This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Cadenza has moved on
61
« on: February 03, 2016, 12:24:44 PM »
lol Iowa
That is all.
Clearly you don't know the meaning of a caucus and an undecided
I understand it's odd, but caucus's are literally different than anything else in our election process. We're talking about a place you go and bundle into groups as democrats and people come over to you going "ayy lmao, so wanna cum over here and support this one?"
It's not "lol democracy" because it's about as democratic as you get in this country.
But what people also need to understand, is that every form of government has its flaws. This is obviously democracies.
I just find it laughable that when given the chance of deciding who could be the next president, people can leave it to a coin toss. There were six tie breakers between Sanders and Clinton, and they were all decided with a coin toss.
62
« on: February 03, 2016, 12:21:00 PM »
Even when put that way, it's still a bit wrong. Ethics also includes honesty, that you're not falsifying or skewing your data and that you're not stealing it from someone else. It's a continuous process that, out of necessity, must encompass each step of the process if it's to be followed. That make sense; it completely slipped my mind that not being a fraud is a question of ethics.
I figure it's not as prominent in different fields, so there's probably a bunch of folks who don't need to consciously think about it, because it's just second nature.
I'm heading into the maths/physics/comp sci fields, so a lot of my time is spent coming up with proofs and going over other people's proofs, so for me the assumption is "If I've gone over your proof and it checks out, then I'll trust you"
There's a right way and a wrong way to go about explaining that. Uh... you chose the wrong way >.>
Yep, full responsibility for that screw up. Alright, points taken. I apologize.
I deserve some of that blame too. I wasn't very... constructive. Thank you.
Welp, that's what happens when I try to post at 1am. Here's something a little more in-depth.
That looks quite exciting to read. I'm not even sure how this relates to the original discussion. Obviously we all understand the scientific method and the arguments of the past two pages have largely been pointless. Meta originally stated that more information leads to better decision making, as if that justifies unethical science. I responded that gathering information isn't the ultimate goal of science, and it spiraled into irrelevance.
There has yet to be a meaningful discussion about Meta's original thesis. Yeah, I am sorry for derailing the thread; it's an interesting topic but I don't have much to say beyond bague agreement with meta.
Cadenza: "Think axiomatically, the simplest kind of science is just the maths behind science, that's your foundation, then once you have your foundation you build it up and add new details, ethics being added when you start considering living things. But that was my point, you add the ethics afterwards, it's a correction not an axiom."
Math isn't a science, at least by typical academic standards. The idea that science has to be removed of bias and is therefore devoid of ethics is nonsense -- our justice system also strives to be impartial but is, itself, literally a system of ethics. The scientific method itself is an example of ethics applied to science.
Maths is my biggest area of expertise so it really biases my thinking; As kupo pointed out, only accepting data that hasn't been faked is an axiom itself, but it slipped my mind entirely since I effectively never come across things like. So there's probably a few other similar assumptions I'm making without realizing it.
63
« on: February 03, 2016, 11:52:07 AM »
Because he's not running anymore.Republican Senator Rand Paul has dropped out of the race for US president after a disappointing fifth place finish in the Iowa caucuses.
Mr Paul often clashed with his Republican rivals over their hawkish views on foreign policy and their support of government surveillance.
He ended his bid in part to focus on his re-election to the US Senate.
He is seen as representing the Libertarian wing of the party, which promotes individual rights and privacy.
"Across the country thousands upon thousands of people flocked to our message of limited government, privacy, criminal justice reform and a reasonable foreign policy," he said.
"Although, today I will suspend my campaign for president, the fight is far from over."
Mr Paul, an ophthalmologist, represents Kentucky in the US Senate and is the son of former Congressman Ron Paul, who ran for president several times.
He has said in the past he is the right candidate to "stand up to both the right and the left".
Last year, a Time magazine cover labelled him "the most interesting man in politics".
There are now 10 Republicans left in the White House race, down from the original 17.
The 52-year-old hoped to gain the attention of young people hoping for change but was ultimately overshadowed by billionaire businessman Donald Trump.
Mr Paul is known for holding up the Senate floor for nearly 13 hours to delay the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director because of his opposition to the Obama administration's use of drone strikes against terrorists.
He also was criticised last year when he said vaccines could give children "profound mental disorders". He later said his children are immunised.
Mr Paul was passionate about criminal justice reform, saying the US needs to "break the cycle of incarceration for non-violent ex-offenders".
He was praised for level-headed debate performances, but ultimately was hurt by his non-interventionist polices after terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, California and Paris.
Mr Paul had trouble raising money for his campaign, as well, not attracting wealthy donors flocking to candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz.
With such a large field of candidates, underperforming Republican candidates are under increasing pressure to drop out of the race.
Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee dropped out on Tuesday as votes were being cast in Iowa.
64
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:59:39 PM »
65
« on: January 31, 2016, 02:45:53 PM »
Every step of the way, you have been resistant towards the possibility that you were even slightly wrong. I sincerely doubt your claim that you'll admit your mistakes, because you've given zero indication so far of such a miracle occurring.
Let me just explain my thought process: Yes, I did conflate science with the scientific method, it seemed obvious that the only thing you needed to do science was follow a simple procedure that produces results; the entire time I've had mathematical physics as an example in my mind, and there's no ethics involved in studying solutions to differential equations, so of course from my point of view it looks like a cut and dry question: Do you need ethics for science? no because there are cases in which no living things are involved but you're still doing science. Think axiomatically, the simplest kind of science is just the maths behind science, that's your foundation, then once you have your foundation you build it up and add new details, ethics being added when you start considering living things. But that was my point, you add the ethics afterwards, it's a correction not an axiom. Case in point I've got a several hundred page chemistry book on my desk right now, before talking with you I was reading about how electron orbits are defined by their quantum numbers - there's no humans involved just maths and observations, can you start to see why I thought like I did? Now you come in and throw wikipedia links at me, what the hell do you expect me to do, construct your argument for you based off of the link and then reply to what I imagine you're trying to tell me? re-reading my post: Ethics is a question of philosophy/morality, not science. The very first sentence of the wiki article makes that clear; "applying ethics to science" not "applying science to science" I don't even know what the fuck I'm trying to say, but I know at the time I didn't have a clue what you were saying either since you didn't say a thing. Meanwhile turkey's busy making an argument out of semantics: obviously only accurate measurements, obviously you should apply statistical techniques when you can to make sure that your conclusions follow logically from your observations; I thought it was so obvious that it wasn't worth saying so I didn't, then he goes on to make a whole argument about how I didn't say it, and accuses me of talking semantics; and the entire discussion with him follows this pattern. When I made the "you can confirm a hypothesis" statement the exact thought that went through my head was "I know goddamn well you can't prove a theory in science, I hope he doesn't think that's what I'm saying" and yet he goes on to do exactly that. And as I'm trying to clarify what I mean you two start calling everything damage control. How am I meant to respond to that? "here's what I mean" "lol damage control" "no really let me explain" "daaaaaaaaaaaaaaamage control" "It's not damage control just hear me out" "pseudointelectual damage control" And with my discussion with you, from my point of view you can't even read a dictionary and yet you're calling me an idiot. That looked to me like a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black, it really gives off the "everyone in the world is so stupid except for me" kind of vibe, I really hadn't a clue what to say to you after that. This whole discussion is a mess, and I fully admit that it's my fault. I know damn well that I have a lot more to learn about science, I wouldn't have spent the last few years studying my ass off to get into University if I didn't. And I'm aware that when I get into discussions on the internet I say stupid things and mess up. But I wont accept this: Every step of the way, you have been resistant towards the possibility that you were even slightly wrong. Because you and turkey have been incredibly unconvincing with every argument you've made, after all this the best you can give me is "The scientific method is one way that science is practiced. It is not science, per se." real fucking descriptive.
66
« on: January 30, 2016, 11:23:53 PM »
I dropped it first episode since it seemed dumb.
67
« on: January 30, 2016, 11:19:12 PM »
This is some grade-A semantics damage control. Thanks for that gem, Turkey.
Heaven-forbid if a website based in the western hemisphere with users in the western hemisphere talk about science by western hemisphere civilization. And heaven-forbid if I correctly answer a question that's broader than you realize.
You weren't even talking about science. You were talking about some sort of erroneous conflation of science and the scientific method. Not my fault that the very premise of your (changing) argument was flawed. It's not like we didn't try to correct you.
"his argument wasn't what I thought it was, therefore everything he said is damage control" "I can't read, therefore everything he says is semantics" "I'm going to assume his premise was something other than what he stated and call him a retard for that, that'l show him" But you know what, if you are as smart as you think you are then just tell me what the difference is between science and the scientific method, I'm always happy to admit I'm wrong and learn from my mistakes, but so far you've just called me an idiot and dismissed everything I've said. THAT is pseudo intellectual.
68
« on: January 30, 2016, 07:40:24 PM »
Zn+1 = Zn + C
Z, C ≅ x +iy
i2 = -1
I'd rather have posted some proofs I came up with yesterday in the form of ancient Greek geometry, but this matches the thread.
69
« on: January 30, 2016, 07:34:36 PM »
I just checked the manual and it turns out that a very useful move isn't listed in it, and you don't seem to have figured out how to do it; it might've been in the tutorial area but in case you missed it:
Spoiler right bumber + left analog stick in the direction you want to attack = kick
Spoiler pick up their armor
By the way since the parish is where the game starts to open up, there's not really a correct order to progressing through it and the surrounding areas.
Oh, I knew how to kick--I just wasn't exactly sure what it was for. Maybe I could've used it to deal with the rats, I don't know. Doesn't it leave you kinda open?
It only has one purpose and if you miss then you're exposed, but the tradeoff is that landing a kick opens up a new combat option.
70
« on: January 30, 2016, 07:32:14 PM »
Zn+1 = Zn + C
Z, C ≅ x +iy
i2 = -1
71
« on: January 30, 2016, 07:24:49 PM »
I just checked the manual and it turns out that a very useful move isn't listed in it, and you don't seem to have figured out how to do it; it might've been in the tutorial area but in case you missed it: Spoiler right bumber + left analog stick in the direction you want to attack = kick Also you can learn the name of the knights if you: Spoiler pick up their armor And later on you can buy antidotes, and they do drop from certain enemies. By the way since the parish is where the game starts to open up, there's not really a correct order to progressing through it and the surrounding areas.
72
« on: January 30, 2016, 06:53:53 PM »
To extrapolate--Any system where negative sensation can produce positive outcomes is a bad system.
A good system wouldn't oblige you to experience negative sensation at all.
That's the point being made. By me, anyway.
Question: why do you think that you (or anyone else) deserves to live in a "perfect" world?
73
« on: January 30, 2016, 06:49:29 PM »
But at the time, you dismissed it as irrelevant, because, uh...
Because I came into this thread to argue an abstract idea, that: "Science isn't about getting as much information as possible" I would argue that that is the only purpose of science
when you start quantifying your statements with "modern" and "eurocentric" we're no longer discussing a philosophy in general terms. You may as well have said "but on the island of whothefuckknowswherethisislandis the people there think science is about having orgies with goats" - sure that's what that specific group of people are doing on that specific island at that specific point in history, but that's not what I was talking about.
74
« on: January 29, 2016, 03:15:23 AM »
I love how the Republican party thinks the only problem facing this country is terrorism and healthcare. These people are idiots. They never talk about education, infrastructure (I swear Trump is the only one who mentioned that), and various other things.
God I hope none of these backwards people win. People who think the "good ole days" is a relevant thing are idiots.
Trump makes a point at every rally to say something along the lines of "I'm ending common core"
75
« on: January 29, 2016, 03:07:02 AM »
>crash car >stumble out in shock >gets shot for no fucking reason >instinctively clutches the wound >gets shot again and dies By the way, the man wore his pistol on his RIGHT, yet he grabs his LEFT 
76
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:01:49 PM »
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method
A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses: "Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses"
No hypothesis can be positively proven; science seeks to compile evidence against a null hypothesis to establish further evidence of an alternate hypothesis. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method by believing it can prove anything; science exists solely to disprove.
I still don't know what this petty argument has to do with your claim that science exists to gather data. As your flowchart pointed out, that's just one of my facets of the scientific method.
No shit that's why I said "confirm" not "disprove". You can confirm a hypothesis
No, you can't. This is some grade-A semantics-based damage control. You cannot confirm a hypothesis, as science is founded on the concept that any hypothesis can be overturned by sufficient evidence. Literally anybody who has presented statistical research can tell you that this is a very basic principle of hypothesis testing. And this still has nothing to do with your original statement that the sole purpose of science is to gather as much information as possible.
Let's run through a simple experiment Hypothesis: a capacitor's discharge can be modeled with an exponential function Evidence: take some measurements with an ammeter and plot them on a graph Oh what do you know it behaves as expected, hypothesis confirmed. But of course you can't prove that it's actually an exponential curve as you'd have to take infinitely many measurements of infinite precision, and have the data match the theoretical equation perfectly at every point (you should know how functions of a real variable behave), so we can't prove the hypothesis despite it being confirmed. Semantics are important, this is elementary logic and the foundations of maths and by extension science. Stop misinterpreting your lack of knowledge as my fault.
77
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:50:32 PM »
Never have I said such a thing. science is not the simplistic, elementary definition. You just said it again. Have some self awareness and learn to distinguish between the definition of a thing, and the practices of certain people in certain countries.
78
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:42:48 PM »
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method
A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses: "Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses"
No hypothesis can be positively proven; science seeks to compile evidence against a null hypothesis to establish further evidence of an alternate hypothesis. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method by believing it can prove anything; science exists solely to disprove.
I still don't know what this petty argument has to do with your claim that science exists to gather data. As your flowchart pointed out, that's just one of my facets of the scientific method.
No shit that's why I said "confirm" not "disprove". You can confirm a hypothesis but you can confirm that evidence is consistent with your hypothesis (confirming your hypothesis) but you cannot prove that it is the correct hypothesis. The distinction is a subtle one and you've only shown your own lack of understanding by missing it.
79
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:36:38 PM »
I mean, sure, you technically can have science without ethics, but that's fallen out of fashion decades ago. It does not exist today as legitimately recognized science by any reputable organization. The standards science to which science is held have factually changed.
Conflating the scientific method with science is not correct in any universe, you pseudointellectual oaf.
This entire time you have been failing to comprehend the very definition of a word and instead think that it depends upon the current year's interpretation of it. This is the most elementary kind of logic conceivable, this is toddler level "here's what an apple is" and yet you've been incapable of understanding it. I'd say that your head is too far up your own arse to even use the word pseudo-intellectual but this is quickly running up against the rules the board.
80
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:25:06 PM »
Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics".
Arguing that science isn't concerned with ethics because a 5th-grader's flowchart of the scientific method doesn't say "ethics" is incredibly facile.
Since you and him both have failed to understand the dictionary definition of the word, of course I'm going to have to resort to simpler means. What part of "Let me make this real fucking simple for you" don't you understand?
81
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:23:28 PM »
No that's called "the definition of the thing we are discussing". The scientific method is what it is precisely because it's so simple. It works because it's nearly impossible to misinterpret it.
See my edit:
not to mention that the scientific method is not the same thing as science itself. That you're conflating the two shows how little you actually know about the subject.
Posting an image macro doesn't make you intelligent either. I'm conflating the two because that is the entire point of definitions, the fact that you have to prefix science with "ethical" is because you can have science without ethics, because they're optional.
82
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:18:39 PM »
tl;dr the only real defintion of science is the systematic study of the universe. The qualifications for science have demonstrably changed over the course of human history.
Are you trying to say that the definition that I've been repeating the entire time is correct, or that science means whatever the hell the current year wants it to? I have no clue how you arrived at #2 from what anything that I said. [/quote]This: And I'm telling you that science has evolved from that old-fashioned definition. It's irrelevant that the idea is old, it originated in ancient Greece and has worked ever since.
83
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:14:13 PM »
1. defining a new term doesn't change the meaning of the old definition
2. science does not give a damn about the age of an idea, only it's validity proven by experiment, that's what makes it science
3. Dysgenic evolution is technically evolution, but you're bordering on misusing that world completely.
God, you are so fucking retarded.
Let me make this real fucking simple for you:
 Literally the very definition of science in picture format. Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics".
Now answer the question: can you read?
That's a disingenuous oversimplification.
No that's called "the definition of the thing we are discussing". The scientific method is what it is precisely because it's so simple. It works because it's nearly impossible to misinterpret it.
84
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:12:34 PM »
That is the very definition of the scientific method.
"Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses so as to inform theories that allow for the collection of more data, repeat ad infinitum"
This is not an accurate definition of the scientific method.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-methodA method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses:
85
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:10:41 PM »
1. defining a new term doesn't change the meaning of the old definition
2. science does not give a damn about the age of an idea, only it's validity proven by experiment, that's what makes it science
3. Dysgenic evolution is technically evolution, but you're bordering on misusing that world completely.
God, you are so fucking retarded.
Let me make this real fucking simple for you: Literally the very definition of science in picture format. Notice the distinct lack of the word "ethics". Now answer the question: can you read?
86
« on: January 28, 2016, 02:00:15 PM »
But to make things crystal clear: Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses so as to inform theories that allow for the collection of more data, repeat ad infinitum.
This is a very odd and incomplete way of describing science, and I think you'd find that not many scientists agree with it.
That is the very definition of the scientific method. If you are going to say that the scientific method is not scientific then you've gone off the deep end. Spoiler And I hate to point it out, but argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and it's particularly stupid to use it when talking science since the only consensus that matters is the one supported by evidence regardless of popularity. Modern, Eurocentric science is not that. Ethics may as well be a prerequisite.
Nobody said "Modern Eurocentric", the claim is that Science is not concerned with questions of ethics because the scientific method makes it very clear that that kind of thinking is optional. Presenting a case where that option was taken is just answering a question that wasn't asked.
And I'm telling you that science has evolved from that old-fashioned definition.
1. defining a new term doesn't change the meaning of the old definition 2. science does not give a damn about the age of an idea, only it's validity proven by experiment, that's what makes it science 3. Dysgenic evolution is technically evolution, but you're bordering on misusing that world completely.
87
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:45:23 PM »
Modern, Eurocentric science is not that. Ethics may as well be a prerequisite.
Nobody said "Modern Eurocentric", the claim is that Science is not concerned with questions of ethics because the scientific method makes it very clear that that kind of thinking is optional. Presenting a case where that option was taken is just answering a question that wasn't asked.
88
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:26:44 PM »
pursue something designed to facilitate our making better-informed decision
Science isn't about getting as much information as possible
I would argue that that is the only purpose of science; hypothesis -> evidence -> theory -> repeat.
Why would you think science was anything but that?
Because it just isn't. No reputable scientist designs an experiment to just gather as much data as possible; extraneous data is a hindrance to the scientific method, not an aid. A proper study or experiment should be focused, controlled for bias, and within the scope of a specific hypothesis. We see this from investment strategy to systems engineering -- more data is not at all correlated with higher success, and is often entirely unnecessary. Probability distributions exist because systems can be modeled very accurately without being perfectly analyzed (for instance, a random sample of 2,000 people is far more than is necessary to model the entire country).
It really should go without saying, given that I'm talking about science, that I'm not referring to junk data, but useful statistically and scientifically valid information. But to make things crystal clear: Science is only about acquiring valid data that can confirm/disprove hypotheses so as to inform theories that allow for the collection of more data, repeat ad infinitum.
89
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:17:19 PM »
pursue something designed to facilitate our making better-informed decision
Science isn't about getting as much information as possible
I would argue that that is the only purpose of science; hypothesis -> evidence -> theory -> repeat.
Why would you think science was anything but that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics
Ethics is a question of philosophy/morality, not science. The very first sentence of the wiki article makes that clear; "applying ethics to science" not "applying science to science"
90
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:04:30 PM »
pursue something designed to facilitate our making better-informed decision
Science isn't about getting as much information as possible
I would argue that that is the only purpose of science; hypothesis -> evidence -> theory -> repeat. Why would you think science was anything but that?
|
Show Posts