah man...........

<Pfffttttttttttschhhhhhhhhhhhoooooo?


......totally.








Ya wanna another toke on this....?

Chucken

endacl wrote: »

Link to a study please.

..Paragraphs as well please

JeremyBeanis

MadsL wrote: »

<hufffffffffffffffttttttt!>










Yeah man...........

<Pfffttttttttttschhhhhhhhhhhhoooooo?


......totally.








Ya wanna another toke on this....?

Good man and lads. Internet memes and nothing are cool.

Chucken

MadsL wrote: »

<hufffffffffffffffttttttt!>










Yeah man...........

<Pfffttttttttttschhhhhhhhhhhhoooooo?


......totally.








Ya wanna another toke on this....?

Nerd. I'm sure its just passed on without a word..

Pride Fighter

I think you made the same mistake Homer made.

I am so smart.

SMRT

I mean SMART

In conclusion, you're not as smart as you think.

Chucken

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

Good man and lads. Internet memes and nothing are cool.

Well I hope yer happy lads and man :mad:

Sinfonia

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I think you made the same mistake Homer made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk

JeremyBeanis

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I think you made the same mistake Homer made.

I am so smart.

SMRT

I mean SMART

In conclusion, you're not as smart as you think.

I thought a forum with a massive thread of simpsons quotes would have got it, but nice one for not giving me the benefit of the doubt.

MadsL

Pride Fighter wrote: »

SMRT

OP's objectives are Specific, Measureable, Realistic and Time-bound, but sadly not Achievable.

JeremyBeanis

MadsL wrote: »

OP's objectives are Specific, Measureable, Realistic and Time-bound, but sadly not Achievable.

Is this a nerd thing I'm not getting? Or is it your own? Do you actaully have anything to say?

endacl

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

Is this a nerd thing I'm not getting? Or is it your own? Do you actaully have anything to say?

We're still waiting for that link. To something peer reviewed.

JeremyBeanis

endacl wrote: »

We're still waiting for that link. To something peer reviewed.

haha. deliberately missing the point. you're cool.

endacl

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

haha. deliberately missing the point. you're cool.

Y'think?!?

JeremyBeanis

endacl wrote: »

Y'think?!?

yeah, i do think. with no one giving any real comment or feedback.

Duggy747

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

I'm not.
I'm just wondering about the rise of 'logic' and 'reason' and the way some smug lads use these words to refute everything. I'm talking not about logic and reason just the use of the words. The way nothing is real or happened unless there is a peer reviewed study on it. Simple things. And that people can't have an opinion unless they also provide a link. There is too much faith in the ‘scientific community’ isn’t it possible that these lads are biased somehow?

Like what, for example?

Vito Corleone

If it's an unbiased and legitimate source then I don't see the problem. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, however, sometimes (in rare cases) "life experience" as you put it can just be a poster spouting bullshit in order to validate their unfounded views.

endacl

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

yeah, i do think. with no one giving any real comment or feedback.

There's plenty of comment and feedback. Just not what you wanted to read. Is that why you got stroppy?

JeremyBeanis

Vito Corleone wrote: »

If it's an unbiased and legitimate source then I don't see the problem. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, however, sometimes (in rare cases) "life experience" as you put it can just be a poster spouting bullshit in order to validate their unfounded views.

Is it really unbiased, though? Yes, I agree about 'life experience', 'grass roots' etc. being put out as appealing to certain sections. How do you know a publication is unbiased? Or 'credible', or 'reliable''. Do people read the document + supporting documents? Or is it based on reputation? Ah, sure, the Gaurdian reported on it, that means it's good and true.

pharmaton

Because we live in a paradigm of "wrong" and are trigger happy when it comes to identifying problems and we need to quantify and qualify things in the way we think they are supposed to be rather than how they are for each individual. We want a unified measured approach, because we're not good with "different". Because we have ideals. Because we think that's the best way to finding solution to problems and we want results now godammit. Because we've lost our ability to be curious and be creative. Because you're on the internet and it's like internets 101 speak.


(when I say we I mean everybody else)

Cousin it

It's called critical thinking and it is one of the most important things to know how to do. Everybody needs a BS filter, no?

There's a big difference between opinions and informed opinions e.g. A mate giving you his opinion on a medical condition you have vs a mate who is a doctor giving you their opinion.

Karl Stein

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

And you cannot comment on something with a view coming from real life experience unless you also provide a link.

Personal experiences are awful ways of forming a view and are subject to confirmation bias which skews perceptions.

For example, I live in Cork, if I were to say 'Cork drivers are the worst in Ireland, I know, I drive in Cork and experience the bad driving'.

My experiences are informing my view on driving standards. Someone might investigate accident claims in Cork versus accident claims in Galway and say 'Well according to this (quantitative) data there are far more claims filed with insurers in Galway so you're most likely wrong'.

Duggy747

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

How do you know a publication is unbiased? Or 'credible', or 'reliable''. Do people read the document + supporting documents? Or is it based on reputation? Ah, sure, the Gaurdian reported on it, that means it's good and true.

For example, for me, something credible would be what's accepted in medical / scientific communities.

Being unbiased would mean where a study or article came from and who was involved / wrote it, not what news outlet is quoting it in an article since they have quite the fancy for taking things out of context (as do people on the web, too).

Critical thinking helps stop misinformed guff from being accepted.

Wayhey. 10,000 posts.............bit anti-climatic

JeremyBeanis

Cousin it wrote: »

It's called critical thinking and it is one of the most important things to know how to do. Everybody needs a BS filter, no?

There's a big difference between opinions and informed opinions e.g. A mate giving you his opinion on a medical condition you have vs a mate who is a doctor giving you their opinion.

Yes, I agree. But there are many who don't think critically and are vocal in their their support for it. E.g. a journal entry or think-tank supported study has done the thinking for them and their unblinking support of this model means they believe no matter what.

JeremyBeanis

I know I’m coming off as a tinfoil hat wearer. It’s just that I read about the Andrew wakefield paper (later proved to be bull****) about a possible link to autism incidence and mmr vaccination (this paper was peer reviewed and published). And just wondering is peer review fool-proof? People post links to studies/papers/journal entries without actually reading them. They have an unquestioning belief in ‘science’ and the bodies that publish them. Often only reading the title. So it follows: where do you get your news/info? Is it trustworthy?

Karl Stein

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

is peer review fool-proof?

No. Absolutely not.

However counter-research and critiques of the methods and standards of research used can set things straight.

Canis Lupus

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

Is it really unbiased, though? Yes, I agree about 'life experience', 'grass roots' etc. being put out as appealing to certain sections. How do you know a publication is unbiased? Or 'credible', or 'reliable''. Do people read the document + supporting documents? Or is it based on reputation? Ah, sure, the Gaurdian reported on it, that means it's good and true.

As long as the study was set up correctly using the scientific method eliminates bias and coupled with peer review makes 'science' a pretty good bedrock for any argument that involves it.

Chips Lovell

You're right OP. It's such a drag when anecdotal evidence gets trumped by peer reviewed research.

Grayson

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

So, I guess the point I’m trying to make is: are peoples’ beliefs/viewpoints (the self pronounced ‘smart’ lads) as easily lead as the daily mail reader they so often deride?

No they're not. Asking for evidence, and evaluating that evidence before making a decision, is not a sign of stupidity.

Grayson

JeremyBeanis wrote: »

I know I’m coming off as a tinfoil hat wearer. It’s just that I read about the Andrew wakefield paper (later proved to be bull****) about a possible link to autism incidence and mmr vaccination (this paper was peer reviewed and published). And just wondering is peer review fool-proof? People post links to studies/papers/journal entries without actually reading them. They have an unquestioning belief in ‘science’ and the bodies that publish them. Often only reading the title. So it follows: where do you get your news/info? Is it trustworthy?

To be fair to it, there were plenty of people who called Bull**** at the time. And counter studies appeared shortly afterwards. The problem was that the wakefield study gave ammunition to the tinfoil hat brigade who were certain the government was trying to harm children.

But even then, stuff can go wrong. When DDT was first made, it's creator would eat it at press confrences to show how it was harmless to humans. It was only decades later that it turned up in breast milk and people realised something was up.
Evidence can only give you part of the picture. To get the whole picture you need all the possible evidence and a lot of that can only occur over time. So opinions do change over time.

There's nothing wrong with looking for scientific evidence and it's a hell of a lot more reliable than the daily mail.