swansont

And nobody has disagreed worldview bias is a bias of philosophy, and seems to affect only one area of science. You have not established anything to the contrary. I think this would be an example of sampling bias, and extrapolating from such a sample is an error.

If Trump is punished for this, the left will be quick to point out the Hunter Biden conviction. So yeah, that's too bad. The US constitution is minimalist in many ways, and perhaps the writers recognized that such a restriction could be weaponized by some bad actors, since a felony conviction can happen at the state or local level.

"It’s crucial for you to be aware of the potential types of bias, so you can minimize them." And you were asked to name these specific biases. You can't minimize them of you can't identify them. All you're doing is repeating "bias exists" and nobody is disagreeing with that. But it's not illuminating. I'm sure what you posted answers some question, such as ""name some people who have written that bias exists in physics"(though naming the same author multiple times doesn't really add to this) But it's not what I have asked for. I want to know some experiments that were compromised by bias, and if/how this was fixed. If we're blind to our own biases, just repeating that bias exists doesn't help at all. Please establish that this is true. I rather doubt that 19th century ghosts had electrical towers close by, and a stream running under a house seems like a poor construction decision. Can you systematically investigate NDEs? I don't think an ethics panel will let you potentially kill people to do such research. You've been asked this before, and have not answered: how does this affect physics, chemistry, geology and most of biology? "my" definition is that of philosophy (the nature of reality), which is clearly identified in the passage. Not science. It's not clear that this is the ultimate goal, but other philosophical approaches are mentioned. IOW, it's an issue for philosophy, not science. Science wants objective empirical data, and that won't be forthcoming from subjective views.

In philosophy, physicalism is the view that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] It is opposed to idealism, according to which the world arises from mind. Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality, unlike "two-substance" (mind–body dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) views. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism There’s “mind” again Note that science doesn’t study the nature of reality, it studies behavior You can’t study something objectively if it’s not physical, so yes, science limits itself to physicalism.

I think it’s more. “space, time, energy and matter” isn’t an “-ism”

I used your definition. What’s your definition of physicalism? Yup. Until a good reason surfaces to think otherwise.

So basically a one-off. Low-risk. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_jumping

Isn’t this a function of the reach of social media? Facebook had ~1 million users in 2004. Twitter didn’t exist in 2005. If you can’t advertise your opinion and make your employer look bad, what’s to cancel? Citation needed

Once again, this is an issue of the mind, and you’re extrapolating to all of science. (Physics rejects the first part of this, BTW. Fundamental bosons are not considered matter. Pretty sure photons are part of reality)

Please define materialism

The wind tunnels work because the air can’t escape sideways. You’d need to construct similar barriers around buildings, and you’d have to get air in via fans and conduits at and below ground level. There’s also the issue of air escaping into the buildings when people open the window to jump. Possible? Perhaps. Practical? No. How often do you need to escape a building by jumping? This sounds like a movie plot situation. Why not just issue base-jumping chutes that wouldn’t get used?

Yeah. The sci-fi equivalent of degaussing a sub. My friend didn’t want to add yet another made-up particle to the lexicon It was originally “exotic antibaryon sweep” (some un-named metastable particle) but it was edited, which caused some controversy but would be what the tech folks would probably call it http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1043

I consulted with a friend who worked on the show. Helped on a couple of scripts. I don’t think the Kolvoord Starburst or baryon sweep are the issue here, but if they are, then yes. Those are my fault.

But your position suggests that you should use other methods. What is the reasoning behind this? We were discussing science, not medicine. Your citations could easily be interpreted as medical folks should be better versed in scientific rigor. How does that lead to the conclusion that there should be reports that no bias exists? Being more open should increase the reports of bias. This is deflection; you’ve not answered the question or addressed the point.

! Moderator Note What I believe is that this isn’t your blog, it’s a science discussion forum …and you’ve declared this to not be science. or philosophy Take care to address responses to your post. Otherwise you’re soapboxing, which is against the rules.

And I asked for you to name successful results from following an alternate path. The bias here, AFAICT, is the bias of using successful methods. Jeff Kukucka is an Associate Professor of Psychology Steve Dale’s affiliation is collabor8now; no expertise is given John P.A. loannidis has expertise in medical research, not science The authors in citation 7 are MDs. Why do you think that this is the case?

I just pulled out my non-US coins (many gathered from geocaching) and a surprising number are magnetic, including the Canadian twonie , quarter and nickel, Italian 500 L(bimetal, like the twonie), Iceland 1Kr and 5Kr, 1 Yuan (China?), French 1/2 and 1 Franc, Ecuador 5 cent, Netherlands 1 Guilder, and a few more not easily identifiable (but a few are probably Russian rubles)

One might wonder why you don't use a more relevant metaphor, or, better yet, actual examples of bias as opposed to providing quotes complaining about bias. "I think there's bias, and Charlie, Phil and Louise think so so" is far less compelling to me than "here's some research that clearly shows <a form of bias> and we know this because subsequent research come up with different results when the bias was mitigated" Preferably where the relevant examples are from all areas of science.

US coins, other than steel pennies from WWII, aren't magnetic. So magnet fishing isn't using the right bait for those coins. (even nickels aren't magnetic. Ni-Cu alloys require at least 56% Ni to show ferromagnetism at normal temperatures, and the coin is 25% https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.38.828 )

Star Trek shares a similarity with AI - not based in facts, but generating vaguely plausible-sounding jargon. It’s fiction.

From what I read: The time is inferred from the Larmor precession of the spin in the magnetic field of the barrier, which is inferred from the spin measurement after tunneling. IOW the particles going in are prepared in a spin state (up) and the spin precesses in the barrier, which puts them in a mixed state of up and down. You measure the spins, and the ratio of up/down tells you how much precession occurred, which depends on how long they were in the barrier region. Without seeing the paper itself I don’t know more. Since only a fraction of particles tunnel, there might be some systematic effect in play. I don’t know if they looked at the reflected particles. How far does the particle penetrate before it’s reflected? Does the precession effectively change the barrier height? Steinberg has a good reputation in the AMO community, but I know that not everyone is convinced that Larmor time is a measurement of the tunneling time.

One might infer from this that it’s not a crisis Also, you wrote “science” instead of “cognitive science” but your examples do not give support to this issue outside that area (and political psychology? You’re really desperate for citations) At least one more. It’s not the number, it’s the credibility. Eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable in legal proceedings, because it’s often not reliable. Eyes can be deceived, memory is fluid, and, given your thesis here, you should be painfully aware that confirmation bias plays a role in. Bigfoot doesn’t exist until there is credible evidence that it does. Just like the unicorn and pegasus. A platypus seems fantastic but we can actually capture them. Other fantastic beasts leave behind skeletons. Actual physical evidence. —- Approaching this from another tack: if one wants to consider dualist and spiritualist approaches, or altered states of consciousness, what successes can you point to that use these to explain the world around us?

Agree. There were articles years ago about FTL signals through an atomic vapor (Lene Hau was one of the researchers) when all it was was the light pulse shape was changed; the peak of the pulse moved FTL but you couldn't say that any photon did. This sounds similar in nature.

Beavers that have been raised in captivity have been observed to build dam-like structures even when there is no water, so for them it seems the instinct in built-in.

Yes, and plants don’t move around. A bunch of trees is still rather porous, so there would need to be a bunch of water flowing through to make a reservoir. i.e . there’s water there already. Can one say for sure this wasn’t coincidental?