"Saturday Night Live - Cut for Time: Dianne Feinstein Message - SNL" Canadians aren't allowed to see this. Americans, please repost on PeerTube or something.

submitted by JasonCarswell from youtube.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

"The Crisis of Science" by corbettreport (2019-02-22) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfHEuWaPh9Q

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Everyone knows that the data you have before the hypothesis is bogus. *sound of optimism slowly dying* I've got my hypothesis, and it's supported by the data I've seen (but I'm not putting too much weight on that right now) and I'd like to see the data that doesn't support it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Everyone knows that the data you have before the hypothesis is bogus.

Is this true? Aren't most hypotheses' experience based? Hypotheses are guesses about the possible cause of data results.

The hypotheses is documented and formalized, so you can't change the theory based on the results. Run the experiment. Analyse the findings, etc.

BTW: 99% of historical hypotheses are incorrect, as the experiment must be designed to disprove the theory.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hypotheses are guesses about the possible cause of data results.

Yup. The hypothesis is "oh, look, we've observed X. I predict that X will continue in future". As such, you can't say "X happened loads in the past, therefore it will continue in future" using the data that you used to determine your hypothesis, because you only have your hypothesis because your data said it in the first place.

Supporting your hypothesis with the data that you used to determine your hypothesis is a form of selection bias, but one with the legitimacy of being "scientifically backed". At least, it's marketed that way; it's not supported by science in reality. That study with the chocolate and slimming is a brilliant example of this.

the experiment must be designed to disprove the theory

I think we are in agreement.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Your argumentative word circles are annoying and alienating people.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He likes to disagree to undermine the argument. There's an assumption that a reader won't finish long text. Then circle back to agree in the end to placate the criticized persons.

Shill tactics.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Or maybe he's thinking out loud, processing it, and coming to a conclusion.

I'm not a fan of that kind of content but I'm not calling him a shill.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Or maybe he's thinking out loud,

Yes, that's usually what's happening. But, in this case, I was elaborating. I think that /u/Tom_Bombadil and I are actually in a rare agreement.