The real difference between liberals and conservatives
blog.ted.com
blog.ted.com
Does he think he's pinned it down with these five criteria? This is why people make fun of the humanities. Sloppy, runny thinking. You could select just about any value and the two political ideologies would fall somewhere on either side of it. Those on which they aren't opposed aren't worthy of mention, and so aren't. You could play the same game all day. In fact, you might even argue that it is a defining property of a two-party system.
Kuhn and Popper should really be taught in schools more. There's this incredible propaganda people are taught in regards to science which has very little to do with how actual science is done. People get this warm and fuzzy around the general idea of "science" without the hard knuckle reality that skepticism, falsifiability, the inductive problem, and the difference between correlation and causation, just to name a few problems.
So it's easy for a soft scientist to do all sorts of amazing and miraculous things in the name of science. And heck, it sounds dead right too! Let's just not poke around behind the curtain too much, okay?
It's the ultimate in laziness. Instead of learning political theory, philosophy, economics, and history, we've got internet video! From TED! Can't get cooler than that.
Contrary to the belief of most indignant internet geeks, there's a lot more to scientific analysis than parroting "correlation vs. cause!" whenever data are presented. The fact of the matter is that, while correlation doesn't imply cause (that's the actual expression; it is rampantly mis-stated), a strong correlation is usually evidence that an underlying cause exists, whether direct or indirect in nature. Furthermore, there's not an accepted result in the history of science that doesn't depend on the analysis of correlations in observed data. Even falsifiability (that sexy buzzword of Popper-idolaters) depends on the collection of observations, and correlation of those observations with previous data. Thus, in a very real way, science is the study of correlations, and you can take the amateur correlation/cause pot-shot at any scientific result.
So, when a scientist points out that correlation does not imply cause, what she means is not that the observed relationship doesn't exist, but that the correlation could be caused by latent, indirect factors. This is a very different thing than suggesting that the result is invalid -- which is what most armchair, Popper-loving internet-scientist types are trying to do (including the parent posts).
One thing and I'll let you go. "a strong correlation is usually evidence that an underlying cause exists, whether direct or indirect in nature"
Oh really now? Well that explains my theory as to how carrots are deadly poisonous. You see, I've found a 100% correlation between the consumption of carrots and death, usually within 80 years. I'm also working on a theory that sunlight is a cause of all cancer, seeing as how there is another 100% relationship between all people with cancer and exposure to sunlight.
Science is the creation and study of models, abduction, based on the use of deduction and induction. Correlation is simply a tool used to create the model. When we forget we're comparing models, then it's easy to simply fall back on simple correlation-based arguments. That's like forgetting geometry and simply observing the circumference of a circle is usually about 3 times the diameter. It's true, but it's not creating an abstract calculus that can then be extended.
I find your continued use of "armchair scientist" to be an ad hominem, as if by using that name my argument would carry less weight. Last I checked we weren't providing credentials to express opinions.
I'm done playing. timr -- you can follow me around to another comment on the board and continue your picking. I have to go get my armchair adjusted for physics.
First, you can't "correlate" with incidence of death -- it's not even a binary variable, since everyone dies. Of course, you can correlate with onset of death, but that would make your example silly; if there were an observed acceleration in onset of death due to carrot consumption, it would only serve to illustrate the value of correlative studies in science.
Likewise with sunlight exposure -- you've just flipped the constant to the predictor (everyone has experienced sunlight exposure), and attempted to correlate with a variable output (cancer occurrence). Again, mathematical nonsense.
That said, I don't dispute anything you've said about models, abductive, deductive or inductive reasoning. But you can reason all day long, and without empirical data, you've got nothing but a castle on a cloud. Ultimately, you're always going to come back to correlating at least one observed variable with another -- the predictor, and the response. This is basic science.
Why do I refer to "armchair scientists"? Because I couldn't think of a better term to describe those people who want science to be just like math, but conveniently forget that mathematics rests entirely upon a set of fundamental axioms that are simply asserted to be true. The people who learned about one logical fallacy some time in high school, and latched on for dear life, conveniently forgetting that every scientist in the world knows about the same fallacy.
Moreover, these folks aren't familiar with the details, so they don't see that the places where mathematics most closely touch science -- quantum theory, string theory, etc. -- tend to be extraordinarily messy. The math frequently depends on assumptions and approximations that are accepted based on their similarity to observed data. For example, right now, thousands of scientists are banging subatomic particles together in a subterranean tube in France, in order to observe something that the mathematicians think might be there. If it isn't, the mathematicians get to start over.
Again: it all comes back to observing things. And as long as we're observing things that are difficult to observe, I have a feeling that cranky internet scientists will be there to argue from the comfort of an easy chair that empiricism has it all wrong.
The biopsychology of politics.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842523,00.ht...
The study, published in the September 19 [2008] issue of the journal Science, involved 46 Nebraska residents with strong political convictions. Researchers examined the link between each participant's stated political views and his or her physiological response to a perceived threat in the lab. People with stronger measurable threat responses, the study found, tended to adhere to "socially protective" political policies, or those that suggest more concern for preserving the social unit — for example, supporting the Iraq war and the death penalty, but opposing abortion rights and gay marriage.
Researchers shied away from using labels such as conservative and liberal in their study, but they concede that volunteers who registered a heightened sense of threat also tended to subscribe to conservative attitudes.
Best I can see, we're heading for a place where the quality of your ideas don't matter -- instead, we'll simply place you in an easy-to-digest psychological stereotype. The only reason I see for this is to decrease debate among the public at large -- why argue with somebody who obviously is afflicted with some malady?
I wonder why we aren't seeing the same studies being done on empiricists versus rationalists? Or terrorist versus non-terrorist? Or baseball fans versus football fans? Or religious versus non-religious?
Wait -- we are seeing religious versus non-religious. And we're seeing politics. But unless I'm mistaken, there's not a lot of research on other potentially interesting areas. (aside from the normal marketing stuff) I'll leave it to the reader to speculate as to why this is.
They were. Harm and fairness were identified as issues that both ideologies regard as being most important.
Fascinating.