User Controls
Are you ready for the FACTCHECKING?
-
2020-10-20 at 1:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Trust in the scientific method, sure. Trusting the results other people claim to have gotten whilst following the tenets of the scientific method isn't very skeptical of you though, bro.
It's still reasonable to put a certain degree of trust into the scientific knowledge base just on the face of it.
It's about putting trust in the integrity of other scientists within the community who act as peer review or in some other relevant capacity.
There's a reason that false science is always ultimately uprooted.
Once somebody publishes a research study, the entire community of that particular field will be scrutinizing it (first during peer review, and then afterwards by others).
Then other scientists try to replicate the study.
If they can't replicate the same results, shit hits the fan.
Pseudoscientific studies are rescinded all the time. A particularly famous example is the first vaccines==>autism study.
To distrust scientific knowledge is equivalent to positing a conspiracy theory. -
2020-10-20 at 1:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks I get what you're saying, and in turn, I guess I now get what that teacher was trying to say…
But, that explanation he gives is just plain shitty.
At least use an analogy, like pieces of a pie or something, if you want to explain remainders.
The way he explains it is incredibly confusing.
I actually used to tutor kids in math way back when, and I can think of so many better ways to explain it over that trainwreck the teacher gave.
To be fair, this looks like a test. Analogies are useful for teaching, but if they're testing to see if the kid has a grasp on the concept of "making 10s", throwing an analogy into the mix to make it easier to solve isn't going to show if a kid is struggling with base concept.
Common core math is just anathema to the way we learned to do math. It's also ironic that America decided to adopt a system of teaching math which essentially turns every equation into the metric system, but they still insist on using imperial.
Originally posted by gadzooks Also, note that he adds 3 to the 10 at the end.
As if it wasn't confusing enough.
Yeah, that was unnecessary/had no real relation to the initial question which adds to the confusion a bit I guess. On the other hand, the teacher could have just been trying to show how - after getting that 10 - you'd reach the result of the equation. *shrug* -
2020-10-20 at 1:10 AM UTC
-
2020-10-20 at 1:10 AM UTC***ffs double post
-
2020-10-20 at 1:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai It's also ironic that America decided to adopt a system of teaching math which essentially turns every equation into the metric system, but they still insist on using imperial.
Don't even get me started on the imperial system.
I'm an impcuck myself, though, to be honest (I kinda just made up that term).
I measure everything in metric, except for body height, body weight, and likely penis length (if I were to ever bother measuring that). -
2020-10-20 at 1:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks It's still reasonable to put a certain degree of trust into the scientific knowledge base just on the face of it.
It's about putting trust in the integrity of other scientists within the community who act as peer review or in some other relevant capacity.
Yes, having faith in science is usually a safe bet.
Originally posted by gadzooks There's a reason that false science is always ultimately uprooted.
That's mighty optimistic and idealistic of you, and doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can really prove is true. It's kind of a tautological line of reasoning - it's more accurate to say that when false science is discovered it is uprooted. Eventually. Usually.
Originally posted by gadzooks Once somebody publishes a research study, the entire community of that particular field will be scrutinizing it (first during peer review, and then afterwards by others).
Peer review panels consist of a tiny fraction of the field, and the only people interested in any given study are going to be people to whose own research it is relevant.
Originally posted by gadzooks Then other scientists try to replicate the study.
Ideally, eventually this happens yes.
Originally posted by gadzooks If they can't replicate the same results, shit hits the fan.
If one study fails to replicate something that is accepted as dogma within a given field, it's going to take more than that for shit to hit the proverbial fan. At that point you've got 1 point for and 1 point against.
Originally posted by gadzooks To distrust scientific knowledge is equivalent to positing a conspiracy theory.
To distrust something is not the same as positing a completely alternate, unfounded theory. Simply saying "I don't trust that" is not equivalent to saying "actually this is true instead, it was revealed to me in a dream sent by fucking liserd men".The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-10-20 at 1:21 AM UTCPenis length always rounds up to the nearest meterThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-10-20 at 1:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra yeah?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
***@gadzooks
I know all about the replication crisis. In fact, I had that in mind while I was saying what I was saying.
Science is not 100% perfect, but it's self-adjusting.
You will occasionally see bad studies pop up, but they are always the exception and never the typical case.
The big, politically charged questions, like vaccinations and climate change for example (and probably COVID too), are replicated with scrutiny to explicitly deal with the replication crisis.
To be fair, though, I do not claim the scientific knowledge base to be 100% correct, just damn near that number. Enough to instill confidence, at least. -
2020-10-20 at 1:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Yes, having faith in science is usually a safe bet.
That's mighty optimistic and idealistic of you, and doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can really prove is true. It's kind of a tautological line of reasoning - it's more accurate to say that when false science is discovered it is uprooted. Eventually. Usually.
Peer review panels consist of a tiny fraction of the field, and the only people interested in any given study are going to be people for who it relevant to their own research.
Ideally, eventually this happens yes.
If one study fails to replicate something that is accepted as dogma within a given field, it's going to take more than that for shit to hit the proverbial fan. At that point you've got 1 point for and 1 point against.
To distrust something is not the same as positing a completely alternate, unfounded theory. Simply saying "I don't trust that" is not equivalent to saying "actually this is true instead, it was revealed to me in a dream sent by fucking liserd men".
Didnt read lol gay fag -
2020-10-20 at 1:21 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks I know all about the replication crisis. In fact, I had that in mind while I was saying what I was saying.
Science is not 100% perfect, but it's self-adjusting.
You will occasionally see bad studies pop up, but they are always the exception and never the typical case.
The big, politically charged questions, like vaccinations and climate change for example (and probably COVID too), are replicated with scrutiny to explicitly deal with the replication crisis.
To be fair, though, I do not claim the scientific knowledge base to be 100% correct, just damn near that number. Enough to instill confidence, at least.
Replicate my dick -
2020-10-20 at 1:22 AM UTCTea, earl grey, hardThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-10-20 at 1:23 AM UTC
-
2020-10-20 at 1:27 AM UTCI agree with the majority of your points.
I have take minor issue with your use of the word "faith" to describe what you're describing, but I'll concede in the interest of not splitting too fine a hair.
Originally posted by Meikai If one study fails to replicate something that is accepted as dogma within a given field, it's going to take more than that for shit to hit the proverbial fan. At that point you've got 1 point for and 1 point against.
I'm also not super comfortable with the term dogma here, but I'll concede this point too because it's probably still trivial difference in our terms.
Originally posted by Meikai To distrust something is not the same as positing a completely alternate, unfounded theory. Simply saying "I don't trust that" is not equivalent to saying "actually this is true instead, it was revealed to me in a dream sent by fucking liserd men".
I did not mean to insinuate that you believe in any crazy theories.
I just used the examples that I did to illustrate a point. -
2020-10-20 at 1:28 AM UTCI will insinuate it.
-
2020-10-20 at 1:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks I agree with the majority of your points.
I have take minor issue with your use of the word "faith" to describe what you're describing, but I'll concede in the interest of not splitting too fine a hair.
I'm also not super comfortable with the term dogma here, but I'll concede this point too because it's probably still trivial difference in our terms.
Oh come now, I think we both know I used the words "faith" and "dogma" with every intent for you to disagree with their usage. I see science as a religion (the best one yet, credit where it's due) and myself as one of its most orthodox practitioners - if one has no empirical evidence for something (read: first hand, personally experienced, data gathered from one's own observations), they should not treat it as something that is known. At best all anyone can do is have faith in a thing for which they possess no empirical evidence. With science that faith is just a little more well-founded than with other religions.
Originally posted by gadzooks I did not mean to insinuate that you believe in any crazy theories.
I just used the examples that I did to illustrate a point.
If I seemed a little unnecessarily aggressive there, it wasn't because I felt personally attacked. More that I was frustrated with your unorthodox heresy, that you would compare being aware of the limitations of the extent of your own knowledge with being a conspiracy theorist. Shameful, really. You secular types. smh -
2020-10-20 at 1:41 AM UTCMy hed almost explode
-
2020-10-20 at 1:42 AM UTC
-
2020-10-20 at 1:44 AM UTC
-
2020-10-20 at 1:49 AM UTC"then add 3" is an after thought. I don't understand how people that do common core don't fuck up the equation and forget to add these invisible phantom ghost numbers that only exist in the aether.
That's a lot to keep track of. I would forget what i'm taking what from unless I wrote it down, so how is this supposed to make it easier in your head.
Maybe i'm just stupid
-
2020-10-20 at 1:50 AM UTCNo hablo ingles
