ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Science is not scientific

And as a result, it's mostly fake. That's the only conclusion that can be honestly reached in light of the fact that the single most famous experiment in social science turns out to have been a fraud:
One of the most famous and influential psychology studies of all time was based on lies and fakery, a new exposé reveals.

The Stanford prison experiment purported to show we are all naturally inclined to abuse positions of power - after volunteers randomly assigned to act as prison guards began abusing volunteer inmates in a mock prison.

But now a report from author and scientist Dr Ben Blum claims the research was all a sham. It points to recordings found in archives at Stanford University which show the study's author Professor Philip Zimbardo encouraged guards to treat inmates poorly.

Also, one volunteer prisoner has now admitted to faking a fit of madness that the study reported was driven by the prison's brutal conditions.

The revelations have sent scientists into uproar, with some calling for the experiment and its findings to be wiped from psychology textbooks worldwide.
We certainly live in interesting times. I knew that most "scientific" economics was a fraud, and I'd concluded that all "scientific" evolution was a fraud, but it is clear that the rot begins in physics and goes all the way down through the softest social sciences.

The central problem is simple enough, as it is the result of the gap between the theory of scientody and the reality of scientistry. Scientistry doesn't incentivize or require replication, so no one even bothers trying to replicate the vast majority of studies and experiments.

Labels: ,

191 Comments:

Blogger Nostromo June 14, 2018 11:11 AM  

Who could even have guessed that social science was akin to astrology?On second thought, astrology is probably more useful than a Women's Studies. or Black Sophistry degree in that you actually have to understand orbits, geometry, and real measurable measurables.

Blogger Kettle June 14, 2018 11:13 AM  

Given the level of intellectual rot, its some what surprising / impressive we are where we are.

Blogger VoodooJock June 14, 2018 11:16 AM  

The intellectual rot is in the halls of academia. Genuine progress comes from the obsessed guy tinkering in his garage, unbound by the tenets of conventional wisdom.

Blogger kurt9 June 14, 2018 11:17 AM  

The reproducibility problem strikes again. Only this time it is outright fabrication. This is not the first time nor will it be the last time. The famed framingham study that served as the cornerstone of the lipid hypothesis of CVD was also fraudulent.

Of course the soft fields (psychology, social "science", etc.) are the worse. These are the fields that are ideologically driven and where people, quite frankly, make s**t up.

Interestingly enough, one area, psychometrics has not been affected by the replication problem. So, this is probably one field that represents reality.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/11/the-insight-episode-17-stuart-ritchie-intelligence-and-genes/

As for the problem with science in general, I've seen this stuff so much over the past 3 decades that I have concluded the only real-world test of a scientific theory is if it leads to demonstrable technological innovation.

Blogger pyrrhus June 14, 2018 11:19 AM  

The "replication crisis" in the social sciences hasn't proved to be much of a crisis..Academia doesn't seem to care that the latest fad study is bogus...
In physics, every important experiment or finding is repeated in physics labs all over the world, which torpedoed the cold fusion claims a while back, among others.
But in physics, theories which can't be conclusively confirmed or refuted by observation have proliferated, string theory being the main example.IMO, junk science at best.

Blogger pyrrhus June 14, 2018 11:21 AM  

@4 Yes, ironically, the study of intelligence has been scandal free and produced results confirmed in the real world. Hmmm...maybe that's why Academia hates the field so much...

Blogger Crew June 14, 2018 11:25 AM  

The question is: Is Psychology Science?

Blogger Kettle June 14, 2018 11:27 AM  

"real world application" is no savior of the sciences. look at "sick care" how many pills are stuffed down peoples gullets that are more likely to hurt them than help them?! Or hell, "global warming" science is another example.

Blogger The Kurgan June 14, 2018 11:27 AM  

We have to go back to the full, original, maxwell equations to begin to fix science, instead of the stunted troncations on which all of electromagnetic are based today.
Thomas Bearden has done good work on it.

Blogger Marsh 01701 June 14, 2018 11:28 AM  

I am looking forward to this revelation re the Kinsey studies.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora June 14, 2018 11:29 AM  

I never trusted social science research because you can never really repeat the tests. Short of being able to look into alternate realities where the same people are subjected to the same stimuli you have to settle for different people reacting to roughly similar circumstances. Maybe this is less of a problem at a large enough scale where individual quirks matter less due to the effect of large numbers but I never trusted studies where the size of the group was small enough that individual idiosyncrasies could skew the results.

Blogger Shimshon June 14, 2018 11:35 AM  

If physics is a turtle, then it's turtles all the way down.

Blogger Jeff aka Orville June 14, 2018 11:36 AM  

Wow, Zimbardo is a pretty big sacred cow to get slammed. Too bad he got loose on the highway of truth.

Blogger Blade June 14, 2018 11:36 AM  

Eh? Is Vox implying that evolution is incorrect?

Blogger Lord Pork June 14, 2018 11:37 AM  

@kurgan get a 1st edition of Maxwell's treatise on e&m. I think they edited something out in the second edition and beyond belief

Blogger Go clones June 14, 2018 11:37 AM  

I've given this a lot of thought for many years. Trying to figure out what is going wrong in our society, etc and came to this conclusion a few years ago. Its pathological lying. Everybody lies, all the time. Politicians lie. MSM lies. Judges lies, cops lie, lawyers lie. The Gov pretty much lies about everything ... gave up following economic news when the lies came to overwhelm everything; why invest, save, or care about the stock market when everything you read ... is nothing but a lie. Your friends lie. Your neighbors lie. Your coworkers lie. Your own family lies. Everybody lying all the time until it reaches a point, it just collapses ... kinda like the old USSSR ... "you pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work".

Anyway, not surprised that these psych studies have been faked. Pretty sure that most scientific research has been faked for decades too. Look at the Global Warming hoax that's gone on for 30+ yrs. WHEN FACTS DON"T MATTER ANYMORE ... there is not much nope for people ever doing the right thing.

Blogger Teleros June 14, 2018 11:45 AM  

I read a few years ago that this study was fraudulent:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1439274/revealed-the-infamous-stanford-prison-experiment-where-students-acting-as-guards-stripped-inmates-and-made-them-perform-sex-acts-was-actually-a-fake/

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=40741

"But Zimbardo went out of his way to create tension. Things like forced sleep deprivation—he was really pushing the envelope. I just didn't like the whole idea of constantly disturbing people and asking them to recite their prisoner numbers in a count. I certainly didn't like when they put a guy in solitary confinement."

Funny how about the only trustworthy thing from social science is IQ :P ...

I'd concluded that all "scientific" evolution was a fraud

@VD I wouldn't mind more information on this one if you've any links or posts. I recall one post here where you mention the statistical improbability of it, but if you or anyone else has any more details on this it'd be appreciated. Questioning evolution is still one of the big taboos in the modern world, so I'd rather a solid foundation on this one.

Blogger Warunicorn June 14, 2018 11:49 AM  

I despise these lying, scheming motherf*ckers so much that it makes my blood boil.

Blogger rycamor June 14, 2018 11:51 AM  

I find it interesting that this specific experiment was a fraud. I think it has had a MAJOR demoralizing effect on society. It has helped cause us to give up on the idea of maintaining morality and integrity in our institutions. Fatalism.

Blogger Blackbody June 14, 2018 11:53 AM  

The prediction made by the Stanford prison experiment seemed to play out in Abu Grhaib, and I've heard Zimbardo draw the comparison himself. The experiment itself was poorly designed, as Zimbardo said himself, so it really says a lot that such a famous experiment wasn't repeated with the acknowledged flaws corrected.

Blogger kurt9 June 14, 2018 11:54 AM  

I do not consider untestable theories such as String Theory to be legitimate science. legitimate science is based on testability.

Blogger rycamor June 14, 2018 11:57 AM  

@Blackbody, maybe the predictions made by the Stanford prison experiment take the form of self-fulfilling prophecy, over the long term.

Blogger Kelly June 14, 2018 11:58 AM  

Here is a good article about the falsification of food psychology studies led by Brian Wansink at Cornell.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/brian-wansink-cornell-p-hacking?utm_term=.qa1KoBnEd#.uq9Er1xNp


I am a current data science graduate student and took a class last spring learning to use SAS and had a semester long project using a large dataset. I saved this article to help me learn how not to do things but when I shared it with my professor he was not terribly impressed. According to him it's very common to keep mining datasets until something interesting is found rather than starting with a question to answer.

Blogger rycamor June 14, 2018 12:00 PM  

I say this because I took note of how my professors seemed to take such relish in the Stanford prison experiment, assuring us that we would all do the same thing, given the scenario. My professors also LOVED to tell us about the Milgram experiment in obedience (giving supposed electric shocks to test subjects). Now I'm wondering if that experiment was also fraudulent.

Blogger Rickaby007 June 14, 2018 12:01 PM  

The matrix world in which we live is built upon fake science, propaganda, designed to dehumanize and demoralize us. You almost can't trust anything. For example, take health science and health medicine. We have proof most of the studies are funded by corporations. No surprise then that the West is rapidly declining in terms of health, with obesity epidemics everywhere and nearly one in two men being infertile according to WHO itself. Even doctors get fed disinfo and misinfo during their "education". How many even give good health advice? When is the last time one told you that it is very important to eat organic and consume probiotic foods? Most of the time, they just tell you to gobble a big pharma pill.

If anyone is stupid enough to believe that "science, Scientism, is real, they basically deserve to die. And they will.

Blogger Nate73 June 14, 2018 12:05 PM  

What's the rot in physics?

Blogger Anchorman June 14, 2018 12:09 PM  

But it was peer reviewed.....

Blogger YclepedBobAli June 14, 2018 12:10 PM  

This blog is by far the best thing I've found on the internet.

Unreal.

Every single day another pillar holding up the Temple of Liberalism shatters and the worshippers avert their eyes and make more offerings to compensate.



Blogger Anchorman June 14, 2018 12:11 PM  

Keep in mind, this latest news on the Stanford study comes as Nature magazine says the flaw in "science" is that the scientists are demographically diverse enough.

Blogger Rickaby007 June 14, 2018 12:14 PM  

@5

Everything except physics and math is basically full of fraud. Health science, medicine, etc. is full of rot. Any field that you can use to publish good propaganda studies with is full of rot. It's a fact that the majority of scientific revolutions were funded by shady financial interests. "Science" has been used as a propaganda tool for a long time.

Blogger Peter Gent June 14, 2018 12:15 PM  

Marsh 01701 wrote:I am looking forward to this revelation re the Kinsey studies.



Monstrous evil made acceptable by the appeal that it was a scientific study, whatever that was supposed to mean in reality, but it relied on the honor by association fallacy to give legitimacy to that disgusting malevolence.

Blogger Crew June 14, 2018 12:18 PM  

The original article the news report is based on appears to be this one:

The Lifespan of a Lie

Blogger Johnny June 14, 2018 12:19 PM  

The social sciences suffer from a series of difficulties.

Given the great success of the natural sciences, the tendency is to duplicate their methods. In the natural sciences, in a great many areas, divide and conquer works well. The various elements can be isolated and then studied as individuals. These can be combined into molecules and the molecules studied in isolation. And so on. Divide and conquer works in many areas.

In the social sciences individual human behaviors can be studied, but the person exists as a whole and thus the general nature of the person is apt to have an effect on the particular. That is, people cannot be divided up into parts. The scientist is stuck with the whole person. That complicates both the experiment and the understanding of it.

Another difficulty is that most social circumstances limit what experiment can be run, thus limiting the ability to observe behavior in a rigorously experimental situation.

Finally, there is the issue of disinterest, the current dominant problem. Because conclusions drawn in science are apt to make public policy, the temptation is always there to produce outcomes that favor the policies of those running the scientific discipline. This has always distorted the social sciences, and currently much of what is called science is nothing more than a covert effort to make social policy. To summarize: it is not disinterested and never really has been. Not completely, and currently, hardly at all.

Blogger Zander Stander June 14, 2018 12:23 PM  

Jordie Petersohn implicitly believes this(What would anybody do if given an SS uniform?). This study is one of the most important underpinnings or rhetorical devices of Holocaustianity. Seems the stool has been kicked out from under him (again)

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 12:24 PM  

Kelly wrote:According to him it's very common to keep mining datasets until something interesting is found rather than starting with a question to answer.

You can start with a hypothesis and ask: ``Does the data support it?'' You can start with a data set and ask: ``What interesting things can it tell us?'' Neither is inherently wrong.

What you should not do is keep running regressions until you find one that fits, and then claim statistical significance. If you run 100 regressions on a data set, you would expect to find about 10 results significant at the 10% level, about 5 results significant at the 5% level, and so on.

Blogger English Tom June 14, 2018 12:27 PM  

But Zimbardo went out of his way to create tension.

Imagine the Stanford Prison experiment applied to an entire society. Just imagine.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 12:30 PM  

Anchorman wrote:... Nature magazine says the flaw in "science" is that the scientists are demographically diverse enough.

That was probably supposed to be not diverse enough. Your typo is probably closer to the truth than Nature's version.

Blogger English Tom June 14, 2018 12:31 PM  

Apparently Zimbardo's experiment was funded by the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence). Why would the navy which has its own prisons (brigs) engage in This?

Blogger Stickwick Stapers June 14, 2018 12:35 PM  

but it is clear that the rot begins in physics

??

Blogger Freddy June 14, 2018 12:38 PM  

Oh great, so now are we going to apply this same disdain at the NAZI/NASA psyops and the entire fake moon landing / International Space Station / space travel inessant brain washing?

Anonymous Anonymous June 14, 2018 12:44 PM  

Science is not scientific
And as a result, it's mostly fake.

You forgot the modifier:  Social science is not scientific.

That's because "social" is a modifier meaning "not":  social science, social justice, social work....

Physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics and a host of other things are actual sciences.  You can repeat them and build things like engineering and medicine on them.  You can predict that supernovae create neutron stars and infer that the merger of neutron stars will create gravity waves at audible frequencies... and then build a detector and find exactly what you predicted.

Biology is self-correcting.  The Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk's claims were debunked very quickly, and Yoshiki Sasai offed himself after being found out.  Note that neither man was White.

I knew that most "scientific" economics was a fraud, and I'd concluded that all "scientific" evolution was a fraud, but it is clear that the rot begins in physics
The same physics which enables the semiconductors which allow you to publish your words across the world in seconds?

Tell us, Vox:  have you ever taken a course in physics?  Did you pass?

I do not consider untestable theories such as String Theory to be legitimate science.
String theory is mathematicians coming up with models looking for one that works.  This is the way science always goes.  Phlogiston and caloric were failed theories but they helped pave the road.

Blogger Brick Hardslab June 14, 2018 12:48 PM  

Anybody who's worked at a prison could tell you the experiment was wrong. Mostly ass-backwards. Lots of conventional wisdom about prisons is simply myth and polemics mostly because the truth is simple and boring for the most part.

Don't mix races on the tiers, if the law requires you to balance the races, don't let a woman work in a men's prison, keep am eye on them. Keep them working and when not provide them with some diversion. Feed them, hungry men are more dangerous.

Blogger Resident Moron™ June 14, 2018 12:50 PM  

Anchorman

They’re not morally diverse enough, either.

Blogger Kelly June 14, 2018 12:56 PM  

@Ominous Cowherd

You said: "
You can start with a hypothesis and ask: ``Does the data support it?'' You can start with a data set and ask: ``What interesting things can it tell us?'' Neither is inherently wrong."


In a discussion about this elsewhere, someone with far more experience / understanding than I have suggested that if doing exploratory data analysis revealed some interesting correlation, it would be improper to report, but would need to then be tested against a different dataset. Would you agree with that?

Blogger Teleros June 14, 2018 12:58 PM  

Zander Stander wrote:Jordie Petersohn implicitly believes this(What would anybody do if given an SS uniform?). This study is one of the most important underpinnings or rhetorical devices of Holocaustianity. Seems the stool has been kicked out from under him (again)

In fairness I think JBP has a point here irrespective of the validity of the Stanford prison experiment. Being conscripted by the Hitler regime and sent to guard Auschwitz is in no way the same thing as Zimbardo's experiment.

= = =

Pale Male wrote:Physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics and a host of other things are actual sciences.  You can repeat them and build things like engineering and medicine on them.  You can predict that supernovae create neutron stars and infer that the merger of neutron stars will create gravity waves at audible frequencies... and then build a detector and find exactly what you predicted.

"You should believe biologists because physicists get such accurate results."

Pale Male wrote:Biology is self-correcting.

If VD is right about evolution then it's a piss-poor kind of self-correcting. See also the reproducibility crisis in, among other things, Big Pharma's labs. How many heads have rolled, anywhere, for this kind of systemic problem?

Oh.

Pale Male wrote:The same physics which enables the semiconductors which allow you to publish your words across the world in seconds?

"The rot begins" =/= "The rot is all the way through".

Pale Male wrote:String theory is mathematicians coming up with models looking for one that works.  This is the way science always goes.  Phlogiston and caloric were failed theories but they helped pave the road.

Phlogiston has more going for it than string "theory", because at least those who worked with phlogiston were able to observe and measure things. All the string theorists can do is say either (a) how mathematically beautiful the theory is, or (b) how if they could just build a super-duper-whatsitron the size of the Milky Way they could actually test their stuff, but sadly nothing we can actually build will do it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 14, 2018 1:03 PM  

Blade wrote:Eh? Is Vox implying that evolution is incorrect?
New here then?

Blogger VD June 14, 2018 1:04 PM  

You forgot the modifier: Social science is not scientific.

I didn't forget anything. Do not attempt to correct your intellectual superiors again. You are observably too short for this particular ride.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 14, 2018 1:06 PM  

Just over a third of a sample of 100 studies published in 3 top (high impact factor) psychology journals found to be reproducible:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

Blogger VD June 14, 2018 1:07 PM  

You can repeat them and build things like engineering and medicine on them.

Again, you're not tall enough for this ride. Can != Must. Or even Does.

Blogger Piroko June 14, 2018 1:09 PM  

String theory also isn't making grand sweeping conclusions about sociology. At most it has some implications for whether or not the universe is deterministic or not (and thus whether free will is actually a thing).

Psychology has rarely been scientific, and the actually scientific psychology (Skinner, Thorndike, etc) tends to come to some very unflattering conclusions that would have Schopenhauer and Nietzsche nodding their heads in approval.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 1:09 PM  

Kelly wrote:

In a discussion about this elsewhere, someone with far more experience / understanding than I have suggested that if doing exploratory data analysis revealed some interesting correlation, it would be improper to report, but would need to then be tested against a different dataset. Would you agree with that?


I agree.

Asking ``what can the data tell us'' is how the convenience stores learned to stack the diapers next to the beer, supposedly. Data mining their POS data told them that customers often both bought beer and diapers. When they stacked them close together and sales of both increased, that was the test against a different data set.

Data mining can lead one to interesting empirical regularities, but it cannot prove they are anything other than coincidence.

Blogger kurt9 June 14, 2018 1:15 PM  

Pale Male, I disagree with your comment about String Theory. Yes, it is based on self-consistent mathematics. Nevertheless, it remains untestable. Testability is the key component of the scientific method. Thus, a theory cannot be considered scientific unless it is testable. Mathematics, no matter how elegant or self-consistent, is nothing more than a modeling tool.

Having friends who have done R&D in the hard sciences, I can tell you there is lots of fraud and falsifying of data in the hard sciences as well. A considerable amount of ballywooed university research in the hard sciences never result in demonstrable technology.

Blogger Piroko June 14, 2018 1:17 PM  

"Data mining can lead one to interesting empirical regularities, but it cannot prove they are anything other than coincidence."

The whole point of Darwinism is that you can have emergent order without design.

We are, as a species, too hung up on understanding causation, when correlation is so much easier to demonstrate.

Blogger dvdivx June 14, 2018 1:18 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dvdivx June 14, 2018 1:20 PM  

The problem is most modern scientists start with the conclusion then work backwards to collect the evidence for it. Its the exact opposite of how real science is supposed to work


I also hate spell check. They could always blame that.

Blogger Peter Gent June 14, 2018 1:23 PM  

Pale Male wrote:Tell us, Vox:  have you ever taken a course in physics?  Did you pass?

How stupid is that question? Beyond stupid. While most of the people here are college educated besides being of better than above average intelligence what is obvious is that they are all autodidacts, which is what separates those who continue to learn from those who coast to a stop. That goes triple for our host.

Blogger het1 June 14, 2018 1:26 PM  

@17 Teleros
>Questioning evolution is still one of the big taboos in the modern world

See
evolutionnews.org

At least Darwinism is complete fraud

Blogger bw June 14, 2018 1:31 PM  

Margaret Mead's "anthropology" and husband Gregory Bateson were fakes as well - aka globalist monopoly banksta "academia".

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook June 14, 2018 1:31 PM  

You can take your non-overlapping magisteria and shove it lol what a joke. Its getting to the point where you can get more out of a horoscope than a scientific journal lmao.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 14, 2018 1:36 PM  

This was a very good experiment, though. Because the narrative is what matters, not reality. All "science" must be judged by the degree to which it supports the narrative, not whether it is "true" or r"eproducible." The latter is a very Eurocentric way of knowing.

And this experiment served to promote both the Blank Slate and muh Authoritarian Personality, so it was quite valuable. QED.

From the Sun piece that someone linked above:
"It turned traditional thinking on its head, convincing a generation of psychologists that an environment could influence a person's actions as much as their personality."

From Vox's original DM link:

"The study and its authors have been cited for decades as proof that cruelty is driven by circumstance."

And this part appears to be pretty progressive (though the way that the DM characterizes it sounds rather sexist and transphobic):

"Prisoners were treated as second class citizens -- they were made to wear women's clothing..."

This statement sounds very "racist," though. Its truth is entirely irrelevant.

"There were no repercussions. We knew [the guards] couldn't hurt us, they couldn't hit us. They were white college kids like us, so it was a very safe situation."

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion June 14, 2018 1:36 PM  

After reading this blog a while, I've formed the impression that "Yes" is the answwr ypu seek. However, you must search for yourself. I would never presume to speak for the Dread Lord.

Blogger SmockMan June 14, 2018 1:37 PM  

University professored love love loved this experiment.

Blogger rycamor June 14, 2018 1:41 PM  

@62

That and the Milgram experiment. Because they wanted us to believe we are just programmable meat.

Blogger Jon D. June 14, 2018 1:42 PM  

Science is the dumbest religion, as I always say.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion June 14, 2018 1:44 PM  

The SEXP inmates didn't include known pshchopathic serial killers, so fundamentally different from Abu Graib.

Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2018 1:56 PM  

> Scientistry doesn't incentivize or require replication

> legitimate science is based on testability.

If it can't be replicated, it's not science. If it can be replicated but isn't, the same applies. Note this doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 14, 2018 2:02 PM  

I had forgotten its name, but the Milgram experiment was the one that my psych and biology professors all loved to talk about.

In hindsight I agree that the outcome was probably staged, and the claims that it was unethical were a convenient method of covering up the underlying fraud.

Blogger wrf3 June 14, 2018 2:03 PM  

Piroko wrote:String theory ... At most ... has some implications for whether or not the universe is deterministic or not (and thus whether free will is actually a thing).
That's not true. String Theory doesn't supplant the probabilistic description of the universe that's the basis of Quantum Mechanics. And Quantum Mechanics doesn't (and can't) answer that question. Both randomness and super-determinism are both possible and, which explanation is preferred, is philosophical and not scientific.

Blogger Ingot9455 June 14, 2018 2:03 PM  

So essentially the Stanford experiment was early Reality TV.

The known flaw in the Milgram experiment is how many of the testers figured out it was a gag and what they chose to do about it. The actor in the chair wasn't hooked to anything so the timing wouldn't be on when the dial was turned or the button hit.

What quantity of college students figured that out and just screwed with the dial isn't known.

Blogger Al K. Annossow June 14, 2018 2:04 PM  

The statistics used in science assume a Gaussian distribution of both the observations and of a base of unlimited occurrences in real life. That's not terrible, but rarely are those assumptions questioned.

Here's a fun rhetorical question:

If a turkey, which declares itself to be a scientific researcher, makes 100 consecutive observations that its farmer-owner has daily fed and protected it, with how much statistical confidence can it predict that on day 101 it will also have a good day? (h/t Nassim Taleb) Science is a set of guidelines, but it's hard to do it well because of all the little anomolies. I once had a boss who was a professor TEACHING hydrometeorology and hydrology but didn't know moist air is lighter than dry air. I was helping him with some climate change research. Sigh.

Blogger wrf3 June 14, 2018 2:06 PM  

kurt9 wrote:I do not consider untestable theories such as String Theory to be legitimate science. legitimate science is based on testability.
String Theory is testable. It matches all of the tests of both quantum mechanics and relativity and, instead of two theories that have problems telling one story, it's one story out of which both relativity and quantum mechanics fall out.

Blogger Al K. Annossow June 14, 2018 2:09 PM  

P.S. In studying stress in mice, they found that the gender of the researchers made a difference. OK. Maybe, maybe not. But either way, science is hard to get right.

Blogger Amy June 14, 2018 2:09 PM  

@ Kelly,

I worked for a pair of education researchers. We used SAS and STATA to analyze any number of things, race, sex, ses, SAT/ACT scores, participation and scores in AP or IB programs, etc. it was always a case of “twisting the lense” and “massaging the numbers” until they saw the results their benefactors wanted.

It soured me on going on for further education. I dropped the job and the grad program that summer. This was over ten years ago, but it’s been goi g on for at least as long as The College Board &co. have been pushing Affirmative action on society

Blogger Lyon June 14, 2018 2:11 PM  

@12.

"If physics is a turtle, then it's turtles all the way down."

I see you've read/listened to E. Michael Jones

Yeah, these are dark days all around. There's a song lyric that comes to mind when I read how our adversary continues to lead folks from truth,

"With smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go...." - Stan Rogers

Blogger Piroko June 14, 2018 2:15 PM  

"String Theory doesn't supplant the probabilistic description of the universe that's the basis of Quantum Mechanics."

I don't see how you can think that.

It implies that although quantum mechanics has to be probabilistic because we can't measure shit that small, behind that probabilistic curtain it is still utterly deterministic.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 14, 2018 2:17 PM  

@Ominous Cowherd

Data mining can lead one to interesting empirical regularities, but it cannot prove they are anything other than coincidence.

To put it another way -- the whole p <0.05 model is based on explicitly stating an initial hypothesis before the results are known. Mining the data after the fact for correlations in order to simultaneously generate and "prove" your hypothesis gives you a much higher chance of a false positive. Introductory probability and statistics. And there's also the issue of correlation vs. causation/ confounders, of course.


If you don't have a hypothesis before the experiment, you don't have an experiment -- you're generating a hypothesis.

@Piroko

The issue is also one of whether the apparent correlations are actually valid, not just causality.

The whole point of Darwinism is that you can have emergent order without design.

See also... capitalism. Or any longstanding social institution -- typically part organic/ emergent, and only part consciously designed.

Blogger SciVo June 14, 2018 2:19 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:What you should not do is keep running regressions until you find one that fits, and then claim statistical significance. If you run 100 regressions on a data set, you would expect to find about 10 results significant at the 10% level, about 5 results significant at the 5% level, and so on.

And yet that is exactly what practitioners do. They neither know nor care what the premises are of the mathematical theorems on which they base their fake authority.

Blogger Teleros June 14, 2018 2:21 PM  

wrf3 wrote:String Theory is testable. It matches all of the tests of both quantum mechanics and relativity and, instead of two theories that have problems telling one story, it's one story out of which both relativity and quantum mechanics fall out.

Is it testable though? I mean, relativity explained everything Newton's work did - and also explained stuff Newtonian mechanics couldn't explain, and had clear ways to disprove it. I've not heard of any experiments or observations that would, say, disprove QM or GR and yet validate string theory, nor of anything that would disprove string theory. Ergo it's (allegedly) beautiful maths, but nothing more. Fun to speculate about perhaps, but that's all.

Blogger Lazarus June 14, 2018 2:24 PM  

Questioning evolution is still one of the big taboos in the modern world,

https://newstarget.com/2018-06-10-bombshell-consensus-theory-of-evolution-of-the-species-falls-apart-new-mitochondrial-dna.html

“Consensus” theory of evolution of the species falls apart; new mitochondrial DNA study reveals NO animal species more than 200,000 years old

The scientists were taken aback by the finding. Thaler said: “This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.” After all, the common notion that the evolution of species on our planet has been a progressive and slow process is rarely challenged by scientific studies.

After analyzing these barcodes across 100,000 species, they discovered strong evidence that almost all animals emerged right around the time humans did.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 2:31 PM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:To put it another way -- the whole p <0.05 model is based on explicitly stating an initial hypothesis before the results are known. Mining the data after the fact for correlations in order to simultaneously generate and "prove" your hypothesis gives you a much higher chance of a false positive.

Exactly.

In stat grad school, one of my office mates was doing statistical consulting. He had an ag researcher client who had done several hundred ANOVA tests, comparing various treatments. He noticed that about 10% of them had p values of 10%, 5% had p values of 5%, and so on. He was excited, because he thought that was interesting enough to be publishable.

Of course, the definition of p<=x% is that a result that under the null hypothesis would happen by chance no more than x% of the time.

Blogger Nostromo June 14, 2018 2:45 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Matt June 14, 2018 2:48 PM  

Cant say I'm surprised. People don't usually do a complete 180 when given new responsibilities or privileges.

Blogger lordabacus June 14, 2018 2:57 PM  

@79 This link is a classic example of an inept reporter trying to make a study say something it doesn't. The first paragraph contradicts the headline. That should be a clue not to take it seriously. How about at the very least we see these findings, based on a very new technique of DNA barcoding, replicated? Or does anything that conforms to the anti-evolution paradigm deserve no such scrutiny?

Blogger dienw June 14, 2018 3:05 PM  

"moist air is lighter than dry air"

That made me curious. Please explain. thanks.

Blogger Crew June 14, 2018 3:07 PM  

@lazarus:

This appears to be the best article that makes the claim you referred to, ie, that all animal species are approximately 200,000 years old: https://www.dailywire.com/news/31453/study-evolution-doesnt-work-quite-way-they-said-it-hank-berrien

According to a new study, people who claim that modern-day animals have evolved over millions of years have some rethinking to do. The study examined mitochondrial DNA from thousands of different animal species and humans only to find that virtually all current animal species only date back 100,000 to 200,000 years.

However, when you go an read the paper they are referring to:

http://www.pontecorboli.com/digital/he_archive_articles/he122018/1_Stockle_Thaler.pdf

You find that is not what the paper is saying and those who are making the claim that all animal species are approximately 200,000 years old simply do not understand.

Consider, mtDNA comes only from your mother, and if a woman has no female offspring her mtDNA disappears (although it may be in other females in the population.) Y chromosome DNA is the same. If a man has no male offspring, his Y chromosome goes away (although it may be in other males in the population.)

Thus, it is quite conceivable that all mtDNA lineages but one from approximately 200,000 years ago have disappeared from the current population of a species. That does not mean the species is only 200,000 years old.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer June 14, 2018 3:23 PM  

I'm not surprised that that experiment was found to be bogus. The reported actions of the subjects never made any sense. You're interacting with fellow students who you are quite likely to encounter after the experiment is over and you are going to abuse them? No chance of retribution or perhaps criminal charges? And why would the "prisoners" accept abuse? Are they going to be physically restrained from leaving? Sure bad things happen in real prisons, but they are filled up with people who have severe personality and self-control issues. The idea that you could take a bunch of college students (back when you had to be reasonably intelligent and self-disciplined to get into college) and turn them into monsters in a couple of days by having them play act as guards is risible. I think that study where college students were willing to kill people with electric shocks if told to do so by someone in authority is bullshit too.

Blogger Looking Glass June 14, 2018 3:25 PM  

@85 Crew

Almost as if there was a great culling event, that wiped out practically all populations of everything currently living. Like a great flood of death sweeping across the land.

Whatever could that have been?

Blogger Al K. Annossow June 14, 2018 3:26 PM  

dienw wrote:"moist air is lighter than dry air"

That made me curious. Please explain. thanks.


It's counter intuitive to normies, but this professor TAUGHT the stuff. Normal people think of water added to cloth where there's an addition rather than a displacement.

Anyway, when water evaporates, the molecules displace the air molecules, pushing them aside; they don't get added in. Unless the temperature or pressure changes, there are always the same number of molecules per cubic foot. And water molecules weigh 18 units. The average air molecule is 29 units. So with the same number of molecules per unit of volume but lighter molecules, you have lighter air. That's a civilian version of the Ideal Gas Law.

More fun facts: 1) Air molecules are zooming around at about 1000 mph. 2) At 100% RELATIVE humidity on a very hot day, the air is less than 5% water.

Blogger Stickwick Stapers June 14, 2018 3:26 PM  

...but it is clear that the rot begins in physics and goes all the way down through the softest social sciences.

I don't understand what this means. Does it mean that the rot that exists in science started in physics and subsequently worked its way down to the other sciences, or does it mean that the rot, wherever it started, currently permeates all of science, from physics on down to the other sciences? If it's the former, when and how did the rot in physics begin?

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 14, 2018 3:29 PM  

@dienw

"moist air is lighter than dry air"

That made me curious. Please explain. thanks.


Atomic mass of O + (2 x atomic mass of H).

Compare to (2 x atomic mass of N), (2 x atomic mass of O).

See also: ideal gas law (PV = nRT).

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 14, 2018 3:42 PM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:If you don't have a hypothesis before the experiment, you don't have an experiment -- you're generating a hypothesis.
This annoys me as much as the claim, continually made by climatologists, that running a computer model proves, well anything really. A computer model is always an approximation of a real life system, and the models used by climatologists are both extremely complex and abounding in assumptions data forcing.
All a model can prove is the assumptions of the modeler.

dienw wrote:"moist air is lighter than dry air"

That made me curious. Please explain. thanks.

A single water molecule (H2O, atomic weight 18) is lighter than a single Nitrogen molecule (N2, atomic weight 28). a group of 2 water molecules is a little heaver (atomic weight 34).
Water forms and breaks these clusters easily. The temperature at which the water molecules on average cluster into groups greater than 2 is the dew or condensation point, and is dependent on the abundance of water molecules, and the pressure.

It's only when aggregated into clusters > 2 that water molecules begin to sink in air. Air is which the majority of water molecules are aggregated groups of 2, ready to condense at a moment's notice, is called Missouri.
It is very possible, and has been done, to loft a balloon with steam.

Blogger tublecane June 14, 2018 3:43 PM  

I'm surprised much of anyone takes such experiments seriously, even if they were on the up-and-up. Because you can't really "control," and there are about a billion possible explanations for everything that happens in them.

There were a spate of movies about psycho-social experiments from that period, including the Stanford one, the Milgram one, and so forth. They all had the same basis, it appears to me: Holocaustianity. Our silly intellectual elite sought to prove they could unleash the inner SS officer in all of us.

Oh, that and the Blank Slate. If they could get people to act a certain way under certain circumstances--in these cases cruelly--they could make them do whatever they want in other circumstances.

Blogger Looking Glass June 14, 2018 3:50 PM  

Stickwick Stapers wrote:...but it is clear that the rot begins in physics and goes all the way down through the softest social sciences.

I don't understand what this means. Does it mean that the rot that exists in science started in physics and subsequently worked its way down to the other sciences, or does it mean that the rot, wherever it started, currently permeates all of science, from physics on down to the other sciences? If it's the former, when and how did the rot in physics begin?


I can't speak for Vox, but I would take the statement along the lines of: "once Physicists thought themselves God, the poison went through all things in science". Vox will no doubt have more behind the statement, but that's normally the problem. Rejecting Christianity rapidly removes the ability to properly understand the universe, which has infected all of "science" to the point 80% of it will end up being rejected as false. (It's always about the Vanity. Solomon has some extended words on the subject.)

I'd actually go back even further. The problem starts with Rene Descartes, which puts it even before the start of Classical Physics. (I wonder if there is an argument that the rise of the actual scientific method was in response to correcting all foolishness the "Smart but Blind" set was putting out from the Renaissance onward.)

Actually, that parenthetical brings to mind even further thoughts. Maybe we should classify philosophers by their apparent Socio-Sexual hierarchy position. Could Western discourse really be a bunch of those on the spectrum going hyper detailed to refute the ramblings of Gammas?

Blogger Looking Glass June 14, 2018 3:52 PM  

@92 tublecane

You can make a small percentage of the population, 1-2%, do exactly what you want with the right combination of drugs. What we're really seeing is the older Deep State spent a lot of time trying to see if it could be done en masse. It's much, much harder to do, which is why they need near total information control.

Blogger lordabacus June 14, 2018 4:10 PM  

@87 One that had the same effect on fish populations as on those of terrestrial populations, apparently.

Blogger Crew June 14, 2018 4:24 PM  

@Looking Glass:

That could be a possibility, but another explanation is more likely.

Mitochondria efficiency is very important to cell metabolism. It is more likely that those variants that were less efficient have simply been selected out of the population. Ie, differential reproduction rates. Even a 1% difference over 200,000 years (8,000 generations) can drive the less efficient out of the population, and when variants have a low frequency they can also fall out through the other mechanism I mentioned, ie, a woman having no surviving female offspring.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 4:28 PM  

lordabacus wrote:@87 One that had the same effect on fish populations as on those of terrestrial populations, apparently.

Fish are moderately fragile, pretty sensitive to variations in their environment. So, for example, a world wide catastrophic flood with loads of sediment and unaccustomed temperatures and salinity, might be expected to kill a lot of fish, but not all of them.

Blogger Unknown June 14, 2018 4:36 PM  

The greatest lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment had nothing to do with science. It was a study in the effects of identity politics.You can see the same effect amongst white SJW's and white Alt-Rights. The uniform changes behavior. The more either group is pilloried, the stronger their pugnacity with the other.

Actually, you don't need science to affirm this kind of behavior. It's self-evident in humans. Give people an alter-ego that keeps their real selves safe while giving them the means to feel a base thrill, they'll take it as far as you let them. Rollercoasters, twitterism, viralism, feminism, Fifty Shades of Twilightism, women in uniforms, Game - they're all essentially the Stanford Prison Experiment. Heck, women prove it true every day. How many women do you know behave according to the clothes they wear? How many would drive a stilletto heel into your chest if they were allowed?

If you give people the opportunity to abdicate responsibility without real penalty (eg. feminism, internet-based identity politics) they'll slide into savagery to the full measure of their personal pain. Don't need no experiment to prove that.

Blogger lordabacus June 14, 2018 4:45 PM  

@97 No doubt. Yet the idea that a single flood event would produce the same observable effect on the genetics of fish and terrestrial animals 200,000 years later does not quite rise to the level of a reasonable inference to draw from this data, does it?

Blogger tz June 14, 2018 4:55 PM  

Sort of like the Bereans that verified what Paul said.

The difference between a priesthood and a scientist is the former will come out with a "revelation" which might even be peer reviewed by his fellow priests, but the laity aren't allowed to question. A true scientist presents all the data including the test conditions, and asks people to duplicate and validate and double check it. Note how genetic studies on race and behavior and IQ, etc. are repeatable, validatable, but those even asking get the treatment Galileo was said to have gotten (but didn't).

Blogger wrf3 June 14, 2018 5:10 PM  

Teleros wrote:Is it testable though?
Sure. Instead of two incompatible theories giving precise results, you now have one theory that gives the same results. One consistent theory that gives the same results is better than two incompatible theories.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 14, 2018 5:18 PM  

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a stupid axiom.

More news you already knew at 10.

"Who could even have guessed that social science was akin to astrology?"

Anyone who's ever had the profound experience of realizing they've been lied to.

"But in physics, theories which can't be conclusively confirmed or refuted by observation have proliferated, string theory being the main example.IMO, junk science at best."

Forgetting the results of the first project, subsequent attempts at constructing aerial flying buttresses, minarets, citadels, keeps, fortification and ziggurats have shockingly failed.

"Eh? Is Vox implying that evolution is incorrect?"

Altered expression and macrocosmically degenerative adaptation to microcosms have been proven. Nothing else.

Beyond that, the massive, systematic and endemic fraud in the field speak poorly. Even one of the more honest of the early champions of conjoined Atheism/evolution admitted essentially that their studies point away from God because God is inconvenient to the lusts of Atheists.

"Health science, medicine, etc. is full of rot."

The financial class economically co-opted and subsequently subverted basically the entire industry controlling them at least fifty years ago, if not more.

"??"

Hey Stickwick, long time no see. Welcome back.

"Biology is self-correcting."

It tries, but ultimately fails from a historical perspective. Otherwise you wouldn't have some of the omnipresent human genetic degenerations such as the one leading to the inability of humans to innately synthesize vitamin C.

"Data mining their POS data told them that customers often both bought beer and diapers."

This observation is significant for more than just convenience stores.

Blogger wrf3 June 14, 2018 5:22 PM  

Piroko wrote:It implies that although quantum mechanics has to be probabilistic because we can't measure shit that small, behind that probabilistic curtain it is still utterly deterministic.
Quantum mechanics isn't probabilistic because we can't measure stuff that small. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic because Nature is either completely undetermined or superdetermined. See, for example, John Conway's Free Will Theorem (video, part 1 of 6). Then, compare that with Superdeterminism. You'll note that which position one chooses depends on one's philosophy about the nature of man.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 5:23 PM  

@99: the creation was about 6,000 years ago, so the whole 200,000 year thing is a bit silly, anyway. Bad assumptions lead to bad conclusions.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 5:35 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"Data mining their POS data told them that customers often both bought beer and diapers."

This observation is significant for more than just convenience stores.


We already know that beer causes diapers, but does beer cause convenience stores? Or is there an underlying cause which effects both convenience stores and beer (and hence also diapers)?

Blogger Teleros June 14, 2018 5:35 PM  

wrf3 wrote:Teleros wrote:Is it testable though?

Sure. Instead of two incompatible theories giving precise results, you now have one theory that gives the same results. One consistent theory that gives the same results is better than two incompatible theories.


This seems insufficient to my mind - I see no reason why you cannot, at least in principle, design an infinite number of single theories do just that. If the only test is that it fits existing observations or experimental results, that just seems insufficient to me. I expect a new theory to explain the existing results AND lead to new insights and practical outcomes - it'd be as if relativity explained everything Newton's work did, but made no other useful contributions.

Incidentally, Forbes has an article from a few years back about string theory & 4 alternatives to it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/17/what-are-quantum-gravitys-alternatives-to-string-theory

Throwing it out there on the off chance it's of interest.

Blogger JohnJ June 14, 2018 5:44 PM  

Not on topic. But the Onion agrees with you about posting your childrens photos on facebook.

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

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 5:57 PM  

@105

"? Or is there an underlying cause which effects both convenience stores and beer (and hence also diapers)?"

Thirst.

Blogger Daniel June 14, 2018 6:00 PM  

This is very happy news. I have long held suspicions of that study, really ever since I first read it. When I was younger, I couldn't put my finger on where exactly the science was going wrong. As I grew older, I realized the fundamental impossibility of replicating human behavior (related to several despairing AI research papers of the late 70s).

But I knew it was more than that. I knew this study was bunk. I just didn't know how it was bunk. Now we all do.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 14, 2018 6:09 PM  

Dirk Manly wrote:@105

"? Or is there an underlying cause which effects both convenience stores and beer (and hence also diapers)?"

Thirst.


I was going to go with stupidity.

Blogger VD June 14, 2018 6:12 PM  

I don't understand what this means. Does it mean that the rot that exists in science started in physics and subsequently worked its way down to the other sciences, or does it mean that the rot, wherever it started, currently permeates all of science, from physics on down to the other sciences?

The latter. Physics is the gold standard of science, the hardest of the hard, with the firmest and most uncompromising tests of its hypotheses and predictions. And yet, the rot even affects it.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 14, 2018 6:30 PM  

So what exactly was the control group in this "experiment," anyway?

Blogger Dirk Manly June 14, 2018 6:37 PM  

Now there you go, asking uncomfortable questions....

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 14, 2018 6:42 PM  

wrf3 wrote:Sure. Instead of two incompatible theories giving precise results, you now have one theory that gives the same results. One consistent theory that gives the same results is better than two incompatible theories.

Not at all. This is not science, this is an aesthetic argument.

Science is falsifiability is science.

Let's say your model says "Under condition A, result B will take place."

If condition A exists, and result B occurs, that does NOT prove that the model is correct. It merely shows that the model is not, so far as is known, inconsistent with reality, or wrong.

However, if condition A exists, and result B does not eventuate, then the model is proven wrong.

This is the essence of the scientific method. Any hypothesis that cannot be falsified is NOT science.

Simplification of theories may be emotionally satisfying, but it is not any indication of truth. There is no particular reason reality should be sparing of complexity.
This is why evolution is not science. It cannot be falsified. Every argument presented against evolution is answered with "Who the hell are your?!?!?" and "Well, it could have happened this way." Neither of these is an actual demonstration of anything except the inability of evolutions's defenders to answer objections.

Blogger Ceerilan June 14, 2018 6:46 PM  

Faulty application of the scientific method is a type of invalid argument. Just because a particular argument proves faulty does not imply the conclusion is necessarily incorrect. It implies that, correct or not, the conclusion cannot be proven from the argument currently being used.

Blogger SciVo June 14, 2018 7:22 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Dirk Manly wrote:@105

"? Or is there an underlying cause which effects both convenience stores and beer (and hence also diapers)?"

Thirst.


I was going to go with stupidity.


It would be more precise to say high time preference. But "thirst" is a great answer.

Blogger Crew June 14, 2018 7:33 PM  

Science is not self-correcting when there are so many people pushing bogus results for gain.

Blogger wrf3 June 14, 2018 7:50 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Not at all. This is not science, this is an aesthetic argument.

First, as usual, you miss the point. String Theory matches all of the observations that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity make. So if QM and GR are science, so is String Theory.

Second, String Theory and, to date, only String Theory makes predictions that other theories don't, that agree with observations. A particularly relevant quote:
I mentioned that string theory gave the right predictions for all these answers. They're qualitative questions and answers but they're still confirmed predictions of string theory. All the proposed "alternatives" to string theory fail in these criteria – just like they fail to produce consistent precise predictions of observable quantities. No other claimed "alternative" to string theory can correctly predict things like "the lepton number should ultimately be broken if there's no corresponding force". Quantum field theory may be said to be "agnostic" about this question – because the answer depends on whether we allow the non-renormalizable interactions or not.

Finally, just how many correct descriptions of Nature do you expect there to be? How do you know?

Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2018 8:02 PM  

> We already know that beer causes diapers,...

There's a logically verifiable chain, yes. Though to be fair, it's more a general case of alcohol than beer specifically. Though one step in the chain is normally known as "beer goggles".

> ...but does beer cause convenience stores?

Have you ever seen a convenience store without beer? I'll assume not. Have you ever seen beer without a convenience store? I'll assume you have.

Given those two conditions, it is demonstrated that beer must be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of a convenience store.

> Or is there an underlying cause which effects both convenience stores and beer (and hence also diapers)?

Insufficient data for a meaningful response.

Blogger tublecane June 14, 2018 8:05 PM  

@118- You are lying. String Theory has never, ever made ONE testable prediction. It is not scientific. It is "not even wrong."

Physics has been in a rut for 80+ years, since quantum theory. Particle physics since then has been crap. String theory is crap. Supersymmetry is crap. Cosmology has been crap.

Was there ever such a fraud as the "God Particle" nonsense. Science is basically the advertising wing of the Coca-Cola Company at this point.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 14, 2018 8:27 PM  

wrf3 wrote:First, as usual, you miss the point. String Theory matches all of the observations that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity make. So if QM and GR are science, so is String Theory.
No, that doesn't equate. Quantum Mechanics makes specific predictions that are observed experimentally. The fact that String theory is based from the same set of facts doesn't make it science. General Relativity makes specific predictions that are generally (except a couple of specific instances) are actually borne out in experimentation.
If it can't be falsified it is not science.

Second, String Theory and, to date, only String Theory makes predictions that other theories don't, that agree with observations.
That was not my understanding, but if so, good, then it is science.
Evolution, the multi-verse and the Gaia hypothesis are not science.

Finally, just how many correct descriptions of Nature do you expect there to be? How do you know?
For any given finite set of facts, there is an infinite number of possible explanations. More precisely, for any given set of numbers, there are an infinite number of equations resulting in that set.
This has been proven.
You really need to think about these things more.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 14, 2018 8:32 PM  

The first reaction of Science to falsifying data, is to tweak the model, to save the theory, creating epicycles within epicycles. It's not until a new model comes along and is forced down their throats by experimental data that scientists will give up their old model. c.f. steady-state universe.

Blogger Freddy June 14, 2018 8:40 PM  

The "science" of statistics. Drudge reports on amazingly stupefying economic stats. Bait and switch! You ready for that imminent reboot? The Absolute Bubble buster sits on top of that dome of '08 and laughs at the kings of the earth and their rulers that rise up and band together because they rise up together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.” Psalm 2 goes into more detail of our victory because of Him. Those baked Drudge stats? Trump using their interpretative grid on them. Popcorn time. Deepstate will burn the village to the ground. You ready?

Blogger VD June 14, 2018 8:44 PM  

Second, String Theory and, to date, only String Theory makes predictions that other theories don't, that agree with observations.

You don't even know what a prediction is, and you're trying to explain to others what science is.

A prediction concerns an event that HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. It requires that one "declare or tell in advance." You are confusing explanations with predictions.

Blogger E. William Brown June 14, 2018 10:32 PM  

I've found that there are a couple of simple rules of thumb that work quite well for sorting the actual science from the flimflam:

1) If a field of study supports engineers who use it to make working technology for a living, it's real science and you can generally expect it to make correct predictions.

2) If a field relies on the p>0.95 standard for deciding if a study should be published, and routinely accepts the result of a single study as valid without multiple replications, it's completely fraudulent and none of its predictions are worth anything.

If a field doesn't fall into either of these categories it can take a lot of work to figure out if it's real science or just flimflam, but there are surprisingly few fields that fall into this gray area.

Blogger Freddy June 14, 2018 10:49 PM  

EWB, the secular gate keepers that economically own "free" people expand 24/7

Blogger wrf3 June 14, 2018 11:22 PM  

VD wrote:It requires that one "declare or tell in advance."
Sure. That's what geometries do. "If space curves this way, you'll see this." "If space is flat, you'll see that." "If space is curved the other way, you'll see this other thing." So you see one of the three things and you then know which way space is curved.

String theory is a geometrical theory. It tells you what you'll see when you look.

Blogger Ahärôwn June 14, 2018 11:32 PM  

Actually, that parenthetical brings to mind even further thoughts. Maybe we should classify philosophers by their apparent Socio-Sexual hierarchy position. Could Western discourse really be a bunch of those on the spectrum going hyper detailed to refute the ramblings of Gammas?

Now wouldn't that be interesting! I suspect that much the same thing happened with the various church councils, where they had to specifically hash out answers to heretical gammas (has God said?) that were obvious to the faithful.

These doctrines did not spring ex-nihilo from the breast of Constantine or other emperors, as some ignorant would have it, but were official responses to those sperging out and questioning what had always been understood by the church since the Apostles.

This would also explain why St. Nicholas, literally Santa, got so angry with the heresy that he punched Arius. Unfortunately, gammas, like the poor, have always been with us.

Blogger justaguy June 14, 2018 11:34 PM  

Popper hasa good guide to what is and is not science. However there is rot all the way down ever since We/they/elite/place evil group here set up the system with large numbers of universities doing research and all needing to publish new material to get tenure and that golden ring. Add to it the large government funding doled out by "the community" so police who gets research $, assistants etc. and you have the merry-go round we have now.

Trained as a physicist, I understand it has been quite a few years since any breakthrough in the basic research phase (not the engineering/advanced research). So a budding academic, even if very smart, is basically forced to go into theoretical physics to have something to publish-- or he leaves the field and goes in to the corporate world helping take physics into engineering an actual product. The same motivation to publish or perish problem hits chemistry, biology (which has a hard time staying a science outside of the mirco, genetic and chemical type biologies- hard to be falsified). So yes VD is of course right-- there is a rot that goes all the way down until there isn't anything even academic about the idiocies in the social sciences merely ideas driven back and forth by the whims of SJWs.

Blogger Stickwick Stapers June 14, 2018 11:50 PM  

Azure: Hey Stickwick, long time no see. Welcome back.

Yo. :)

VD: The latter. Physics is the gold standard of science, the hardest of the hard, with the firmest and most uncompromising tests of its hypotheses and predictions. And yet, the rot even affects it.

Fair enough. I agree with that.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 15, 2018 12:44 AM  

Still working on your cosmology book, Stickwick? If so I'm looking forward to reading that.

Anonymous Anonymous June 15, 2018 12:58 AM  

VD wrote:You forgot the modifier: Social science is not scientific.
I didn't forget anything.

You forgot that using the Stanford prison experiment to conclude anything whatsoever about physics is a non sequitur.  Completely different people, methods, standards of evidence, reproducibility (institutional review boards would no doubt prohibit it today), everything.

Do not attempt to correct your intellectual superiors again.
About that....

Tell us, Vox: have you ever taken a course in physics? Did you pass?Again, you're not tall enough for this ride.
Tell us, Vox:  have you ever taken a course in physics?  Did you pass?  Your own rule:

2... If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner...
I'd bet 10:1 I know the answer but I want it straight from you.

Yes, this is relevant.  If economists are to be ignored because they get everything wrong, then the people whose work was behind e.g. hitting space probes' aim-point through Saturn's rings within a mile deserve credit FROM YOU for getting it right.  So do the people whose finicky calculations about General Relativity are essential to making your GPS work.

Mathematicians mucking around at the fringes of the known, hoping they can come up with something and not claiming they ever have do not deserve the opprobrium aimed their way either.  If nobody flails around in the dark, nobody's ever going to find the light switch.

Anonymous Anonymous June 15, 2018 12:59 AM  

kurt9 wrote:I disagree with your comment about String Theory. Yes, it is based on self-consistent mathematics. Nevertheless, it remains untestable.
Are any of them making claims to truth?  So far as I know, no (I admit I'm not up on this).  They're trying to find something that's both (a) consistent with available evidence and (b) testable (at least in principle).  Maybe string theory is the wrong approach and they're all wasting their time.  If so, it is no worse than the age of alchemy when men applied their efforts to turn base metals into gold.  Alchemy eventually gave rise to chemistry, whose benefits we enjoy in abundance today.

I can tell you there is lots of fraud and falsifying of data in the hard sciences as well.
How do you know it was false and fraudulent?  Did people try to reproduce it, and fail?

A considerable amount of ballywooed university research in the hard sciences never result in demonstrable technology.
That is not the same thing.  Just because you can't make use of a fact doesn't make it a lie.

Anonymous Anonymous June 15, 2018 1:02 AM  

Peter Gent wrote:While most of the people here are college educated besides being of better than above average intelligence what is obvious is that they are all autodidacts, which is what separates those who continue to learn from those who coast to a stop.
I stopped my formal study of chemistry in my freshman year of college, but I'm still working on it.  Autodidact, check.  I'm sketching hardware to do practical applications.

That goes triple for our host.
I'm still waiting for him to tell us if he's actually gone there in physics, and how far.

Anonymous Anonymous June 15, 2018 1:03 AM  

Crew wrote:it is quite conceivable that all mtDNA lineages but one from approximately 200,000 years ago have disappeared from the current population of a species. That does not mean the species is only 200,000 years old.
It is extremely hard to get people to understand distinctions like this when they are hell-bent on NEVER understanding.  I'd say it's impossible.  Whether such people are not convinced should be ignored, period.  Only admissions against interest should be counted.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 15, 2018 1:44 AM  

Pale Male wrote:Tell us, Vox:  have you ever taken a course in physics?  Did you pass?  Your own rule:

2... If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner...

In what way is Vox's educational history relevant to the question? Are you always this dishonest, or only when challenged?

This is a sneering, gamma-ish, and obviously false assertion of the appeal to authority, and you should know this.

So tell us, Pale Male, have you ever touched a woman?

Blogger tublecane June 15, 2018 1:45 AM  

@133- "Are any of them making claims to truth"

If they're not, what are they up to? Finger-painting?

"testable (at least in principle)"

What does that mean? "In principle, when we invent the telescope that will allow us to see the 3,483 dimensions hidden above my head, we'll be able to test my hypothesis."

Wake me when that happens.In the meantime, they're not doing science.

"it is no worse than the age of alchemy when men applied their efforts to turn base metals into gold"

Not all wastes of time are equally wasteful.

"Alchemy eventually gave rise to chemistry"

How do you imagine that happened? Not by alchemists sitting around dreaming up theories with no relation to reality. Rather, because it was an experimental art, with practical knowledge accrued through trial and error. Much like medicine, which was almost entirely quackery until suddenly it wasn't.

Blogger tublecane June 15, 2018 1:49 AM  

@127- "String theory is geometrical theory."

Then it's mathematics, not science.

"It tells you what you'll see when you look."

No it doesn't. Geometry is about imaginary space. It has real-world applications, but it by no means tells you what you'll see when you look at reality.

In any case, that is most certainly NOT a prediction.

Blogger Stickwick Stapers June 15, 2018 2:20 AM  

Noah B: Still working on your cosmology book, Stickwick? If so I'm looking forward to reading that.

Awesome; I love to hear that. Yes, I'm working on two books at once, actually, and owe Vox a manuscript fairly soon.

The one I'm really looking forward to writing, though, is my dark universe book, wherein I convince all you punks that dark matter and dark energy are real and biblical. I'm seriously thinking of presenting it as a graphic dialogue -- think Galileo's Dialogue meets graphic novel.

Blogger het1 June 15, 2018 2:53 AM  


Criterion in mathematics is not prediction (of future events) but consistency and beauty (see Heisenberg. Poincare etc)

Blogger VD June 15, 2018 5:35 AM  

Sure. That's what geometries do. "If space curves this way, you'll see this." "If space is flat, you'll see that." "If space is curved the other way, you'll see this other thing." So you see one of the three things and you then know which way space is curved.

That's not a prediction. Predictions don't relate to YOU, they relate to the event. If the event being "predicted" already happened, it's not a prediction.

You forgot that using the Stanford prison experiment to conclude anything whatsoever about physics is a non sequitur. Completely different people, methods, standards of evidence, reproducibility (institutional review boards would no doubt prohibit it today), everything.

I didn't forget anything. You are observably too stupid to be involved in this conversation. That's like saying because Charles Ponzi was a completely different person living at a completely different time and using completely different methods than Bernie Madoff and operating under different regulatory standards, it is a non sequitur to use his actions to conclude anything about Madoff's.

Physicists are people, subject to the same incentives and motives as psychologists. They are corrupted in the same way and for the same reasons.

Blogger VD June 15, 2018 5:40 AM  

wherein I convince all you punks that dark matter and dark energy are real and biblical.

Where is my Nobel Prize for Physics then? Did I not PREDICT the discovery of dark energy!

Blogger Dirk Manly June 15, 2018 6:24 AM  

Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes still demand that you show your work first.

Blogger staff June 15, 2018 6:29 AM  

So I see at Drudge: "STUDY: IQ Scores On Decline For Decades..."

Then I click on the link and the headline is "IQ Scores Are Declining And The Environment Is To Blame, New Study Finds" at a CBS site.

Some scientists deny that genes have anything to do with it! It is all environment! We are a blank slate to start with I guess.

Damn, damn, damn. I have been studying IQ and genetics as an amateur for decades. They could have at least mentioned that the low IQ peoples out-breeding the west by leaps and bounds might have something to do with it.

Yes, science is crap these days.

Blogger Mark Stoval June 15, 2018 6:45 AM  

Darn. I posted @45 as "staff" but was signed in my mail as mark.stoval as always. I have no idea how this works. Magic to me. Oh well.

At a site in Germany many years ago, they would ban you immediately if you signed in under two different names. No questions ask.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 15, 2018 6:47 AM  

Germans seem to think that the purpose of living is to obey the rules, rather than the purpose of rules is to benefit the living.

Blogger VD June 15, 2018 6:59 AM  

Tell us, Vox: have you ever taken a course in physics? Did you pass? Your own rule:

You're banned, Pale Male. Don't comment here again. You should have read the rules more closely. No one is permitted to try to use my own rules against me.

Now go away. For good.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 15, 2018 7:18 AM  

"wherein I convince all you punks that dark matter and dark energy are real and biblical."

I'm already convinced that dark matter is real. The Biblical part is making my imagination run wild though.

"It is all environment! We are a blank slate to start with I guess."

It's hard to fantasize about programming robots which are not standardized. Of course, somehow some of the robots are volitive enough to program all the other ones in the first place. Somehow. Vainglory in its second most pure form.

There's something to be said about actual madness there.

Blogger TM Lutas June 15, 2018 7:31 AM  

@49 Yes, can does not equal must or does. You might want to test for did though.

Getting all the studies in a database and mapping the dependencies turns the replication crisis up to 11 because it allows you to make connections between the withdrawn studies and how much of an academic's work has been invalidated/has to be redone all over again.

Make a big data set and desperate grad students will work with it, and publish papers on it.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia June 15, 2018 7:57 AM  

VD wrote:
A prediction concerns an event that HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. It requires that one "declare or tell in advance." You are confusing explanations with predictions.


If you alter genome to produce a certain protein, and the altered genome does so, and it happens everytime to you alter the genome, than the genomic sequence is the "explanation" for the the expression of that protein.

Altering that genome has "predictive" power. Until the genome is changed, the protein has not yet been expressed, the change has not happened. But alterning the genome appropriately, will have the the thing that has not yet happened, happen.

Blogger dienw June 15, 2018 8:23 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dienw June 15, 2018 8:26 AM  

Thank you to those who took the time to answer my question.

Blogger James Dixon June 15, 2018 8:34 AM  

> Then it's mathematics, not science.

Exactly. And judged as a mathematical pursuit, it's worthwhile.

Blogger lordabacus June 15, 2018 9:22 AM  

@104 In your estimation, what is the best resource outside of the book of Bible putting forth the evidence and arguments for Young Earth Creation? I'm familiar with Answers in Genesis and other Ken Ham works, as well as Hovind's materials. So something better than that, if you can point me to it.

I'm also interested in what you feel is the most robust prediction made by the Young Earth Model, if you have time. Thanks.

Blogger wrf3 June 15, 2018 10:11 AM  

het1 wrote:Criterion in mathematics is not prediction (of future events) but consistency and beauty (see Heisenberg. Poincare etc)
VD wrote:That's not a prediction. Predictions don't relate to YOU, they relate to the event. If the event being "predicted" already happened, it's not a prediction.
First, predictions can relate to "me". I might be the predictor. I might be an observer between the predictor and the event.
Second, virtually all of physics has already happened. Mercury was orbiting the sun for billions of years before Einstein formulated his theory of relativity. Particles have been scattering long before Gell-Mann advanced his theory of quarks. And so on...
Third, a dictionary isn't scientific - it doesn't predict how people will use words. A dictionary isn't even a rule book and, if it were, a defining characteristic of humans is that we break rules and make new ones. A dictionary is only a snapshot in time of how people use words.

It was a Harvard trained physicist who said that string theory predicts that "the lepton number should ultimately be broken...". Gell-Mann, who won the Nobel Prize in physics, said, "[string theory has] already got some successes in predicting the Einsteinian theory" [Testing Superstring Theory, around the 30 second mark]. We say relativity predicted the actual position of Mercury, even though Mercury had been in that spot many times before.

So, you can say that these actual, working physicists aren't using language correctly. That's clearly your prerogative. However, I also explained why, if you look at things from a geometrical viewpoint, it's not improper to say that geometries predict behavior. And this is what these physicists are doing.

YMMV.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia June 15, 2018 10:47 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:.

No, that doesn't equate. Quantum Mechanics makes specific predictions that are observed experimentally. The fact that String theory is based from the same set of facts doesn't make it science. General Relativity makes specific predictions that are generally (except a couple of specific instances) are actually borne out in experimentation.

If it can't be falsified it is not science.


Correct, although I would modify this to say that scientific hypotheses must be "falsifiable" rather than "falsified."

We may accept a scientific conclusion as fact for now, but all true properly structured hypotheses remain "falsifiable" -- it's an an inherent characteristic of them, even if they are SOOO sound that they seem unassailable today.

Guys like David Reich and Svante Paabo are great scientists, because they work backwords from the evidence to form their hypothesis, but are certainly more that willing to admit they are wrong (as they have done) when additional evidence presents itself.

It's why the non-scientific fields of archeology and anthropology are so freaked out about their conclusions.

Blogger tublecane June 15, 2018 10:51 AM  

@155- I have little notion what you're on about. It's not just that you're using language incorrectly. There's something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of what science is.

The fact that Mercury has been going around the sun for however many years has literally nothing to do with whether or not Einstein made testable predictions.

You right, a dictionary isn't science, nor are lexicographers generally considered scientists. Why do you bring it up?

I don't imagine Gell-Man was using an idiosyncratic definition of "prediction." He was probably just lying.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia June 15, 2018 10:58 AM  

Rickaby007 wrote:The matrix world in which we live is built upon fake science, propaganda, designed to dehumanize and demoralize us. You almost can't trust anything. For example, take health science and health medicine. We have proof most of the studies are funded by corporations. No surprise then that the West is rapidly declining in terms of health, with obesity epidemics everywhere and nearly one in two men being infertile according to WHO itself. Even doctors get fed disinfo and misinfo during their "education". How many even give good health advice? When is the last time one told you that it is very important to eat organic and consume probiotic foods? Most of the time, they just tell you to gobble a big pharma pill.

If anyone is stupid enough to believe that "science, Scientism, is real, they basically deserve to die. And they will.


This is complete crap.

Next time you get a veneral disease, or better still, non-hodgkins lymphoma,let nature take it's course, why doncha. After all, that "science" shit is useless, right?

I've been in and out of the science and medical world for the last 10 years. Is there a lot of un-reproducible crap? You bet.

But this wholesale dissing of science and pharma companies is completely stupid. You know anybody whose had shingles? I hope you get it so you can find out, since you won't be lining up to get the vaccine to get it.

And when the companies who are hard at work developing personalized immunotherapy for cancer, genetically modifying T cells to go after death inducing glioblastoma, I hope your brain gets riddled with the stuff and you can descend into a coma and then, inevitably, into death in the full knowledge that you stuck it to Big Pharma.



Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 15, 2018 11:12 AM  

wrf3 wrote:"[string theory has] already got some successes in predicting the Einsteinian theory"
Do you really not understand human languages?

"Predicting Einsteinian theory" is not the same as predicting. It's the literal opposite of an experiment. An equivalent statement would be "I can make the abstruse mathematics of string theory correlate to the mathematics of another theory that's generally accepted." This can be accomplished through data-fitting, as is commonly done in data science. You introduce constants into your theory to make the numbers come out right. I think is was Maxwell who said that given 5 constants he could prove anything he cared to in physics.

To be of value as a scientific proof, it is not sufficient that your theory correlate with known facts or in this case with generally accepted theory. As I said earlier, there are an infinite number of possible theories that can do that. It must predict something currently unknown, that can't be faked.

Data fitting is the Piltdown Man of modern physics.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 15, 2018 11:16 AM  

KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia wrote:You know anybody whose had shingles?
I've had shingles 2 times

I hope you get it so you can find out, since you won't be lining up to get the vaccine to get it.
Nope, not getting the vaccine.

Blogger Nikephoros II Phokas June 15, 2018 12:19 PM  

"You can make a small percentage of the population, 1-2%, do exactly what you want with the right combination of drugs. What we're really seeing is the older Deep State spent a lot of time trying to see if it could be done en masse. It's much, much harder to do, which is why they need near total information control."

The interesting thing is that they don't necessarily control information in the very direct, Orwellian sense that first comes to mind.

When you have enough of these individual studies pushing propaganda, it eventually becomes a sort of meta propaganda in that it's harder and harder to discern the true studies from the false.

If everything was true or false, you wouldn't have this problem.

At first I thought they were shooting themselves in the foot by undermining science, since it's their new religion, but maybe the sense of confusion and uncertainty is exactly what they're trying to create.

The smart people spend all their time trying to investigate and debunk bogus claims while the MPAI are simply tossed about in the nihilistic currents.

Blogger Stickwick Stapers June 15, 2018 12:19 PM  

Where is my Nobel Prize for Physics then? Did I not PREDICT the discovery of dark energy!

Verily, the very darkest of energy.

Blogger Crew June 15, 2018 12:28 PM  

And when the companies who are hard at work developing personalized immunotherapy for cancer, genetically modifying T cells to go after death inducing glioblastoma, I hope your brain gets riddled with the stuff and you can descend into a coma and then, inevitably, into death in the full knowledge that you stuck it to Big Pharma.

Whoa. Very scientific of you. Can I assume you work for Big Pharma or derive a lot of income from them?

Blogger Crew June 15, 2018 12:40 PM  

Sure. That's what geometries do. "If space curves this way, you'll see this." "If space is flat, you'll see that." "If space is curved the other way, you'll see this other thing." So you see one of the three things and you then know which way space is curved.

That's not a prediction. Predictions don't relate to YOU, they relate to the event. If the event being "predicted" already happened, it's not a prediction.


I think this needs to be expanded a little because:

1. Most things we see in Astronomy have already happened, in fact many years, decades, centuries etc ago. Theories can still make claims (predictions) and we can then go and look at old observations to see if the predictions are falsified. Of course, in some cases we will have to wait for new observations, but many of the events being observed will have happened before the predictions.

2. Models are a form of theory/prediction. In creating a model a subset of the data should be used to train the model (develop the parameters), but then it should be tested on out-of-sample data, which can simply be the other samples that were not used to create the model.

Blogger Crew June 15, 2018 1:20 PM  

How strange. On Bullshit seems to be available here:

http://www5.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf

You don't need the wayback machine for it.

Blogger kurt9 June 15, 2018 1:28 PM  

Speaking of physics, nothing much has come out of physics since around 1960. All of the physics underlying semiconductors and lasers was from the first half of the 20th century. The laser was invented in 1960 and the semiconductor IC in 1971.

Jack Sarfatti wrote a book sometime in the 1970's about how the Hippies saved physics. I'm not seeing that at all as all of the most recent technological innovations derived from physics all come from pre-1970's physics. So, it cannot be claimed that the Hippies saved physics.

Blogger het1 June 15, 2018 1:32 PM  

@155 wrf3

> it's not improper to say that geometries predict behavior.

Just as a reduction. Indeed it means that physics based on one or another geometry (say Euclidian or Riemannian) predict behavior.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 15, 2018 1:33 PM  

Damn, I was gonna offer to take bets on whether gamma-boy would be back again.
Not that anyone here would take the other side of that bet.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine June 15, 2018 1:34 PM  

"When someone makes an error on the order of confusing horsepower and foot-pounds,"

This is an ironic statement on your part. Go back and look at what exactly was said, and then parse for exactly what it necessarily means. Prune your feels and assumptions about what the speaker meant out of it, and look at precisely and only what they specifically said.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 15, 2018 1:34 PM  

Crew wrote:In creating a model a subset of the data should be used to train the model (develop the parameters)
And this is where the fraud occurs.
Climatologists do this all the time.
Now we know astrophysicists do it too, as a matter of course

Blogger VD June 15, 2018 1:54 PM  

First, predictions can relate to "me". I might be the predictor. I might be an observer between the predictor and the event.

Always tedious, you are. But it is nice to know that there is no chance that you are going to survive the new Comment Cheka for long.

See, THAT is a proper prediction.

Blogger Crew June 15, 2018 2:11 PM  

@178: Do you mean they fail to do it?

As far as I am aware, the Climate models used to predict global warming cannot even hindcast with any accuracy. That is, they cannot match out of sample data.

Blogger S'mon June 15, 2018 2:33 PM  

"The central problem is simple enough, as it is the result of the gap between the theory of scientody and the reality of scientistry. "

I like to shut climate change/warmist advocates up by asking what evidence would falsify their theory. Because their belief is quasi-religious, IME they can't even answer the question.

Blogger SirHamster June 15, 2018 3:04 PM  

KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia wrote:Altering that genome has "predictive" power. Until the genome is changed, the protein has not yet been expressed, the change has not happened. But alterning the genome appropriately, will have the the thing that has not yet happened, happen.

That's not a prediction.

A prediction would be a statement like, "I will alter the genome of this bacteria, causing this protein to be expressed, resulting in XYZ."

Predictions are claims made by people, they do not come from the things or physical laws people happen to be experimenting with.


Crew wrote:1. Most things we see in Astronomy have already happened, in fact many years, decades, centuries etc ago. Theories can still make claims (predictions) and we can then go and look at old observations to see if the predictions are falsified. Of course, in some cases we will have to wait for new observations, but many of the events being observed will have happened before the predictions.

While the Astronomy events have happened in the past, the predictions are that there will be a future "human discovery" event that uncovers knowledge confirming the past Astronomy event. So the predictions are still about the future, it just gets confusing if you don't categorize events carefully.

It is not predicting the past. It is predicting future observations that conform to a past event having happened.

Blogger Crew June 15, 2018 3:43 PM  

While the Astronomy events have happened in the past, the predictions are that there will be a future "human discovery" event that uncovers knowledge confirming the past Astronomy event. So the predictions are still about the future, it just gets confusing if you don't categorize events carefully.

If I am reading you correctly, I think you are being a bit loose in your terminology. It seems that you are claiming that the predictions made by a scientific theory are that new observations will be made that confirm or falsify the theory.

Scientific theories make claims about the world in ways that allow us to make accurate predictions about future events but also should explain existing observations (that people may perhaps be unaware of) in better ways than before.

However, it might also be that existing, already made observations will falsify the claims made by a new theory, or that new observations need to be made, now that we have the theory, and those new observations will falsify the theory. Existing observations that were anomalous with regard to the old theory the new theory is replacing can also be used to confirm the new theory.

Blogger SirHamster June 15, 2018 4:08 PM  

Crew wrote:It seems that you are claiming that the predictions made by a scientific theory are that new observations will be made that confirm or falsify the theory.

Am talking about the general category of predictions as applied to science and Astronomy.

Predictions always have to deal with future events. When it comes to discovering the past, you can't predict what has already happened; but you can predict what new things might be discovered that are related to what already happened.


Existing observations that were anomalous with regard to the old theory the new theory is replacing can also be used to confirm the new theory.

That has use and purpose on valuing one theory over another, but is not a prediction. Fitting the theory to known facts is backfitting, not prediction.

Predicting is always about the unknown, and has better value precisely because it is harder to do. Though one should be on guard of the fulfilled prediction that is merely a lucky guess.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 15, 2018 4:39 PM  

It doesn't matter whether the event happened in the past or the future. It's the fact that the data is not available whether because of temporal displacement or simply that no-one looked for it, that makes the prediction relevant.
It's just that with existing data, it's too easy for people to cheat.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants June 15, 2018 4:59 PM  

I can't believe you are doubting a conclusion that was written on the (((Daily Wire))), the website of (((Ben "littlest chickenhawk" Shapiro))).

I mean, obviously he's always right in his analysis.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants June 15, 2018 5:03 PM  

I think


Wrong. Have you ever spent an August in Alabama?

I'm pretty sure you meant "the air is around 500% water."

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants June 15, 2018 5:05 PM  

There you go. I've ALWAYS believed this, nice to see someone else saying it.

Blogger eclecticme June 15, 2018 5:14 PM  

Ayn Rand said that science was dogma and engineerng was truth. I did not agree until I switched from science to engineering decades ago. I understood her point. Holy wars are much more common in science than engineering.

Blogger SciVo June 15, 2018 7:26 PM  

SirHamster wrote:Predicting is always about the unknown, and has better value precisely because it is harder to do. Though one should be on guard of the fulfilled prediction that is merely a lucky guess.

That is why I like to say "failed to disconfirm" instead of "confirmed". The double negative is epistemologically meaningful.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit June 15, 2018 8:58 PM  

@69 The known flaw in the Milgram experiment is how many of the testers figured out it was a gag and what they chose to do about it. The actor in the chair wasn't hooked to anything so the timing wouldn't be on when the dial was turned or the button hit.

What quantity of college students figured that out and just screwed with the dial isn't known.


We sort of know the answer to this one with /pol/ and Gamergate. The opportunity to press "send" and cause a drama queen to pretend to freak out is irresistibly entertaining.

Blogger James Dixon June 15, 2018 10:01 PM  

> I'm pretty sure you meant "the air is around 500% water."

That's known as a "supersaturated solution". See https://infogalactic.com/info/Supersaturation

The air is actually holding more water than it should be able to. In the worst case, merely walking out into it will cause water to condense onto your body because your body is cooling the air around it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 16, 2018 3:03 AM  

Or even just your motion through the air can cause the microdroplets to run into each other and condense spontaneously.

Blogger Chris White June 16, 2018 11:23 PM  

And this is how we got the flat earthers....

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 3:54 AM  

@166

"Jack Sarfatti wrote a book sometime in the 1970's about how the Hippies saved physics. I'm not seeing that at all as all of the most recent technological innovations derived from physics all come from pre-1970's physics. So, it cannot be claimed that the Hippies saved physics."

The Dancing Wu-Li Masters.

Having read that book, it fused the first verses of Genesis with modern physics.

I believe the authors were trying to fuse modern physics with Bhuddhism, but the fit with Christian thought is even better.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 3:58 AM  

@173

"I like to shut climate change/warmist advocates up by asking what evidence would falsify their theory. Because their belief is quasi-religious, IME they can't even answer the question."

And follow it up with:

If there is NO TEST in which some result or another would demonstrate your ideas to be false, then you don't have a theory, you merely have an hypothesis. And an undemonstrable one at that.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 4:08 AM  

@181

"Ayn Rand said that science was dogma and engineerng was truth. I did not agree until I switched from science to engineering decades ago. I understood her point. Holy wars are much more common in science than engineering. "

This is why I say that Engineering has a much higher demand for honesty and intellect:

If a scientist gets something wrong -- he has to retract a paper, and might suffer some embarrassment. Or he might be like Linus "By 1980, there will be mass starvation worldwide, with so many dead that bodies will be left laying in the streets for lack of anyone to carry them away!!! Ahhhhhhhh! The word-wide famine is anon!!!one!!!!eleventy!!!" Pauling... and when the population effortlessly increases another 50%, past 6 BILLION, your pretend like you never doubted it could happen.

On the other hand, when engineers get something wrong, PEOPLE DIE.
Most recent example -- FIU pedestrian bridge.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 4:09 AM  

@184

"The air is actually holding more water than it should be able to. In the worst case, merely walking out into it will cause water to condense onto your body because your body is cooling the air around it."

Sounds like Michigan in July.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 17, 2018 4:10 AM  

@186

"And this is how we got the flat earthers...."

Can I interest you in the Dark-Sucker Theory of Vision?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts