Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Evidence is not the answer

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Jmsg
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭Jmsg


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I had to stop following the scientists and researchers because it was bothering me the apparent amount of belief in alternative medician and anti-vax crap that was out there.

    Those two shouldn't be merely lumped together as equally illegitimate. Alternative medicines such as traditional Chinese have been practiced for thousands of years yet are branded "pseudoscience" by conventional science. Modern medicine began as various erroneous theories conceived of within the framework of the post-enlightenment paradigm which were then tweaked via scientific experimentation whereas traditional medicines developed differently, organically over very long stretches of time. They have different assumptions and conclusions, strengths and weaknesses in different areas, but because we are trapped in the modern reductionist paradigm we can only see the situation completely lopsidedly.


  • Options
    #63
    Your Face
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,277 ✭✭✭Your Face


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I followed a group of very erudite scientists and researchers online, their aim was to debunk alternative medicine and the like using evidence-based research. As time went on I realised a lot genuinely though evidence-based research would change the minds of antivax believers or it would change the minds of those who want to treat their cancer with alternative medicine. It is the same with atheists addressing religion with evidence.

    Very few seemed to grasp that it's not about evidence it's about belief, basically, people believe what they want to believe.

    Slavoj Zizek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj theories that we are all aware of gaps and contradiction we just turn a blind eye to them we fill in the gaps and contradiction to suit ourselves. He was talking about ideology but it is very similar.

    So who are the rational evidence-based believers or the atheists addressing themselves to?


    Evidence isn't proof.


  • Options
    #64
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,361 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Jmsg wrote: »
    Those two shouldn't be merely lumped together as equally illegitimate. Alternative medicines such as traditional Chinese have been practiced for thousands of years yet are branded "pseudoscience" by conventional science. Surely there must be something up with that, don't you think?

    It's for a different thread however anyone who believe esoteric knowledge or ancient Chinese medician must have something going for it just because its ancient or esoteric is a bit silly its a related to a form of Orientalism and anyone who decided to solely treat their cancer with alternative medician is an idiot in my opinion, note I am not talking about complementary treatment alongside scientific evidence-based treatments.


  • Options
    #65
    redbel05
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭redbel05


    Your Face wrote: »
    Evidence isn't proof.


    More apt to say that someone else's account of evidence isn't proof, as the account itself is flavoured by the bias of the person giving it.

    It all comes down to how much do you trust the source of your information.


  • Options
    #66
    Purple Mountain
    Registered Users Posts: 13,004 ✭✭✭✭Purple Mountain


    Philosophy thread >>>

    To thine own self be true



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Jmsg wrote: »
    Those two shouldn't be merely lumped together as equally illegitimate. Alternative medicines such as traditional Chinese have been practiced for thousands of years yet are branded "pseudoscience" by conventional science. Modern medicine began as various erroneous theories conceived of within the framework of the post-enlightenment paradigm which were then tweaked via scientific experimentation whereas traditional medicines developed differently, organically over very long stretches of time. They have different assumptions and conclusions, strengths and weaknesses in different areas, but because we are trapped in the modern reductionist paradigm we can only see the situation completely lopsidedly.


    Chinese medicine was a mish mash of various things that got “standardised” because Chairman MAo had half a billion people to look after.
    Given everything we know about genetics, viruses etc and how they affect medicine, it amazes me that people pit stock in something that uses things like, heat, cold, damp etc to explain everything.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/technology/2013/10/traditional-chinese-medicine-origins-mao-invented-it-but-didnt-believe-in-it.amp
    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/retconning-traditional-chinese-medicine/


  • Options
    #68
    beejee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    mariaalice wrote: »
    It's for a different thread however anyone who believe esoteric knowledge or ancient Chinese medician must have something going for it just because its ancient or esoteric is a bit silly its a form of Orientalism and anyone who decided to solely treat their cancer with alternative medician is an idiot in my opinion, note I am not talking about complementary treatment alongside scientific evidence-based treatments.

    In an argument for technocracy, you have to remember that most people don't have the breeziest of breezes about science. If you were to truthfully write down everything you know (zero waffle or opinion, just straight fact) about eastern medicine, how many pages could you fill? Pro or con? How deep would your understanding of the science go? How many peer-reviewed papers could you reference?

    What about vaccines? Or global warming?

    Social media, contrary to bs opinion, is the biggest gimmick foisted on us yet. It has insisted on being educational, but it isn't. All it has done has created hysteria based on half-truths and quarter-truths and no-truths from the least qualified people you could ever hope to find.

    These charlatans, third-rate scientists who bumbled through college (so easy these days), celebrities and toxic shut-ins all blend together for the maximum in poor taste and miseducation.

    Leave science to the people that know what theyre doing. They'll get it done, and they'll get it done without sharing, liking or posing.

    A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. (not criticising the person I quoted, just general observation of everyone btw!)


  • Options
    #69
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,124 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    There are no evidence based believers. When you have facts and evidence you don't rely on a belief of your choosing.
    Atheists would likely be more evidenced based regarding not having 'beliefs'.

    As regards, addressing themselves to. History has shown that people are capable of genius, idiocy, great good and great evil. Religion is often used as an excuse but in all cases an individuals conscience plays a role.

    The creation of a God giving us free will so others can tell us what to do in his name is the greatest con ever perpetrated on humanity.

    Anti-vaxers don't believe the evidence and seek out their own.

    It's one of the things you focus on epistemology, the difference between the two meanings of belief. People believe in God. This means that they have faith in something. However you can also say you believe scientists regarding climate change. It's based on evidence and science.
    That's the problem when there's a discussion between an atheist and theist. They both can say they believe and both use it in different ways.


  • Options
    #70
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,124 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Jmsg wrote: »
    Those two shouldn't be merely lumped together as equally illegitimate. Alternative medicines such as traditional Chinese have been practiced for thousands of years yet are branded "pseudoscience" by conventional science. Modern medicine began as various erroneous theories conceived of within the framework of the post-enlightenment paradigm which were then tweaked via scientific experimentation whereas traditional medicines developed differently, organically over very long stretches of time. They have different assumptions and conclusions, strengths and weaknesses in different areas, but because we are trapped in the modern reductionist paradigm we can only see the situation completely lopsidedly.

    You're saying we should all be noshing down on tiger penis?

    There are some herbal remedies that are fine. have willow bark tea instead of aspirin. Willow contains aspirin so it's effectively the same thing. But otherwise we should ditch all that crap. Tradition doesn't make something right.


  • Options
    #71
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Grayson wrote: »
    You're saying we should all be noshing down on tiger penis?
    Lads look I know you might be still exploring who you are, but this is a public forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I had to stop following the scientists and researchers because it was bothering me the apparent amount of belief in alternative medician and anti-vax crap that was out there.

    Really, are you sure they were genuine scientists and researchers. Those are not reserved words.


  • Options
    #73
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Candie wrote: »
    And let's not forget how social media can influence election results.

    There’s actually no huge evidence of that belong other media, that I’ve seen. Traditional broadcast media does affect votes, which is why so much is spent on it.


  • Options
    #74
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,361 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Really, are you sure they were genuine scientists and researchers. Those are not reserved words.

    Did not explain that very well its scientists and researchers who try and refute and answer alternative medician, anti-vax and the like with scientific evidence, never the less it attracts lots of replies to the group basically saying alternative medician does work evil big pharm blabla. Its depressing.


  • Options
    #75
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Fourier wrote: »

    My point was more the "stupid" part. Even machine learning algorithms end up biased the way we do and similarly can get trapped in beliefs due to their "peers" and once they get far enough in there is little you can do to get them out, they've rationalised as Candie said.
    .

    Funny enough I’ve just listened to a series of podcasts on AI called futuremakers. It’s all very good except for the episode on machine learning bias, where the interviewee gave as suggestions of bias an algorithm which showed black prisoners were more inclined to recidivism after release. No effort was made to explain why the data was biased (although she says it was), or the algorithm was biased (though she claimed that was due to lack of diversity amongst coders).

    Surely we could take the same data and hide the ethnicity, and get some neutral coders to write the ML algorithm (ask a Chinese company).

    She was challenged about this but basically said that the results weren’t acceptable.

    I didn’t fully finish it, but I doubt anybody in the podcast is going to say “that’s what the data show”, although the interviewer hinted that way occasionally.


  • Options
    #76
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Funny enough I’ve just listened to a series of podcasts on AI called futuremakers. It’s all very good except for the episode on machine learning bias, where the interviewee gave as suggestions of bias an algorithm which showed black prisoners were more inclined to recidivism after release. No effort was made to explain why the data was biased (although she says it was), or the algorithm was biased (though she claimed that was due to lack of diversity amongst coders).

    Surely we could take the same data and hide the ethnicity, and get some neutral coders to write the ML algorithm (ask a Chinese company).

    She was challenged about this but basically said that the results weren’t acceptable.

    I didn’t fully finish it, but I doubt anybody in the podcast is going to say “that’s what the data show”, although the interviewer hinted that way occasionally.
    That's very interesting, so she had no hard reason to say the machine was actually wrong?

    The bias I was speaking of was that no data sample is totally unbiased, especially for complex cases like weather and the machines perform Bayesian reasoning for which they start from some "prior" and analyse the data in light of that. It's a theorem that no prior is completely unbiased (more technically we say "uninformative"). So non-perfect data + biased prior will lead to the machine being biased to some degree or really any thinking agent.

    Although what's interesting is that it can be possible for a collection of biased agents to reach the truth faster than a similarly sized collection of less biased agents. Especially in cases where the truth is an outlier or only vaguely hinted at by the data. Some have suggested this might be at work in human cognition (Lefebvre et al, Nature Hum. Behav. 1:0067(2017))


  • Options
    #77
    764dak
    Registered Users Posts: 1,847 ✭✭✭764dak


    Grayson wrote: »
    We're all idiots. Every last one of us. I've made a point of studying belief and how the human brain works. It stemmed from a study of logic. How to work out if an argument is correct, and that led down the rabbit hole of why humans are illogical sometimes. We like to think that we're rational creatures but we're not. We're filled with bias. And our brains are designed not to change their minds.
    It's actually discomforting to be faced with contradictory evidence so we either avoid it or just claim that it's wrong. When it happens to me I even notice an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach.

    Science is good because it attempts to strip away the bias but it can creep in. Think back to the eugenics of the first part of the 20th century. So yes, we should be critical of science, but only to the extent where we examine it for inaccuracies, not whether it fits into our bias and beliefs.

    Robert Heinlein — "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal."


Advertisement