What would be today's equivalent preparation for logistics?
It's hard to imagine fuel pipelines working again. Or would it?
Are batteries or solar power part of this, or is that inconsequential?
It seems like everything can be dual-use...
2,531 karma · joined October 13, 2016
It's hard to imagine fuel pipelines working again. Or would it?
Are batteries or solar power part of this, or is that inconsequential?
It seems like everything can be dual-use...
If you like articles like this and want them to continue, link the source.
I don't think they are successful at keeping off political content though, in the sense that denying political content is a political statement itself in favor of the status quo.
My guess is every single video is marked by a human for how much exposure it should get, and if they let something get out that shouldn't, that person is reprimanded.
Otherwise I can't see how they could auto-decide to push out content to large audiences without something they don't like getting out.
Like, they'd only need to sift through a handful of videos to reward random publishers with thousands of views, perhaps even with fake numbers, and people would probably gobble it up.
"If you do X, I will do Y."
With that understanding, you've left your child a choice, and you are not being an authoritarian parent, provided your consequences are within reason. Many parents will simply do Y without letting their child know the consequences ahead of time. That can lead to disdain of the parent, rightfully so!
If your boss asks you to setup a meeting, and you invite a salesperson he didn't want there, and he demotes you from being "meeting organizer" for that, is it justified? Was he clear it was an engineering meeting, or tell you not to include salespeople? It depends on the context. Maybe you needed to learn something, maybe he did, or maybe you both did.
Many parenting books do not regard this as "Punishment", yet it is still discipline. See "Positive Discipline" for more on this topic.
Yes, and, expressing emotions helps us move beyond them. Holding onto them indefinitely is not necessary for them to be part of our experience.
Your emotional reaction is a choice. You can choose to both not be afraid and still walk through fire, so to speak. Proactively exercising your right to free speech will set you on the path towards the ends you desire.
I think the trick is to understand it, and once you realize what your choices are, then it's an easy decision not dictated by fear. That is, you either work towards a future where choice remains, or you concede choice until you have none left.
Yes, in some ways Asia has the opposite problem, not prescribing strong enough meds for emergency situations.
> certainly prescribing kids things like Ritalin at young ages when they're naturally a bit hyper definitely doesn't help either.
Yeah, I don't get this. Kids can't sit in class all day, with two parents working and too tired at home to bring them out after hours. People need exercise for their brains to work.
It's how they stay in power, a living army ready to deploy for anything that makes them look bad.
Sure I'd do the same for my country, but the difference is I am not forced to do it. I choose to defend our values while earning a decent living.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2492547.Medication_Madne...
I agree it seems more prevalent in your generation. We are quicker to diagnose with pills, perhaps due to their availability and our lack of understanding about long term effects.
Given the definition, why wouldn't you consider observing human behavior to be science?
>> And you're taking exception to it
TameAntelope was addressing premises to that conclusionary comment.
If the premises do not hold, then TameAntelope does not need to address that conclusion.
It's possible to form a truth about human behavior, for example, I did X because Y. If someone points my behavior out to me, then in the future I may do Z in response to Y. Human behavior can change upon observation [1]. That doesn't make the study of human behavior "not science" in my opinion.
> Aristotle didn’t do “science.” He was a philosopher. His ideas were precursors to science, but weren’t science.
In that case, I suppose you will acknowledge that Galileo did science, despite not having a lot of data points. I think Aristotle did too, because I draw the line at hypothesis, observation and conclusion, which may or may not result in some ultimate truth that remains constant.
I suppose you would also say that the double slit test is science. Yet that result changes, and there is no truth value that we can explain, except by noting that the result changes when the experiment is observed.
I think this is just more data. If we're all wrong for a longer time, then the impact will be more clear.
I agree that modern additions like preregistration are helpful. I only wanted to remark that it is not a prerequisite for science.
> by definition, these are all political issues, so they attract political arguments.
People are good at gaming systems. We are naturals at recognizing patterns and will adjust our behavior to meet our goals. In that sense, social science may be targeting a moving object, almost like the difference between observing and not observing the atoms in a double slit test.
As hard as it may be in social science, the process of hypothesizing, observing and forming conclusions is still science. For some, it appears that is not science because a definite conclusion never arrives.
Which viewpoint is correct? I think it's up to you to decide. And, when you don't grant people that choice, you get an anti-science response, because people naturally reject being told what to think. Science, for me, is about asking questions, not necessarily arriving at a definitive result.
It seems unlikely that all of social science will one day be declared as "not science". Aristotle's methods, for example, did not require a certain sample size.
You're applying far too strict of a definition to science. Basic forms of science can be practiced by a child at home. Journals publish more in-depth analyses, and it's up to them what to publish, at the risk or reward of gains and losses of readership.
[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-s...
The comment to which I was replying lacked the nuance in yours. Context is everything.
https://www.quora.com/Is-social-science-a-real-science/answe...
Humanity is observable. It's just hard to collect the data. I think you can make the case that some science isn't as rigorous, or that the jury is still out, but to say that it isn't science at all is wrong in my opinion. Even Feynman acknowledges that conclusions may be drawn later.
Aristotle philosophized quite a bit and is considered an early contributor to the scientific method. More food for thought:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-s...
So you just want it renamed to "social studies" or what? What is your proposal, that nobody research this topic, or that they be separated in journals etc? I doubt that will have much impact on whether it makes the news. If you want that to change, you may need to get yourself onto the board of a journal you care about.
> There is no baby!
That's reductive. Just because you don't see the baby doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> Doesn’t that prove the point? It wasn’t science then and isn’t science today.
No, it just proves it's an old disagreement, like nature vs nurture.
There is plenty of work in social science that contributes to humanity. It will always have smaller sample sizes due to the nature of collecting the data. The work can be considered useful nonetheless.
First of all, preregistration is not a requirement for the scientific method, which has functioned well for centuries. That is a recent trend in response to the overflowing amount of haphazardly published science.
Second, it is up to the individual scientist to decide to preregister or not. Some social scientists may preregister.
Third, small sample size may be a fair critique, however that overlooks how difficult it is to collect such data.
You've made a lot of generalizations here that amount to, "social scientists aren't as rigorous as other areas of science, therefore we should only believe studies that disagree with their results". I don't think throwing the baby out with the bath water is helpful. You can take results of studies with small sample sizes with a grain of salt, watch for replication, etc. Lambasting the field as a whole doesn't make sense to me.
Finally, readers should note that this isn't a new argument. People have been making this claim about social science for 120 years, if not longer, but at least since Freud and contemporaries began publishing.