Why Are Scientists Overwhelmingly on The Left?

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 207
#91
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
That wasn’t part of the hypothetical. I always find it telling when someone cannot answer a hypothetical without concocting new factors to suit their position and then bootstrapping them onto the original question.
Ah but see, what I’m doing is called critical thinking. You on the other hand just see 9 doctors and you’ll agree with whatever they say.

You understand full well that this hypothetical was intended to be as simple as possible in order to focus in on a very simple idea which you are not trying to obfuscate, so this is just dishonest.

As far as you can tell, all doctors are of equal qualifications. Now what?
You telling me that’s true is akin to the authority telling me it’s true. I’ll do my own research and get back to you.


#92
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
First we’ll have to agree that most doctors will somewhat know what they’re talking about. Do you agree? If not, then this is a lost cause. 
I cannot agree to something which I can't verify. I don't know what most doctors know, which would be necessary for me to determine that they know that about which they're talking. Wasn't that one of your points?

If you however ask me to presume that doctors have accumulated a sufficient amount medical expertise which is consistent with standards of licensed practicing physicians, then yes I can make that presumption, but nothing more.

But something just occurred to me which I think may qualify this debate. Let me ask you: would you take the recommendation of nine third year residents, or a single attending physician who has been practicing medicine for 30 years?


I wasn’t referring to you specifically.

My original statement: “In general, quantity of professional opinion is quality.”

Do you know the old saying, if in doubt, get a second opinion? It’s a saying for those too ignorant to know otherwise. 

I’m not using ignorant as an adjective. 
You still haven't answered the question. If surgery is necessary, why is it being qualified as "opinion"?



#93
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
So to be clear, you believe that anytime you follow what a majority of experts in a given field conclude, you are more likely to be wrong and subsequently suffer the consequences for it. Is that correct?

Anytime I believe there's a reason to avoid checking the facts and data, I am more likely to be wrong, regardless of what the majority thinks.
#94
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
This entire exchange proves without a doubt why the left cannot be trusted with "science"

It appears that "might makes right" is the only logic necessary for them...
#95
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
You're getting piled on in this thread, and I see no reason that our conversation has to eat into either of our Saturday's, so I will let this be my final statement: 

The conversation started because you claimed that only the left is interested in "reality." I responded, nah there are dumb people and dumb beliefs on both sides and whatever you think is more important is just subjective. I demonstrated components of the two most important issues to the left, racial justice and covid, where the commonly held viewpoint by leftists is *objectively* wrong. I also showed increasingly unscientific attitudes from leftists, such as wanting to censor dissent--the exact opposite of science! 

I would be HIGHLY interested in a survey that asks people objective facts such as "in what years was the civil war fought, and who won", "How many planets orbit the sun?" "What is the chemical compound for water?" "what is the 13th amendment to the US constitution about?" "who was the President before George W. Bush?", etc and see who fares better. I'm genuinely not sure which "side" would do better but I don't think the results would be skewed enough to give anyone bragging rights. So much ignorance in our society 

I bug you a lot on this website because I am pretty convinced (~70%) that people like you are going to win in the medium term, and will make the rules that I have to live by during the prime of my life, if not forever. But you're one of the only conventional but highly partisan leftists who is willing to talk instead of just hurl insults or repeat slogans. I'm trying to understand what I'm in for, and I really am learning. I genuinely did not even consider that you wouldn't look at evidence regarding mask mandates because an authority figure supported the mandates. The US really is becoming an authoritarian country, but nobody seems to know the rules yet.
Topic's author
#96
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
I cannot agree to something which I can't verify. I don't know what most doctors know, which would be necessary for me to determine that they know that about which they're talking. Wasn't that one of your points?
All I said is we’ll have to agree that they do. Presumption is built in. Stop trying to make strawmen, seriously.

If you however ask me to presume that doctors have accumulated a sufficient amount medical expertise which is consistent with standards of licensed practicing physicians, then yes I can make that presumption, but nothing more.
There’s the steelman. 

But something just occurred to me which I think may qualify this debate. Let me ask you: would you take the recommendation of nine third year residents, or a single attending physician who has been practicing medicine for 30 years? 
Here’s the ‘what if’ game again. Are you actually going to argue against the original argument or what? 

You still haven't answered the question. If surgery is necessary, why is it being qualified as "opinion"?
Because the person qualifying it is too ignorant to know the difference. What don’t you understand? 
#97
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
I agree 100 percent, which is why I have mad respect for Double R who gives a clear picture of what the politics are of a right brained person actually are for the rest of us left brained people that tend to use logic over feelings. All without obfuscating (mostly) with the laziness of ad-homs. 

I like to know what's in store for me.
#98
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
All I said is we’ll have to agree that they do. Presumption is built in. Stop trying to make strawmen, seriously.
And this agreement would be based on nothing verifiable. Hence, I did not. That is not an attempt to make "straw men."

There’s the steelman. 
That presumption is made by virtue of the standards which informs their license, not that they "know what they're talking about" at any given moment or situation.

Here’s the ‘what if’ game again. Are you actually going to argue against the original argument or what? 
It's not a what-if game. You never specified the experience of the doctors. So if your rationale is to hold, the prescription of nine third year residents would be more "reasonable" than a single attending physician who has been practicing for 30 years merely by virtue of there being nine third year residents. It's your fallacious reasoning, not mine.

Because the person qualifying it is too ignorant to know the difference. What don’t you understand? 
You're qualifying it as an opinion. Are you too ignorant to know the difference? You're backpedaling and purposefully obfuscating the point. In your original argument you claimed nine doctors deemed it necessary (i.e. "need") for one with chest pains to undergo surgery. You then suggested that "quantity in professional opinion is quality." If surgery needs to be done, then how is that an opinion? (Note that the proverbial patient's being too ignorant to understand the difference has nothing to do with your qualifying a doctor's prescription of necessary surgery as "opinion.")
Topic's author
#99
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
And this agreement would be based on nothing verifiable. Hence, I did not. That is not an attempt to make "straw men."
It’s not based on a lot of things. So what? It’s not based on chocolate cake, it’s not based on dolphins, it’s not based on verifiability. I didn’t allude to any of them. 

That presumption is made by virtue of the standards which informs their license, not that they "know what they're talking about" at any given moment or situation.
There goes the strawmen again. 

It's not a what-if game. You never specified the experience of the doctors. So if your rationale is to hold, the prescription of nine third year residents would be more "reasonable" than a single attending physician who has been practicing for 30 years merely by virtue of there being nine third year residents. It's your fallacious reasoning, not mine.
*sigh* I’ll ignore how petty you’re being.  They wouldn’t qualify to be considered doctors and practice. 

You're qualifying it as an opinion. Are you too ignorant to know the difference?
For many medical diagnoses I wouldn’t know fact from opinion. I’m not afraid to admit that.

You're backpedaling and purposefully obfuscating the point. In your original argument you claimed nine doctors deemed it necessary (i.e. "need") for one with chest pains to undergo surgery. You then suggested that "quantity in professional opinion is quality." If surgery needs to be done, then how is that an opinion? (Note that the proverbial patient's being too ignorant to understand the difference has nothing to do with your qualifying a doctor's prescription of necessary surgery as "opinion.")
What does it have to do with?
#100
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
It’s not based on a lot of things. So what? It’s not based on chocolate cake, it’s not based on dolphins, it’s not based on verifiability. I didn’t allude to any of them. 
You cannot get me to agree with a proposition that I can't verify; that is "so what?"

There goes the strawmen again. 
Define strawmen. I don't think you know what it means.

sigh* I’ll ignore how petty you’re being.  They wouldn’t qualify to be considered doctors and practice. 
I'm not being petty. You do know that when I refer to "residents" I'm not speaking of particular individuals who live somewhere, right?  I'm speaking of medical "residency" which all licensed physicians must do. And "residents" most certainly qualify as doctors.

For many medical diagnoses I wouldn’t know fact from opinion.
Hold that thought.

What does it have to do with?
If you can't tell fact from opinion many a time with respect to medical diagnoses, then how do nine "opinions" become more "reasonable" than one?


Topic's author
#101
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
You cannot get me to agree with a proposition that I can't verify; that is "so what?"
Yet you state… “If you however ask me to presume that doctors have accumulated a sufficient amount medical expertise which is consistent with standards of licensed practicing physicians, then yes I can make that presumption, but nothing more.”

Define strawmen. I don't think you know what it means.
You’re contrasting the same argument. You’re steelmanning one side while strawmanning the other. You’re a bad faith actor.  A strawman is when you weaken your opponents argument by exaggeration or other means.

I'm not being petty. You do know that when I refer to "residents" I'm not speaking of particular individuals who live somewhere, right?  I'm speaking of medical "residency" which all licensed physicians must do. And "residents" most certainly qualify as doctors. 
You’re right. It’s not that hard to admit when you’re wrong. You should try it.

If you can't tell fact from opinion many a time with respect to medical diagnoses, then how do nine "opinions" become more "reasonable" than one? 
The original argument is that it would be more likely that 9/10 doctors would be correct apposed to the one. 
#102
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Reece101
The original argument is that it would be more likely that 9/10 doctors would be correct apposed to the one. 

The studies are either repeatable or they are not repeatable. More or less correct does not apply to science. It either is or it is not.
#103
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
#104
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
But despite his terrible personnel choices and his embarrassing antics, Trump's term of office was a peaceful and prosperous one, seeing unprecedent economic gains for the working class (https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf) and…
Tempting as it may be to go down this road, none of this is relevant. When I said show me another Trump I was referring to another politician who lies the way he does. You mentioned Adam Schiff but again, he’s not a comparison. However much you think he lies, he wouldn’t claim his inauguration had the biggest crowd in history knowing we actually have cameras.

To your credit you did mention that there was no equivalent, so I guess that’s a start…

I already did, 2/3rds of Democrats believed that Russia changed the vote tallies in 2016.
And I already explained to you why this is a nonsense comparison. You can’t show me one single prominent left wing figure in politics or media making this claim, nor can you show me one actual policy passed or even proposed anywhere in a democratically controlled legislature based on this claim.

Meanwhile the claim that the 2020 election was stolen has *dominated* right wing media and right wing policy for the entire first half of this year. And there’s the fake election audit in Arizona, do we really need to get into that or the multiple states that saw what’s going on there and thought “yeah let’s try that here”?

The funny thing is I never even heard of this claim till you brought it up here, and I consume quite a bit of news from all spectrums so to me this sounds like complete bullshit TBH.

Donald Trump being a Russian asset since 1987 is a cool conspiracy theory
The difference is that one is actually based on facts, the other is based on a denial of facts.

It is a fact that Trump is a Russian asset. Do you really deny that?

COVID and Racial Justice were the two most important issues to Biden voters in 2020, and yet their understanding of these issues had incredibly serious flaws
Sure they do, so what? All you’re doing is finding one tiny piece of a large and complex issue and using that to paint the entire issue as if it were all based on fantasy. Racial justice is about everything from history, to economics, to policing, to the personal experiences of those who actually know what it’s like to be told to go back to your country when you’re already in it. So pointing to police homicide statistics as a means of delegitimizing the entire issue just shows the level of desperation it takes to try and make this appear equal.

Same goes for COVID. No one is walking around calculating what their odds are of dying if they catch COVID, they’re thinking about the possibility of themselves or someone they care about being killed because of it, something over 600k families in the past year have actually experienced. They’re thinking about the morgue trucks Texas had to scramble because they ran out of room for dead bodies. They’re thinking about Alabama who has had no ICU beds available for two weeks now and counting.

Do you think being a police officer is dangerous? Well in 2020 more police officers died of Covid than in the line of duty. So pretending that misconceptions in statistics blows up the whole issue is complete nonsense.

I also showed you extremely powerful, all but overwhelming evidence that forcing children in schools to wear masks, for which the efficacy is questionable, or forcing people to wear masks outside are bad policies supported by large majorities of Democrats, but you refuse to talk about this because an authority figure disagrees.
The reason I refuse to talk about it is because (A) that’s not the subject of our conversation, and (B) I don’t have that much of an ego to think that my reading of an article makes me more knowledgeable and qualified than the CDC to weigh in on the efficacy of masks. 

But going back to A, we’re talking about whether the left and the right are equal and you keep going back to this. Essentially your argument is “the evidence of the left’s disregard for reality is the fact that they listen to the CDC over the articles that Thett3 says they should be listening to”

You know what, maybe you are correct. Maybe you really do understand this stuff better than the CDC and the FDA because you read an article. That still does nothing to make your case. Please explain how listening to the CDC = a lack of regard for reality. 
Topic's author
#105
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
The studies are either repeatable or they are not repeatable. More or less correct does not apply to science. It either is or it is not.
You do know this is about statistics right? I would like to look at the averages while you guys would rather play what-ifs.
#106
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Determining accuracy based on the mere number of doctors is fallacious reasoning consistent with argumentum ad populum.

No, it’s not. First of all, you are confusing inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning. We’re not talking about the latter. I’m not saying the 9 doctors are right because they overwhelmingly outnumber the 1, I’m saying the 9 doctors are more likely right because they overwhelmingly outnumber the 1. And if we accept that they are more likely to be right then we are acting reasonable to follow their guidance, while doing the opposite would be unreasonable.

What you are missing in your fallacious equivocation is this concept we call expertise. There is a reason why when your car breaks down you take it to a mechanic and not a plumber. There is a reason why you would hire a lawyer to represent you in court and not an accountant. And those are the same reasons why we defer to institutions like the CDC instead of googling the issue ourselves and coming to our own conclusions about subject matter that takes years of study to understand.

You claim listening to the 9 instead of the 1 is a logical fallacy. Well how about listening to 1 out of 1? Cause that is literally what damn near every person in earth including (I’m willing to bet) yourself does.

If relying on the expertise of others is a logical fallacy then someone should really tell that to those running our justice system and let them know that putting expert witnesses on the stand should be rejected out of hand and that all jurors should be told to substitute their own expertise in instead. After all they all have Google so apparently they’re all just as capable of making informed decisions as those who spent their lives studying it.
#107
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
Bad example, because if you have chest pains and might need surgery the threat tends to be imminent. 
It’s not a bad example, you guys just love to overcomplicate it.

All I asked you was, based on the hypothetical I gave, what was most reasonable to believe? That’s it. I didn’t ask what you should go out and do about it. I didn’t ask whether you should give up on being your own advocate. What is most reasonable to believe? That’s all.

Clearly, believing the 9 is more reasonable than believing the 1. Now if you want to argue that the next course of action is to go study the issue and reach your own conclusion then I ask you… why go to any doctor in the first place? Why not just self diagnose and go get the surgery or not based on your own research? Please explain to me how the expertise of those who do this for a living  factors into your position such that you would take the action that corresponds to your own conclusion over that of 90% of the experts that weighed in on it.
#108
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
The conversation started because you claimed that only the left is interested in "reality."
This thread is about why scientists are overwhelmingly on the left. My comment expresses my view that the left values reality in a way the right does not. It’s a general statement, first of all. But more importantly having that value doesn’t make you perfect, and I never implied otherwise.

What you’ve done in this thread is akin to comparing two companies on safety, and even though one company had 200% more workplace accidents, called them both equal because both companies had accidents. And then, accused me of claiming the company with less accident was perfect and/or have done nothing wrong with regards to their safety measures because I won’t call them equal.

I would be HIGHLY interested in a survey that asks people objective facts such as "in what years was the civil war fought, and who won", "How many planets orbit the sun?" "What is the chemical compound for water?" "what is the 13th amendment to the US constitution about?" "who was the President before George W. Bush?", etc and see who fares better
I’m not sure why, these questions would certainly have nothing to do with our conversation. I feel like this is part of the problem here; you seem to be conflating valuing truth with education. Those are two completely different things. The right might know more about certain subjects or at least more about certain pieces of those subjects, but that doesn’t mean they value truth any more or even as much. We all tend to know more about things that are important to us, and things tend to become important to us when we feel like they’re under threat. I mean when was the last time you googled articles rejecting the CDC’s guidance on anything? And why?

Survey questions are a horrible way to go about determining which side values truth. It’s not about who knows more, it’s about how far each side will go to avoid having to accept truths that are not convenient to them.

I genuinely did not even consider that you wouldn't look at evidence regarding mask mandates because an authority figure supported the mandates.
What you didn’t consider was that I would stick to the subject and not get dragged down these rabbit holes. You and I, two people that as far as I am aware have no expertise in epidemiology debating whether masks are effective plays no productive role in the greater conversion of which side values truth. Our posts were long enough without it.

In another thread perhaps, but I’m honestly not that interested in the masking debate, I just don’t find it interesting. What I’m far more interested in is why people who have no expertise in the subject think they know better than the experts. If the experts overwhelmingly tell us [insert obscure scientific fact here] I’m pretty sure you would have no problem accepting it and moving on with your life. But suddenly when it becomes political you deem those on the other side who do the same thing to be thoughtless sheep. Why?
#109
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
No, it’s not. First of all, you are confusing inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning. We’re not talking about the latter. I’m not saying the 9 doctors are right because they overwhelmingly outnumber the 1, I’m saying the 9 doctors are more likely right because they overwhelmingly outnumber the 1. And if we accept that they are more likely to be right then we are acting reasonable to follow their guidance, while doing the opposite would be unreasonable.
This is perhaps one of the most nonsensical arguments  I've read. "It's not fallacious because I'm not actually stating that they're right, but that they're 'more likely' to be right as a result of the nine to one comparison"? Furthermore, the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is irrelevant. Your premise is fallacious.

What you are missing in your fallacious equivocation is this concept we call expertise.
How is this at all qualified by the number of those who bear this expertise? Expertise is expertise. Perhaps you can address the point Reece attempted to obfuscate. If there are nine third year residents and one attending physician who's practiced for over 30 years, whose prescription do you take? The one attending physician? Or the nine third year residents?

You claim listening to the 9 instead of the 1 is a logical fallacy.
No. You claimed that it was more reasonable to assume the prescription of the nine doctors to be more accurate because nine doctors by their mere number are "more likely" to be right when compared with the remaining one doctor. And this is logically fallacious because it imputes the consensus fallacy, i.e. argumentum ad populum, the description of which I previously provided.

If relying on the expertise of others is a logical fallacy
No one here has argued this.
#110
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
I’ve always wondered that. 
SCIENCE = FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS

SCIENCE = PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE SHARING

CAPITALISM REWARDS PROPRIETARY SECRETS

CAPITALISM REWARDS LEVERAGING SECRETS AGAINST THE PUBLIC
#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
argumentum ad populum
Be eternally vigilant against all appeals to popularity and appeals to authority and appeals to ignorance.

Especially of those who combine all three.
#112
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Science and equality and reason and human rights all emerged together hand in hand from the Age of Reason.  The Right-wing gets its truth from church and country, the Left-wing gets its truth from consistent results.  Science and liberalism are on the same search for reasoned truth, while the Right most believes that the essential truth is already achieved.
OPERATION PAPERCLIP
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
It is because highly intelligent people are compassionate.
I would love that to be true.

Results: Pearson's correlation between RPM IQ and total PCL-R score was negative (r(54) = -0.55, p < 0.001); women with greater psychopathy traits (total PCL-R score) had lower IQ scores. Negative correlations were also found between IQ and the four PCL-R subscales, Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle and Antisocial (r(54) = -0.35, p < 0.01, r(54) = -0.52, p < 0.001, r(54) = -0.53, p < 0.001, and r(54) = -0.49, p < 0.001 respectively).

Conclusions: The results indicate a general negative relationship between PCL-R and IQ, equally distributed across the four subcomponents of the psychopathic trait, and support the view that **unsuccessful** psychopathic women have poor planning and are unable to foresee and represent future consequences of their actions. [**]

The incidence of psychopathy among CEOs, for instance, is four times higher than the general population, reports journalist Jon Ronson in his book "The Psychopath Test."

"Basically, when you get them talking, [psychopaths] are different than human beings," Ronson told Forbes. "They lack things that make you human: empathy, remorse, loving kindness."

In studying psychopaths, researchers Paul Babiak and Robert Hare found that the high-stakes, high-profits corporate environment attracts these dysfunctional personalities. [**]

ALSO,

OPERATION PAPERCLIP
#114
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
What you’ve done in this thread is akin to comparing two companies on safety, and even though one company had 200% more workplace accidents, called them both equal because both companies had accidents. And then, accused me of claiming the company with less accident was perfect and/or have done nothing wrong with regards to their safety measures because I won’t call them equal.
Well stated.
#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
It’s not about who knows more, it’s about how far each side will go to avoid having to accept truths that are not convenient to them.
Great point.
#116
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
I really don't understand how people don't get that if 1 out of 10 EQUALLY qualified doctors disagrees, then whatever the the issue is, it ISNT SCIENCE...

You don't see 1 out of 10 doctors debating Einstein's laws....

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

"The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.”"


It's not the 9 qualified doctors we need to rapidly bobble our heads at, it's the 1 EQUALLY qualified doctor that insists we hold up a minute that deserves our utmost attention and consideration.
#117
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
If a majority of people believe something it doesn’t make it true.


#118
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I really don't understand how people don't get that if 1 out of 10 EQUALLY qualified doctors disagrees, then whatever the the issue is, it ISNT SCIENCE...

You don't see 1 out of 10 doctors debating Einstein's laws....

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

"The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.”"


It's not the 9 qualified doctors we need to rapidly bobble our heads at, it's the 1 EQUALLY qualified doctor that insists we hold up a minute that deserves our utmost attention and consideration.

If a majority of people believe something it doesn’t make it true.
Well stated.
#119
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
OPERATION PAPERCLIP
I wonder how many will do their due diligence and look into the subject and its relation to modern politics.

#120
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,610
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Because many psychopaths are charming and manipulative, people have assumed they also have above-average intelligence, says Brian Boutwell. Psychologists term this the “Hannibal Lecter myth”, referring to the fictional serial killer, cannibal and psychiatrist from the book and film The Silence of the Lambs.


But Boutwell wasn’t convinced. “Psychopaths are impulsive, have run-ins with the law and often get themselves hurt,” he says. “That led me to think they’re not overly intelligent.”
Not so smart
To investigate, Boutwell and his colleagues analysed the results of 187 published studies on intelligence and psychopathy. These papers included research on psychopaths in prison as well as those enjoying high-flying careers. They also included a range of measures of intelligence.
Overall, the team found no evidence that psychopaths were more intelligent than people who don’t have psychopathic traits. In fact, the relationship went the other way. The psychopaths, on average, scored significantly lower on intelligence tests. “I think the results will surprise a lot of people,” says Boutwell.

Matt DeLisi at Iowa State University hopes that the findings will help put the Hannibal Lecter myth to rest. “The character promulgated the notion that psychopaths were highly intelligent, and there were real offenders that embodied this, like Ted Bundy,” says DeLisi. “But I have interviewed thousands of offenders, some of which are very psychopathic, and I have found that the opposite is true.”



To recap, the psychopaths, on average, scored significantly lower on intelligence tests.