The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:53 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
As PZ Myers noted in his article, what we have here is "rhetorical deniability":
Quote:
Cenk Uygur nails Harris on his rhetorical deniability. Really, if you fall for his game of “here’s this evil thing I want you to think about, but I’m saying it’s evil, so don’t blame me if maybe we have to do it”, then you’re a fool.
I have to point here to a comment from the article:
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrockoford
Sam Harris and his fan boys present themselves as uber rationalists yet have real trouble with a hallmark of rationalism, which is to be able to distinguish, to the best of our ability, causes from mere coincidences, correlations, etc. So, they decided that Islam — all of Islam, not denominations or sects, Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Bahais — is directly responsible for terrorism as if Islam is a specific virus that affects any and all that come in contact with it and becomes a full-fledged disorder for many; it’s ideological Ebola.
And so it goes for other issues. IMHO it is good to call attention to unfair moves that some made on college campus when using violence against people like Murray speaking. But it does not follow that you should then conclude that what the speaker peddles is a good thing.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-19-2017 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #602  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:03 PM
nachtmusick nachtmusick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I'm more baffled that defenders of Harris and Murray do not see that they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I think the point is missed here that many of the defenders of scientific racism do grasp and use the words of Harris and others to justify their sorry paths. That some come later to claim that there is perfectly good explanation of the very reprehensible or unscientific things Harris talks about does not change that many racists do grab the "misunderstandings" and I have seen enough to conclude that Harris and others do not do much of an effort to discourage racists from running away with their "misconceptions". And I put that in quote marks because by now it is very clear what is going on regarding the "method" of discussion Harris uses.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/cenk...-policy-ideas/


http://www.alternet.org/belief/sam-h...hared-it-world


Of course Chomsky showed later how irresponsible Sam was on that.

The more I read about him the more his style of being a bit ambivalent or having the consistence of baby poop is more noticeable (this reprehensible idea is bad, but maybe..). Also that he commits a lot of the very thing his supporters and him accuse others of doing: To not read what people like Chomsky actually wrote before tossing stones. Might as well consider him as not having any opinion at all worth considering. That is what I see other critics notice too.
OK, so I don't think this is a credible post. Google "Waking Up" to find a path to Sam Harris's podcast. Decide for yourself. Pick any one of his casts - there isn't a single one that is consistent with what GIGO just wrote.
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:28 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
OK, so I don't think this is a credible post. Google "Waking Up" to find a path to Sam Harris's podcast. Decide for yourself. Pick any one of his casts - there isn't a single one that is consistent with what GIGO just wrote.
He could also try reading 'Islam and the Future of Tolerance' or 'End of Faith'.
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:29 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
OK, so I don't think this is a credible post. Google "Waking Up" to find a path to Sam Harris's podcast. Decide for yourself. Pick any one of his casts - there isn't a single one that is consistent with what GIGO just wrote.
Yep, Cenk Uygur was correct. BTW the cite I made goes directly to the email communications between Harris and Chomsky, you are indeed just trying to mislead others here.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:30 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
He could also try reading 'Islam and the Future of Tolerance' or 'End of Faith'.
Or you should read and find that the cite I made goes to the email back and forth between Harris and Chomsky.
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 05-19-2017, 12:51 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Or you should read and find that the cite I made goes to the email back and forth between Harris and Chomsky.
Okay. I'll do that. You read 'Islam and the Future of Tolerance'. It's a very short book, probably only about 50-60 pages. You can probably read it in an hour or two.
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 05-19-2017, 01:10 PM
nachtmusick nachtmusick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Yep, Cenk Uygur was correct. BTW the cite I made goes directly to the email communications between Harris and Chomsky, you are indeed just trying to mislead others here.
By steering them away from your links to any other that they might find? Give me a break.

For the record, Sam and Cenk had a marathon clear-the-air conversation, and here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU

I've sat through it, but I can't recommend it. It goes on for three hours. I will say that I think that Sam chases Cenk all over the room, but of course I would, wouldn't I?
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 05-19-2017, 03:03 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
nachtmusick, you seem to be posting to this thread a lot, so this a reminder that I've requested the following from you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
The opposition states that all variation is cultural, but they more or less prohibit research to confirm that theorem.
Not sure what you're saying here. Care to provide some examples? Some examples of "the opposition" "prohibiting research" would be good.

Last edited by Evil Economist; 05-19-2017 at 03:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 05-19-2017, 03:28 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 24,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
No I didn't.

Are you telling me I shouldn't read that book? What if, for whatever reason, I decide I want to?

Would you burn all copies of that book so as to prevent me from reading it?

As long as we are starting a fire, how about we throw Charles Murray's work upon the blaze? Or Sam Harris's?

Surely society would benefit if these foul ideas were expunged in the flames.
I'm pointing out that by the post I responded to, you wouldn't call Hitler a bigot unless you've read his book. I feel differently -- it can be reasonable to call people bigots based on other actions and words, and reading their book isn't always necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 05-19-2017, 06:42 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Ah yes, the old argument that it's not enough to be able to refute some bigoted argument being made by a person. I must read his entire book before I can make any comment.
If it's some rando? No, you don't have that obligation. If a Pulitzer-finalist and widely respected Harvard professor says the book is an "honest and intelligent dialogue" and "a superb exploration of the intellectual and moral issues involved", then yes: you are going way too far out on a limb to dismiss the book as bigoted, if you have not read it. Context, people, context. I'm pretty sure the same cannot be said about any book by, say, David Duke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I think the point is missed here that many of the defenders of scientific racism do grasp and use the words of Harris and others to justify their sorry paths. That some come later to claim that there is perfectly good explanation of the very reprehensible or unscientific things Harris talks about does not change that many racists do grab the "misunderstandings" and I have seen enough to conclude that Harris and others do not do much of an effort to discourage racists from running away with their "misconceptions".
I'm glad to see someone be a little more honest about this. I feel that this is at the heart of most of the flaming tirades against any discussion of IQ and race: the idea that regardless of what the facts show, this topic should be taboo simply because it is inherently toxic and provides succor for bad people. And this is actually a reasonable stance! Sam has said much the same many times (disagreeing with some of his fellow "horsemen" like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens), and he actually pressed Murray on this very point in the podcast.

I am sympathetic to this notion in general; but as I've said many times, it would have to go hand in hand with an implicit understanding among educators and those who set education policy to go back to the so-called "soft bigotry of low expectations". So long as teachers, school administrators, and those in charge of education policy are going to be under fire because majority-black inner city schools' test scores lag behind national averages, supporters of educators and teacher unions like me need to be able to make this counterargument for why these scores are not the fault of teachers or "failing schools". I'd be glad to never have to raise it again--sincerely--but it is a two-way street.
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:03 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
By steering them away from your links to any other that they might find? Give me a break.
You will not get it, specially when you are misrepresenting my post, as Harris loves to go about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nachtmusick View Post
For the record, Sam and Cenk had a marathon clear-the-air conversation, and here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU

I've sat through it, but I can't recommend it. It goes on for three hours. I will say that I think that Sam chases Cenk all over the room, but of course I would, wouldn't I?
No wonder, because I did check how Harris likes to debate, in one occasion he did make the point that among Muslims:

Quote:
25:29 Extremism is a false statement because extremism suggests
there is only a small percentage of people who agrees with this view.

And certainly you never get a small percentage. It may be the ultimate question. "You want the hands and feet of thieves are cut?" "You want me to kill adulterers?"
No matter what the question, you never get three percent. Or five percent.
But that avoids the fact that on a very very important issue the surveys do point out that most Muslims are indeed against Terrorism or Isis. By going for very ridiculous percentages is that then he can keep ignoring that most Muslims do not approve of terrorism.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...und-the-world/
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:09 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm glad to see someone be a little more honest about this. I feel that this is at the heart of most of the flaming tirades against any discussion of IQ and race: the idea that regardless of what the facts show, this topic should be taboo simply because it is inherently toxic and provides succor for bad people. And this is actually a reasonable stance! Sam has said much the same many times (disagreeing with some of his fellow "horsemen" like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens), and he actually pressed Murray on this very point in the podcast.
As I pointed before, you are indeed falling here for his game of heres this evil thing I want you to think about, but Im saying its evil, so dont blame me if maybe we have to do it. That is indeed foolish.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I am sympathetic to this notion in general; but as I've said many times, it would have to go hand in hand with an implicit understanding among educators and those who set education policy to go back to the so-called "soft bigotry of low expectations". So long as teachers, school administrators, and those in charge of education policy are going to be under fire because majority-black inner city schools' test scores lag behind national averages, supporters of educators and teacher unions like me need to be able to make this counterargument for why these scores are not the fault of teachers or "failing schools". I'd be glad to never have to raise it again--sincerely--but it is a two-way street.
And as pointed before, Murray and others have really no clue about what are the proper solutions for the issue you are talking about here.
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 05-19-2017, 08:02 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
You will not get it, specially when you are misrepresenting my post, as Harris loves to go about.


No wonder, because I did check how Harris likes to debate, in one occasion he did make the point that among Muslims:



But that avoids the fact that on a very very important issue the surveys do point out that most Muslims are indeed against Terrorism or Isis. By going for very ridiculous percentages is that then he can keep ignoring that most Muslims do not approve of terrorism.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...und-the-world/
You are artificially narrowing the goalposts in a way I don't accept. Extremist views are not limited to terrorism. South African apartheid oppression didn't generally involve terrorism; same for modern day North Korea or even virulent Trump supporters. If large percentages of Muslims want to cut off hands for minor crimes, or kill people for things that we in the West know better than to make any kind of crime at all (adultery, homosexuality), that is a clear indication that modern day Islam is an especially benighted and oppressive ideology, as Christianity was centuries ago. But liberals are afraid to say that, and instead take the quixotic position that the real threat (a la "Handmaid's Tale") is conservative Christianity. The latter is no picnic, mind you. But it's centuries ahead of the ideology so prevalent in the Muslim world.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-19-2017 at 08:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 05-19-2017, 10:10 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 24,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You are artificially narrowing the goalposts in a way I don't accept. Extremist views are not limited to terrorism. South African apartheid oppression didn't generally involve terrorism; same for modern day North Korea or even virulent Trump supporters. If large percentages of Muslims want to cut off hands for minor crimes, or kill people for things that we in the West know better than to make any kind of crime at all (adultery, homosexuality), that is a clear indication that modern day Islam is an especially benighted and oppressive ideology, as Christianity was centuries ago. But liberals are afraid to say that, and instead take the quixotic position that the real threat (a la "Handmaid's Tale") is conservative Christianity. The latter is no picnic, mind you. But it's centuries ahead of the ideology so prevalent in the Muslim world.
Extremist sects of Islam are a big problem. But not Islam itself. That, unfortunately, some oppressive cultural practices happen to be associated with some societies that are majority Islam sucks, but it's due to the practices of that specific region, which usually predated Islam, not Islam itself.

Further, this rhetoric makes us less safe, because it makes the many millions of peaceful but still religious Muslims less likely to see us as allies against the extremists they hate and fear as much as we do.

We should be fighting, and criticizing, extremism and violence, not lumping peaceful people into the same bucket as the violent ones.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:04 PM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If it's some rando? No, you don't have that obligation. If a Pulitzer-finalist and widely respected Harvard professor says the book is an "honest and intelligent dialogue" and "a superb exploration of the intellectual and moral issues involved", then yes: you are going way too far out on a limb to dismiss the book as bigoted, if you have not read it.
Context is indeed important.

Firstly, I didn't call the book bigoted.

We were talking about the political leanings of Harris, and I was saying I don't care: Regardless what his aims are, he's writing, and lecturing, on multiple topics than have little to no scientific value, but which are "catnip" to racists, bigots etc.

So this is why it's weird to have people tell me I must read the book before I can say what the subject of the book is.

Or, to support the statement I made, we can just scratch Islam and the future of tolerance, and I'll just link a dozen of his recent lectures instead.
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 05-23-2017, 01:46 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
In his latest podcast episode, Sam revisits this controversy.

He actually spends the first seven minutes snickering about a new Sokol-type hoax, a paper called "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" that passed peer review and got published, despite even the authors' names being fake. Not explicitly about IQ, race, or Charles Murray; but another example of why I scoff at the idea that "peer reviewed" inherently provides gravitas.

Then from 10:45 to 29:00, Sam addresses the Vox piece iiandyii posted. He is in an email negotiation with Ezra Klein to see about getting Klein to come discuss the controversy on his podcast, so I really hope that happens as I like both of them but they are in opposite corners here.

From 29:00 to 31:05, Sam prefaces his interview of the Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist and author Siddhartha Mukherjee by explaining that since Mukherjee spends a few pages on Murray in his latest book, Sam could not resist raising the topic, but not until the second hour of the conversation. That comes at 1:37:27 and continues for just over a half hour, to 2:08:47.

It might surprise some people to hear, since I'm such a Sam Harris devotee, that I thought Mukherjee got the better of Harris here. But notice that one of the primary arguments Mukherjee makes is rather similar to one I made repeatedly in this thread, which was generally greeted with scoffs. Mukherjee does not specifically name Gardner or use the term "multiple intelligences", but that's pretty unmistakeably what he's going for with his analogy about blue eyes and his references to LeBron James.

[It's all the more surprising that I took Mukherjee's side over Sam's in that section, given that I had not been nearly as impressed when they were earlier debating whether expecting mothers should be required to prevent horrendous genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis, which not only cause great suffering but place a heavy burden on the health care system we all collectively pay for. You can go to around the 1:11:00 mark to get a sense of that debate, which I thought was decisively won by Harris, even though he raised only the issue of suffering and not the point about cost to the health system, which I consider highly relevant as well.]
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 05-23-2017, 06:33 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc;20226071He actually spends the first seven minutes snickering about [URL="http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/"
a new Sokol-type hoax[/URL], a paper called "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" that passed peer review and got published, despite even the authors' names being fake. Not explicitly about IQ, race, or Charles Murray; but another example of why I scoff at the idea that "peer reviewed" inherently provides gravitas.
The "paper" was published in a pay-to-play journal that is only two years old and has no serious reputation in any field of science. It is the academic equivalent of vanity press.
Peer review may be overrated in some instances, but part of the evaluation of such papers includes an understanding of the publications in which they are published. This incident did nothing to seriously question peer review, only indicating that there is more to genuine peer review than simply tacking the label on spurious publications.
If Harris used this example to challenge peer review, he is suffering from the same problem at which he is scoffing.
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 05-23-2017, 06:44 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
If Harris used this example to challenge peer review, he is suffering from the same problem at which he is scoffing.
He did not. He just read some of it and tried to contain his laughter (it is pretty funny, although I found the last bits he read, relating to capitalism/patriarchy/climate change, surprisingly on point).

Of course, you could have just spent four and a half minutes like I did (on 1.5x) just listening for yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 05-23-2017, 07:43 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
He did not. He just read some of it and tried to contain his laughter (it is pretty funny, although I found the last bits he read, relating to capitalism/patriarchy/climate change, surprisingly on point).

Of course, you could have just spent four and a half minutes like I did (on 1.5x) just listening for yourself.
Besides showing again your jerkish inability to type a bit of what Harris or others said, tomndeb said "if". You are not grasping basic tings. Of course in context it was you the one that attempted to use that item to stupidly claim that peer review was not a serious thing.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-23-2017 at 07:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 05-23-2017, 07:48 AM
Malleus, Incus, Stapes! Malleus, Incus, Stapes! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
And here I was sure SlackerInc would be posting today because of this.

Last edited by Malleus, Incus, Stapes!; 05-23-2017 at 07:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #621  
Old 05-23-2017, 08:01 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Besides showing again your jerkish inability to type a bit of what Harris or others said, tomndeb said "if". You are not grasping basic tings.
I shouldn't even ask, but...what the actual fuck are you gibbering about? Jesus.
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 05-23-2017, 08:14 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I shouldn't even ask, but...what the actual fuck are you gibbering about? Jesus.
Not surprised that you are projecting your inability to grasp things on others; again, you are ignoring that tomndebb said "if Harris used this example". Indeed that is an option. So he is therefore now not making a point against Harris, but your clarification then makes the idiocy of using that example against peer review to not go to Harris, but to you.
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 05-23-2017, 09:20 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 24,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malleus, Incus, Stapes! View Post
And here I was sure SlackerInc would be posting today because of this.
Interesting article. It notes that those genes are just a very small fraction of an unknown number that affect intelligence, but if this is confirmed, it will probably be the first of many such discoveries. And eventually someone will do population studies and find out if prevalence for these genes varies by population, and we'll have real data instead of Rushton/Lynn/Murray-style ass-derived conclusions to look at for questions like this.
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:18 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Interesting article. It notes that those genes are just a very small fraction of an unknown number that affect intelligence, but if this is confirmed, it will probably be the first of many such discoveries. And eventually someone will do population studies and find out if prevalence for these genes varies by population, and we'll have real data instead of Rushton/Lynn/Murray-style ass-derived conclusions to look at for questions like this.
I have little doubt that if we comprehensively compared genotypes to studies of intelligence and other forms of mental acuity, we could probably identify not only some alleles that indicate a propensity for intelligence in one form or another, but we would also identify different demographic groups with a propensity for higher or lower academic ability. Whether those genetic difference have a greater or lessor impact than upbringing and environment would still be an unanswered question (IMHO, the majority of one's physical and mental well being is determined by nutrition and social interaction at very young ages.).

And I am of the firm belief that if such a comprehensive study were to be carried out, there would be no overall correlation found between intelligence and skin pigment.
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 05-23-2017, 12:48 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Not surprised that you are projecting your inability to grasp things on others; again, you are ignoring that tomndebb said "if Harris used this example". Indeed that is an option.


I did not ignore the "if": it was the focus of my point. I was just trying to note that instead of speculating on what Sam was up to, he/she/they could just listen to the short segment and then offer an informed judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 05-23-2017, 02:04 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post


I did not ignore the "if": it was the focus of my point. I was just trying to note that instead of speculating on what Sam was up to, he/she/they could just listen to the short segment and then offer an informed judgment.
Not my problem that you are looking more foolish here, the point that you are missing is that tomndebb had one option that can be disregarded indeed: what the "if" implied, so that choice is gone: we know now that Sam did not say that foolish thing about peer review.

The other option is the one you are trying to tap dance furiously away and you are not getting out of it: It was you then who brought forward that dumb attempt at disparaging peer review, just admit you did not think that properly.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-23-2017 at 02:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 05-23-2017, 03:03 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Not my problem that you are looking more foolish here, the point that you are missing is that tomndebb had one option that can be disregarded indeed: what the "if" implied, so that choice is gone: we know now that Sam did not say that foolish thing about peer review.

The other option is the one you are trying to tap dance furiously away and you are not getting out of it: It was you then who brought forward that dumb attempt at disparaging peer review, just admit you did not think that properly.
Hoo boy.

I'm not tap dancing away from anything: you lost the plot long ago.

Your great revelation, that it was I and not Sam who used the example to disparage peer review, is nothing I have ever denied. My only point and I really don't know why you can't understand this is that tomndebb would not have had to issue a conditional statement starting with i"if", had they just listened for a few minutes to learn for themselves what Sam said, without my having to report on it. Sheesh.
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 05-23-2017, 03:09 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Hoo boy.

I'm not tap dancing away from anything: you lost the plot long ago.

Your great revelation, that it was I and not Sam who used the example to disparage peer review, is nothing I have ever denied. My only point and I really don't know why you can't understand this is that tomndebb would not have had to issue a conditional statement starting with i"if", had they just listened for a few minutes to learn for themselves what Sam said, without my having to report on it. Sheesh.
And if you had spent a few minutes providing an accurate description of what it is that you are talking about, instead of asking others to do homework in order to ferret out the meaning of your posts, you wouldn't need to have this point of yours.

Everyone understands your point, that you want us to listen to this podcast. You don't get the point that we don't want to.
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 05-23-2017, 03:12 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Hoo boy.

I'm not tap dancing away from anything: you lost the plot long ago.

Your great revelation, that it was I and not Sam who used the example to disparage peer review, is nothing I have ever denied. My only point and I really don't know why you can't understand this is that tomndebb would not have had to issue a conditional statement starting with i"if", had they just listened for a few minutes to learn for themselves what Sam said, without my having to report on it. Sheesh.
Your avoidance of your need to take back your sorry point about peer review is duly noted. And that is what I'm pointing at, when you plant idiotic seeds of doubt about peer review it shows who you really are.
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 05-23-2017, 04:16 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Everyone understands your point, that you want us to listen to this podcast. You don't get the point that we don't want to.
You don't get the point that I don't give a fuck whether you listen to it or not. I do wish you would refrain from commenting on it if you don't listen, but it's a free country.
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 05-23-2017, 04:28 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And that is what I'm pointing at, when you plant idiotic seeds of doubt about peer review it shows who you really are.
Are TIME and Vox also "planting idiotic seeds of doubt"?
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 05-23-2017, 05:08 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Are TIME and Vox also "planting idiotic seeds of doubt"?
If you knew what I have found and posted many times before in the SDMB regarding climate change you would know that the popular press is not a good place to get science information.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-isnt-broken/
Quote:
if you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have taken a hit lately. Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers. Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words, repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a paper, “Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations.” Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered irregularities in Michael LaCour’s influential paper suggesting that an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper shortly after, when LaCour’s co-author could find no record of the data.

Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But I’ve spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and I’ve learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it’s plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard — really fucking hard.
In other discussions about peer review I have seen that a lot of the complains do come from the medical field, and indeed a lot of the examples the article touch are related to it. In any case peer review is not the end of the process, but it magnifies the reach of an idea among researchers. As noted many times, Murray and others are running away from peer review, and that is a big clue that what they peddle is not gonna be accepted until he follows the path.

So yes, there are issues with peer review, but also when I remember the controversies that took place in climate science when deniers managed to publish some papers tells me that one important feature of peer review is that it also uncovers the bullshit journals that allowed trash to be published. So yes, your point was idiotic.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-23-2017 at 05:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.