|
Bongoman -> RE: -=Money Pigs/FinDomery - real fetish or fake? (soapbox)=- (4/14/2015 11:19:13 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bhruic
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elnard
Please, please never become a scientist. In your answer to one you are fishing for a hypothesis and looking to confirm it. You are going into the study with the intent to confirm men and women the same.
Formulating an hypothesis and then attempting to prove or disprove it is not how science works? Strangely, it doesn't surprise me that you think that.
quote:
Did they give the same answer? Well shit, I obviously asked the wrong question. Let me keep asking questions until I get results that confirm my bias. Yeah, don't see much scientific method here.
As opposed to your method? Ask one question and if they answer the same, Voila! You have proven there is no difference between them?
quote:
2. Uh oh, they didn't display good faith. Essentially what can you do about it? Find another group and tell them to display good faith? Well if they are liars, what if they say absolutely I'll participate in good faith.
Essentially then you are saying that honesty is unknowable, or at least unreliable, and so any kind of science that relies on human communication is invalid. It's an odd opinion, and an utterly useless one... but whatever. It's yours, and I'm not likely to disabuse you of it.
quote:
So again I ask without entering the domain, how can you observe anything in it? You are so adamant you have the answer men and women have different minds, and I've never seen anyone be so adamant about such a harmful unjustified belief with so little evidence...
I'm also adamant that things fall down, not up, and that we orbit the sun, and that evolution is a fact... guess I'm just stubborn that way.
quote:
Oh wait I have. People run their mouths off all the time about how they have specific insight into realms or domains we as human beings have no access to. You're about as right about how my mind works as you are about how x is the one true god.
Haha... I don't remember saying I have any special insight, or that god exists - let alone there being a one true one - or anything about your specific mind at all.
You are certainly right though, some people do run their mouths off about things they don't know.
One thing puzzles me though... if, as you say, the human mind is unknowable, and it is therefore impossible to prove that men and women think differently - then it is equally true that it is impossible to prove that they think the same. If I am arguing from a position of ignorance, as you claim, then you are arguing from an even greater position of ignorance... since I am, at least, willing to consider the apparent evidence - right or wrong - around me.
You're mention of god is telling, as you appear to believe what you believe on faith... and there is no reasoning with faith.
Yes formulating a hypothesis is how science works. However, throwing out the data until you get results that you like to prove your hypothesis is not how science works. They hypothesis is the least important part, the important part is asking the question. The hypothesis only exists because it's impossible to be curious enough to ask a question if you don't believe there is an answer.
No, it's not ask one question. I never said that. First off the idea of asking questions to prove all women think differently from all men is beyond a terrible idea. But generally, you don't test something once, but a period of cases. What you were advocating before was keep testing cases until I get the answer I want, rather than forcing yourself to stop after a number of cases whether or not you like the answer.
So knowing that, I amend the original case so you can't say "I ask more questions":
1. What if, if you use scientific method correctly and ask 100 questions designed before the study, the results were the same as I originally posed. You pick the number that destroys the study, I don't care because it's honestly a terrible way to conduct a study. 98% the same, 91% the same, you pick the number.
And yes, honesty is unreliable. On that you are correct. However, you are not correct about any science relying on human communication being invalid. If I am testing the speed of words through the doppler effect and how they compare in different languages, I am testing something involving communication that doesn't involve unreliable human honesty.
Your ignorance on this matter is particularly the reason for the larger problem. You seem to want to obtain knowledge, you agree with Newtonian physics and evolution, but on this issue you are adamant about a position with no evidence. That's not ok because your ignorance compounds and ping pongs off others, and more ignorance is bred when the unfound belief that we are different and therefore need to be treated differently snakes its way through society like a bad air.
And say what you want about your idealistic notion of "well people are different but I treat them the same" because that is inherently bogus. You don't treat people the same if you believe they are different. You run a script in your mind that checks for conditions to decide how to treat them, and there's a big fat old condition near the top of that that says man or woman.
And yes, you probably knew that I knew you were going to bring up arguing from ignorance. And you also probably knew I would have a response ready for that. So it probably actually wasn't even worth bringing up.
The difference in how we treat the unknowable is that you are removing an option while I am leaving the option available. I am viewing the unknowable mind in a way that starts from difference, and then moves into conditions of same as I get more knowledgeable about the person. Yours is a harmful approach, because you box off the man woman condition at the top. They don't start the algorithm from the same location because of your own ignorance, so they have less choices in moving down your script of responses.
|
|
|
|
