When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[night912]

I have explained how the bias happens.

Actually, you didn't. You gave a bias explanation, but that explanation didn't explain how the bias happens. It's "bias" if someone is skeptical of the hypothesis but ended up accepting and agreeing with it. The little sense that I was able to make of it, is that you actually presented a made up scenario that shows people being unbiased.



unbiased

(ʌnbaɪəst ) also unbiassed
ADJECTIVE
If you describe someone or something as unbiased, you mean they are fair and not likely to support one particular person or group involved in something. Source

But like I said, your example of you giving an explanation of being bias, was of itself, an example of someone being bias. So kudos to you.

 

[PureX]

Actually, you didn't. You gave a bias explanation, but that explanation didn't explain how the bias happens. It's "bias" if someone is skeptical of the hypothesis but ended up accepting and agreeing with it. The little sense that I was able to make of it, is that you actually presented a made up scenario that shows people being unbiased.

It's hard to see when you're trying really hard not to see it.

The questions we ask about the world around us are based almost entirely on the way we see and understand that world, already. This is a MASSIVE preconceived bias. And one that is fundamentally unavoidable, as we cannot see or understand the world any other way than we currently do. Nevertheless, the way we currently see and understand the world around us does dictate the questions we ask about it, as well as the methods we choose to explore those questions, as well as the results those methods produce. The idea that science eliminates bias is ludicrous! The process is biased every step of the way. And there really isn't anything we can do about it, because we cannot be anything other than what we are.

And the inherent bias isn't even the biggest problem with science. The biggest problem is that it cannot even address any issues related to value. It's strictly limited to the area of physical functionality. And functionality without value is a recipe for disaster. As we are all witnessing.

My story exemplified how we humans base our questions on our presuppositions. And how we devise experiments intended to explore those questions based on those often erroneous presuppositions, which then lead to erroneous results, and erroneous conclusions. But you didn't see any of this in the story because all you were looking for was a way to discredit the implications of the story. And even now I suspect you are looking for more ways of dismissing and discrediting this comment rather than actually considering how it might be valid.

This is how intractable and invisible to us our biases really are.

 

[tas8831]

There are plenty of the scientism cult members posting right here on RF.

Perhaps, but I would wager that there are far, far more members of the anti-science religionism cult.

All you have to do is read, and reason. It's very easy to recognize.

So you've done no research, as I thought.
Thanks for admitting that.

Can you expand on how 'the experimental process' can be biased, and provide some real examples?

1. It's biased by the question (hypothesis) that's being chosen to investigate (test).

Non sequitur,

Every question already contains a plethora of assumptions that we are intending to 'fit together' with our hypothesized theory. Try asking one that doesn't.

That is not part of the 'experimental process.'

2. Because all those assumptions exist as part of the question, they will inevitably play a significant role in determining the process we choose to test our hypothesis.

That is not part of the 'experimental process.'

3. And whatever results we get, we will be interpreting them through the paradigm of (quite possibly biased) presumptions that have structured the whole endeavor from the beginning. Leading us to even more elaborate ( and quite possibly biased) presumptions.

That is not part of the 'experimental process.'

That is or may be part of the scientific process overall, but not the experimental process.

You mention assumptions and presumptions (presuppositions?) - what sorts of assumptions are you referring to, and in what field of study are there none, or at least unbiased ones?

And do you believe that a biased assumption taints the outcomes of experiment?

And if so, please provide an actual example.

You want an example, so I'll make one up.

"Bob" looks around him and observes that the world appears to be flat. But because he can't see it all at the same time, he decides to use "science" to test his theory. So he gets a level, holds it up to the horizon and observes that as far as he can see, 360 degrees around, the horizon is indeed perpendicular to the pull of gravity. It is "level" in all directions, and therefor the Earth must be 'flat'. But to be sure, (maybe the Earth is a really big hill) he will have to test for level in as many 'far-flung' locations as he can. Which he does. And sure enough, no matter where he goes, or what direction he faces, the horizon remains perpendicular to the pull of gravity. So he reports to his fellow humans that the Earth is indeed, flat.

So no actual example, just a made-up one designed to support your unsupported supposition.
Cool.

Whereupon his somewhat skeptical fellow scientists set out to repeat his experiment, and see if they get the same results. And sure enough, they all get the same results. So that now a consensus has been established, and they all can agree that the Earth is indeed, flat.

Horrible example but it does fit with the mental status of flat earthers, to be sure. They are not good at real science. A real - even junior - scientist would be able to see the flaws - not bias, but flaws - in the experimentation.

All you have to do is read the posts, and you will easily see the faith these folks endow a "consensus of objective observation" with. It carries the weight of God, Himself, almost.

What is your unbiased experimental process that demonstrates, or even hints at, the existence of God Himself?

Consensus in science is when the outcomes of experiments or observations - not the exact same experiments - point to the same conclusion.

Sure, if a person did, say, a fission track date experiment on a crystal in a particular stratum and got an age of X, even though they and another person did the same exact experiment on the same crystal and got the same age, all that would show is that the method produces reliable/repeatable results.
However, if a person did a fission track date experiment on a crystal and got an age of X, and someone else did a different type of age analysis on similar material found in the same stratum and also got an age of X, and a third person did different tests on yet another type of material from the same stratum and also got age X, THEN we have a consensus.

So, your take on 'consensus', first of all, is not really accurate. Second, experimental results trump bias. Sure, you can have individuals who fudge results to fit their biases, like Jeff Tomkins of the ICR, but to imply that it is universal is to believe that it is only bias that dictates results. And that is a rather ignorant position to take.

 

[tas8831]

I'd rather listen to any proselytizer than a poor but pious scientist.

You only listen to yourself, and you have a documented history of being wrong on just about everything.

 

[tas8831]

I have no issue with scientists. They understand very well the limitations of science relative to 'the truth'. It's this new age cult of "scientism" that thinks empiricism and the scientific method the one and only possible means by which humankind can ever grasp 'the truth'. And as such all other attempted methodologies are just naive and foolish whimsy, that I find so absurd.

All other such methods are little more than exercises in navel contemplation.

Pure reason? Went out with the ancient Greeks.
Religionism? Was never useful for finding out things about the world.

What can you offer as competitive with the scientific method in terms of answering questions about nature/the universe?

 

[tas8831]

There are lots of real scientists and all real scientists understand (most of) the limitations of science. The problem I have with "scientists" are the numerous individuals in many fields that have no clue what they know or how they came to know it. I use "Egyptology" as an example of the worst but actually there are other fields as well that are as bad or even worse. Dr Hawass has been withholding data from Peers for six years now but not one peer or one Egyptologist has spoken out against it.

Even Egyptologists though aren't universally poor scientists merely mostly poor scientists.

Of course many areas are called "science" now days that really aren't science at all. I wouldn't call "meteorology" "science" so much as it is a field derived from computer modeling which was created by scientific technology. If I use a computer to model astrological signs it doesn't magically create a new "science". It's not that there's no science in weather prediction, just that it will never be predictable beyond a certain time frame.

Almost all of the "science" and "scientists" that appear in the newspapers are not.

You are not an Egyptologist or a scientist. Who cares what you think about either?
Egyptologists don't care about you uninformed musings.
Scientists laugh at your absurd claims.
Maybe PureX will join your club?

 

[tas8831]

They are very similar to religious fundamentalists: in that they are obsessed with upholding the idea of their own unquestionable righteousness.

Except that religious fundamentalists have no data on their side.
You holier-than-thou types never seem to consider that.

 

[tas8831]

I have explained how the bias happens.

No, you made some unsupported assertions premised on YOUR bias, and via the Dunning-Kruger effect, believe your mere biased assertions to be not only accurate, but unimpeachable.

 

[tas8831]

Like all changes in life these deaths each occurred suddenly.

Like all of your claims, this one is laughably absurd as well.

The thing is, it is EASY to find out about things like dying from sepsis.
It is NOT "suddenly."
Hilarious that you can never find actual support for any of your goofy assertions.

 

[tas8831]

Sounds like you are confusing "bias" with mere ignorance.

Evan as he employs both as a rule.

 

[night912]

It's hard to see when you're trying really hard not to see it.

The questions we ask about the world around us are based almost entirely on the way we see and understand that world, already. This is a MASSIVE preconceived bias. And one that is fundamentally unavoidable, as we cannot see or understand the world any other way than we currently do. Nevertheless, the way we currently see and understand the world around us does dictate the questions we ask about it, as well as the methods we choose to explore those questions, as well as the results those methods produce. The idea that science eliminates bias is ludicrous! The process is biased every step of the way. And there really isn't anything we can do about it, because we cannot be anything other than what we are.

And the inherent bias isn't even the biggest problem with science. The biggest problem is that it cannot even address any issues related to value. It's strictly limited to the area of physical functionality. And functionality without value is a recipe for disaster. As we are all witnessing.

My story exemplified how we humans base our questions on our presuppositions. And how we devise experiments intended to explore those questions based on those often erroneous presuppositions, which then lead to erroneous results, and erroneous conclusions. But you didn't see any of this in the story because all you were looking for was a way to discredit the implications of the story. And even now I suspect you are looking for more ways of dismissing and discrediting this comment rather than actually considering how it might be valid.

This is how intractable and invisible to us our biases really are.

Hahaha. You're too funny, making excuses by blaming others for your failure.

I didn't see an explanation for being bias because there was none. But according to you, if I was to agree with you, then I would be bias. And I would irrational if I read what you said and agreed with you.

Your illogical reasoning, not mine.

 

[night912]

I'd rather listen to any proselytizer than a poor but pious scientist.

What's the difference?

 

[cladking]

Perhaps, but I would wager that there are far, far more members of the anti-science religionism cult.

BS.

Very few people are opposed to science. They are opposed to accepting the pronouncements of Look and See Science and conclusions that go far beyond experiment.

Consensus in science is when the outcomes of experiments or observations - not the exact same experiments - point to the same conclusion.

No!! That is what this very thread is about. "Consensus" is irrelevant to eve3ry single experiment and it's irrelevant to the reality that that experiment seeks. "Consensus" is the set of beliefs that drive everything in science including the interpretation of experiment. Consensus leads astray more often than it leads to new knowledge.

You only listen to yourself, and you have a documented history of being wrong on just about everything.

So you still believe Kansas City isn't in the middle of the country. I suppose I should toss the US or the brain in the air and see where its center of gravity is.

You are not an Egyptologist or a scientist. Who cares what you think about either?

I suppose everyone who isn't a proper Peer or extremely wealthy are just here to serve our betters who attained their status through survival of the fittest.

Like all of your claims, this one is laughably absurd as well.

You now dispute people die suddenly!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or are you claiming that those who die of infections whose germs came into existence suddenly and one at a time died slowly?

Trying to follow your thinking is like following directions translated from Japanese.


Why can't you follow a simple argument? Why do you respond to words and craft semantical arguments rather than addressing what others say?

 

[cladking]

What's the difference?

I can write off the proselytizer as having beliefs and interests I don't share. A poor but pious scientist says highly offensive things about logic, science, and "the gods" (God). They say things that rub me the wrong way and it is usually impossible to enlighten them about anything at all. Their minds are made up and their beliefs are each set in stone.

 

[night912]

I can write off the proselytizer as having beliefs and interests I don't share. A poor but pious scientist says highly offensive things about logic, science, and "the gods" (God). They say things that rub me the wrong way and it is usually impossible to enlighten them about anything at all. Their minds are made up and their beliefs are each set in stone.

And what's the difference?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn't want it to make sense.

That statement is not sensible.
I explained how your made up example didn't make sense / wasn't valid.

Unlike you, I actually explain my statements and position.

And is a fictional story about someone stealing an egg less valid to you in explaining people stealing eggs than a non-fictional story?

It absolutely is, if it turns out that the made up example is made up specifically to provide evidence for a statement for the sole purpose of not being able to do it with real-world examples.


This is literally making up evidence for statements you are asked to support.
Fictional evidence isn't evidence. Your statements ("accusations" actually) are about the real world scientific community. Yet when you have to give an example, all you can apparently do is make one up.

Why do you have to make up an example? Don't you have a SINGLE real-world example?

On top of it all, your "made up example" was even a completely misrepresentation of what really happened in the real world. The actual history of humans discovering the earth is round and not flat, does not fit your accusations and plays out in the exact opposite way of what you are claiming.

If so, I don't think you understand what fiction is for.

Says the guy who thinks he can use fictional evidence to provide support for real-world accusations.

How does either manage that?

Lots of different ways.
For example, the peer review process exists so that a scientist doesn't have to be taken on his word. Instead, peers double and triple check that scientist's conclusions, methods, assumptions, data, experiment design, etc for the purpose of poking holes in it, for finding flaws.

Another example, through double blind experiments. In medical clinical studies for example, the researchers themselves don't even know who is on the placebo and who isn't while the experiment is ongoing.

In short: it accomplishes this by focusing on objective data instead of subjective opinion.

Do they make us something other than human?

No. They only acknowledge human psychological flaws and help us work around it.

Because as long as we remain human, we remain biased by our human limitations and the by the errant preconceptions we generate as a result.

Yes. Which is why we have developed methods like the scientific process to help us bypass those human pitfalls.

Like your biased and errant preconception that a fictional example is invalid because it's fictional.

It is. You made real-world accusations at the address of the scientific community. Quite big accusations, I will add. Yet, apparently, the only "example" you can give of this thing you accuse the community of, is one that you made up out of thin air.

And on top of that, how your very example actually did play out in the real world, it doesn't support your accusation at all. In fact, the real-world version of your fictional example is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Sorry, but if you can't see how made up evidence doesn't properly support real - world accusations, then I don't know what to tell you.

All it is, is me trying to get you to think around your bias, and just consider how you might be wrong about this. But, clearly, you have no intention of doing that.

I have already acknowledge humans are biased. This isn't a secret.
But that isn't what your claim was. Or at least, that isn't what it was limited to. You said that this bias undermines the scientific process in problematic ways and that because of this, scientific conclusions are suspect.

Yet when asked for an actual example of this, all you can come up with is something that you just made up.


When making real-world claims, support them with real-world evidence.
Made up evidence, is not evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Ah - the absurdities abound!

BS.

Wow, I guess that totally debunked my statement!

Very few people are opposed to science.

I forgot that your opinion trumps all others on al subjects. Yet here you are, the king of the anti-science religionists.

They are opposed to accepting the pronouncements of Look and See Science and conclusions that go far beyond experiment.

The do please tell us all about all of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along 'science' experiments that you have engaged in.


Indeed - I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence).

 

[cladking]

Ah - the absurdities abound! Wow, I guess that totally debunked my statement!

So you intend to stand by this BS- "Perhaps, but I would wager that there are far, far more members of the anti-science religionism cult."

I can't think of one single religious fanatic running about claiming science is made up crap. Many scientists are religious.

Why don't you start making a list of posters here or other people who dismiss science as "devil's work" or "nonsense".

"Scientism" is a cult that includes few scientists but large numbers of lay people who believe science is the answer to everything and that we sit at the crown of creation.

You believe in science and this IS the greatest threat to the continued existence of the human race.

While many individuals have been threatened or murdered in the name of religious beliefs, no religion has ever been a threat to the existence of human species (homo omnisciencis).

 

[cladking]

The bottom line is I can and will respond at least once to all of your BS but you will not respond to anything other than words and you only use semantics.

 

[tas8831]

So you intend to stand by this BS-

Indeed - I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence).