Jump to content

Bartholomew Jones’ view of science (split from So, you've got a new theory...)


Bartholomew Jones
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.

That just makes for a strong statement.

 

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

2. Anecdotes are not evidence.

One person's testimony in a court of law is not conclusive, but might be admitted as evidence.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

3. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.

If sarcasm is present, if by tone only, mockery is present.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

4. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum.

Agree.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

5. Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect.

Published research was anecdotal before being peer reviewed.  Peer review is more supportive evidence.

. . .

What I'm leading up to is this: the only objective argument begins justified and proceeds justified.  If you begin with a theory, you can't finish justified if relative anecdotal evidence (sic) is dismissed.  Establish it as not relative before proceeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

One person's testimony in a court of law is not conclusive, but might be admitted as evidence.

Law is not science, science is not law.

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

If sarcasm is present, if by tone only, mockery is present.

 The item was “Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.” Nobody said anything about sarcasm. 

 

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Published research was anecdotal before being peer reviewed.  Peer review is more supportive evidence.

No, that’s not true. You should investigate what “anecdotal” means with regard to evidence, and what “peer review” entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm leading up to is this: the only objective argument begins justified and proceeds justified.  If you begin with a theory, you can't finish justified if relative anecdotal evidence (sic) is dismissed.  Establish it as not relative before proceeding.  Or else, admit it as evidence.  It's proportional like any other evidence.  It doesn't establish proof. 

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Law is not science, science is not law.

 The item was “Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.” Nobody said anything about sarcasm. 

 

No, that’s not true. You should investigate what “anecdotal” means with regard to evidence, and what “peer review” entails.

Peer review as an accounting term means that the accounts are subject to review by peers.

An anecdote is a personal account, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Peer review as an accounting term means that the accounts are subject to review by peers.

Peer review is also a science term. As accounting is also not science, one must allow for the possibility they don’t share a definition

6 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

An anecdote is a personal account, correct?

It’s often personal.. Anecdotal means it lacks rigor and is more prone to bias. It’s not collected systematically 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Law is not science, science is not law.

Both deal objectively with facts and figures.

 

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

 The item was “Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.” Nobody said anything about sarcasm. 

Im just further qualifying the subject.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Peer review is also a science term. As accounting is also not science, one must allow for the possibility they don’t share a definition

Both seek objectivity.  Objectivity is justified; requires justification.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Peer review is also a science term. As accounting is also not science, one must allow for the possibility they don’t share a definition

It’s often personal.. Anecdotal means it lacks rigor and is more prone to bias. It’s not collected systematically 

Either way, it's a form, not of proof, of evidence.  A theory is subject. Not an established proof; evidence.

I'm equating an anecdote with testimony.

On 5/21/2005 at 5:49 PM, swansont said:

6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it.

In every case, if you convince me I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it.  It requires proof, not evidence.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It requires proof, not evidence.

Proofs are for math. Science doesn’t deal in proof. Any claims are always provisional and subject to change as new evidence arrives. 

You’ve likely taken this thread beyond its core intent. Your voice has been heard and you’ve received respectful response. Perhaps reciprocate that respect and move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Proofs are for math. Science doesn’t deal in proof. Any claims are always provisional and subject to change as new evidence arrives. 

You’ve likely taken this thread beyond its core intent. Your voice has been heard and you’ve received respectful response. Perhaps reciprocate that respect and move on. 

So cease to proceed down the OPs list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Both deal objectively with facts and figures.

 

Im just further qualifying the subject.

Both seek objectivity.  Objectivity is justified; requires justification.

Either way, it's a form, not of proof, of evidence.  A theory is subject. Not an established proof; evidence.

I'm equating an anecdote with testimony.

In every case, if you convince me I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it.  It requires proof, not evidence.

Let's be objective here. 

There is a disconnect between your data/approach/theory/whatever, and the way things are done around here. That should be clear by now.

You can continue to beat your head against the wall in an effort to get everyone here to come around to your way, or you can come around to the way things are done here.

The only other way I can think you'll find success is to try a place that is more in line with your approach. 

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Let's be objective here. 

There is a disconnect between your data/approach/theory/whatever, and the way things are done around here. That should be clear by now.

You can continue to beat your head against the wall in an effort to get everyone here to come around to your way, or you can come around to the way things are done here.

The only other way I can think you'll find success is to try a place that is more in line with your approach. 

Good luck.

It's never luck.  Sometimes it's time and chance.

Usually the one saying, "that's not the way it's done 'roun these parts," is the one out of order.

I'm quite casual about this forum.  You seem more the type to become frustrated.  I do get quite zealous, but anxiety is not my common response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It's never luck.  Sometimes it's time and chance.

Usually the one saying, "that's not the way it's done 'roun these parts," is the one out of order.

I'm quite casual about this forum.  You seem more the type to become frustrated.  I do get quite zealous, but anxiety is not my common response.

Yeah, I figured you'd just dismiss the possibility that you could be part of the problem. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Usually the one saying, "that's not the way it's done 'roun these parts," is the one out of order.

Not in this case, because the topic is “how things are done ‘roun these parts” and you’re basically telling us that the way things are done is wrong, despite not being familiar with “these parts”

 

15 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Both deal objectively with facts and figures.

 

Im just further qualifying the subject.

Both seek objectivity.  Objectivity is justified; requires justification.

Either way, it's a form, not of proof, of evidence.  A theory is subject. Not an established proof; evidence.

I'm equating an anecdote with testimony.

In every case, if you convince me I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it.  It requires proof, not evidence.

A problem here is that when two things are different, it doesn’t mean that every feature is different. Pointing out the features that are the same isn’t illuminating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.