-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, If a majority of people believe in God it doesn’t make it true.
Why Are Scientists Overwhelmingly on The Left?
Posts
Total:
207
-->
@Greyparrot
If a majority of people believe something it doesn’t make it true.
Unfortunately if NOBODY OBJECTS (and or all objections are rejected prima facie) then it becomes functionally-indistinguishable from true.
-->
@FLRW
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.
this is great news.
now we just need to figure out how to "outsmart" al capone,
-->
@Greyparrot
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.
-->
@FLRW
OPERATION PAPERCLIP
-->
@3RU7AL
OPERATION PAPERCLIP
lol...but the Nazi's were all emotion and heart!
All jokes aside, the most left leaning institutions in America produce far more gender studies "scientists" than STEM scientists. Especially compared to the rest of the non-Marxist world. It's pure delusion to think science is a product of politics by any metric. If anything, the greatest concentrations of actual science almost always come from apolitical environments where diverse thought is typically not constrained nor centrally managed. (those conducive environments rarely exist in the most politically polarized universities...)
Many of those Liberal universities wouldn't even be able to sustain STEM departments if they were not heavily subsidized by non-political foreigner enrollment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurherman/2018/09/10/americas-high-tech-stem-crisis/?sh=4a54dbc5f0a2
Americans think with feelings and then wonder why they can't do the most basic level of engineering math...
-->
@FLRW
Yes, If a majority of people believe in God it doesn’t make it true.
Doesn't make what true? That they believe in God? The existence of God is not contingent on how many people believe it. God exists as a matter of definition and a matter of logical consequence.
-->
@Athias
Doesn't make what true?
That God really exists.
-->
@Athias
Yes, If a majority of people believe in God it doesn’t make it true.Doesn't make what true? That they believe in God? The existence of God is not contingent on how many people believe it. God exists as a matter of definition and a matter of logical consequence.
WARNING: ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
-->
@FLRW
That God really exists.
That's correct. The number of believers in God does not qualify God's existence.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, see Kant's refutation of the ontological argument.
-->
@FLRW
Yes, see Kant's refutation of the ontological argument.
I don't employ what is typically known as the "ontological argument" to demonstrate God's existence. (I believe I once contended against its logical consistency in a discussion with PressF4Respect.)
-->
@Athias
I don't employ what is typically known as the "ontological argument" to demonstrate God's existence.
[God "exists" as a matter of definition] may or may not be a logically coherent claim
-->
@FLRW
You are confusing psychopaths with sociopaths.
Psychopaths are always intelligent, sociopaths sometimes are and sometimes aren't.
The articles suggesting otherwise are indeed pooling sociopaths with psychopaths in their analysis.
-->
@3RU7AL
[God "exists" as a matter of definition] may or may not be a logically coherent claim
A definition of the term, "exist," incorporates spiritual being. God is a spiritual being; therefore God "exists." Lexically speaking, the dispute is resolved rather simply. If however we intend to have more fun with with the notion and explore the scope of existence and define logical parameters, I suppose we could. But as you'd recall, I'm a proponent of, how did you put it, ontological bedrock. I'd simply repeat what I've consistently stated: everything exists, and nonexistence is irrational, much more, value statements which seek to give it information.
-->
@Athias
Furthermore, the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is irrelevant. Your premise is fallacious.
The premise is that, all else being equal, it is more reasonable to believe the 9 doctors than the 1. To deny this is to take the position that it is equally as reasonable to accept the 1 over the 9. That’s absurd.
9 is greater than 1, so to claim that the 9 have no valid grounds to be accepted over the 1 is to claim that the 9 have no more expertise than the one, which if they’re all equally qualified is objectively false. So the only way to make this position logically valid is to deny the value of expertise itself like I already explained. And if that’s your position I would like to know whether you believe in doctors at all? Or mechanics, or plumbers, or accountants, etc.
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?
If you’re asking me to pick one on these grounds alone I suppose I would go with the 30 year physician, but I would consider the alternative just about as reasonable.
This is not a comparable situation. The point of my question is to test whether you believe in expertise, your hypothetical doesn’t do that because it adds unnecessary complexity into it making it useful for little more than mental masterbation.
-->
@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...
That’s because you don’t read. We’re not talking about science, we’re talking about assessing the layman’s point of view and what is most reasonable from it.
If you actually followed the conversation this stems from a discussion about whether the left following the CDC’s guidelines on masking demonstrates unreasonableness. Assuming just for the sake of argument that masks don’t actually work, the point is that those who follow the guidelines are not demonstrating a disregard for reality by doing so as others have claimed. Whether they are ultimately wrong is an entirely different question.
-->
@Double_R
Everyone here takes their intelligence for too seriously.
Here is the sequence.
1. Non-alpha men mitriculated to academia.
2. These men tended to hire non-alpha men like themselves.
3. Soon, academia was majority non-alpha men.
4. Non-alpha men tend to be liberal.
4. Scientists are grown in academia.
Slowly a peer-review system developed. These non-alpha men became gatekeepers for scientific grants.
5. Scientists quickly learned that non- liberal positions do poorly at peer-reviews and Grant money.
6. Scientists adapted to follow the money.
During the great days of science, when scientists were mostly self taught and there was no peer-review muzzle or career killing grant losses, scientists reflected the general population politically.
Today, conservatism is career death for a scientist. Today, virtually every study "confirms" the liberal mindset, but unless reality is liberal, this cannot be correct. Today, much of what passes for science is just politics.
-->
@Double_R
We’re not talking about science,
Thank you for the generous concession.
-->
@ethang5
Today, virtually every study "confirms" the liberal mindset, but unless reality is liberal, this cannot be correct.
Read this in a different tone and it's making clear what is correct.
-->
@Double_R
The premise is that, all else being equal, it is more reasonable to believe the 9 doctors than the 1.
And this is fallacious for the reasons I and others have already mentioned.
To deny this is to take the position that it is equally as reasonable to accept the 1 over the 9.
No, to deny this is to take the position that "number" doesn't not qualify "veracity."
9 is greater than 1,
No one is disputing the basic concepts of mathematics.
so to claim that the 9 have no valid grounds to be accepted over the 1 is to claim that the 9 have no more expertise than the one,
Non sequitur. No one has stated that the prescription of nine doctors isn't based on valid grounds, only the assumption that their prescription is valid because there are nine doctors in comparison to one.
which if they’re all equally qualified is objectively false.
If they're all "equally qualified" then how do marginal increases in the number of physicians affect the "quality" of their prescriptions?
So the only way to make this position logically valid is to deny the value of expertise itself like I already explained.
This isn't like labor, where the more people you assign to the task, the more you expedite the process. If all 10 doctors are"equally qualified," then taking nine of them and grouping them together doesn't mean that their expertise creates a composite of greater quantity supplanting each individual's expertise. Given your rationale, they would all know the same thing because as you stated they're all equally qualified. Heeding counsel of one, in this case, would be no different than heeding the counsel of the other nine.
And if that’s your position I would like to know whether you believe in doctors at all?
What? Do I believe they exist? Yes, doctors exist. If you're asking whether I trust the expertise of doctors, then that depends on the individual. But I sustain a bias. I come from a family lousy with physicians. I trust their expertise and their recommendations mostly because we're related.
Or mechanics, or plumbers, or accountants, etc.
Never met a mechanic in person (I've only brought my car to the dealership once, and they handled its maintenance.) I trust plumbers who answer my questions to my satisfaction, and I do my own accounting.
If you’re asking me to pick one on these grounds alone I suppose I would go with the 30 year physician, but I would consider the alternative just about as reasonable.
I made no "grounds" explicit. I merely manipulated the doctors experience since neither you nor Reece made explicit mention of said experience. And you're making my point: mere number doesn't necessarily inform what's "reasonable."
The point of my question is to test whether you believe in expertise, your hypothetical doesn’t do that because it adds unnecessary complexity into it making it useful for little more than mental masterbation.
I have no idea how this can be better explained to you. So, I'll just repeat what I've stated:
If I am having chest pains, and 9 out of 10 doctors tell me I need surgery, but the other just prescribes medication, then the "reasonable" thing to do is to determine whose assessment is accurate. Determining accuracy based on the mere number of doctors is fallacious reasoning consistent with argumentum ad populum. It could very well be the case that the one doctor's assessment is accurate. Believing 9 out of 10 doctors, because it's 9 out 10 doctors has nothing to with Medicine.
-->
@Greyparrot
We’re not talking about science,Thank you for the generous concession.
Well put.
-->
@Athias
This isn't like labor, where the more people you assign to the task, the more you expedite the process. If all 10 doctors are"equally qualified," then taking nine of them and grouping them together doesn't mean that their expertise creates a composite of greater quantity supplanting each individual's expertise. Given your rationale, they would all know the same thing because as you stated they're all equally qualified. Heeding counsel of one, in this case, would be no different than heeding the counsel of the other nine.
Ok, let’s try this again. This time even simpler.
You’re a contestant on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’. You are asked a question pertaining to the field of medicine. Being that you have no medical expertise and have no idea what the answer is, you use your lifeline to ask a crowd of 1,000 doctors. 999 of them tell you its choice A. 1 says it’s choice B. There are no other choices.
For $1 million dollars, what is your final answer and why?
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank you for the generous concession.
It wasn’t a concession genius.
-->
@ethang5
1. Non-alpha men mitriculated to academia.2. These men tended to hire non-alpha men like themselves.3. Soon, academia was majority non-alpha men.
Can you please explain what being an “alpha male” has to do with academia?
Today, conservatism is career death for a scientist. Today, virtually every study "confirms" the liberal mindset, but unless reality is liberal, this cannot be correct.
If every study confirms the “liberal mindset” then isn’t that a strong indication that it is correct? Or do you believe reality has an obligation to remain neutral when it comes to political issues?
-->
@Double_R
Slow down with the ad-homs sparky.
-->
@Double_R
You’re a contestant on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’. You are asked a question pertaining to the field of medicine. Being that you have no medical expertise and have no idea what the answer is, you use your lifeline to ask a crowd of 1,000 doctors. 999 of them tell you its choice A. 1 says it’s choice B. There are no other choices.For $1 million dollars, what is your final answer and why?
If all 1,000 doctors are "equally qualified" to provide an answer, then it doesn't matter whose counsel I take. The probability of my selecting the correct answer would be still be 50% whether I select choice A or choice B. The fact that 999 doctors chose choice A doesn't make it more reliable or "likely to be" correct as a consequence of comparing the number of doctors who chose choice A to the one doctor who chose choice B. If you are asserting that selecting choice A is correct or "more likely" to be correct because 999 is greater than one, then that is informed by your feelings; that is not medicine; that is not science; that is not statistical; that is not logical.
-->
@Athias
I would say that the one doctor who chose B probably had a brain aneurysm seconds before he selected B.
-->
@FLRW
I would say that the one doctor who chose B probably had a brain aneurysm seconds before he selected B.
Argumentum ad populum.