I did notice that you changed the terms under discussion. Quite lawyerly of you.
but nevertheless, here’s wikipedia on the scientific method:
So, again, please describe how your effort was systematic.
ETA: My job would be a hell of a lot easier if all I had to do was write about how I made a prediction and then something else happened. Do you think the National Institutes of Health will give me money to do that? That would be cool!
ETA2: My use of the word “outcome” in my post before this was even too generous and too suggestive of some linkage between phenomena.
Where? The thread was intended to be about science denialism, not “the lack of intellectual honesty”, at least not until your hijack. From the OP:
Don’t see anything there about the societal impact of concealed carry in bars.
(bolding added for enhancement of reading comprehension).
The thread was not about bemoaning a general lack of “intellectual honesty” until you decided to hijack it as part of your incessant whine about leftist hypocrisy. That was silly, but not nearly as idiotic as attempting to redefine your whining as “science”.
Dunno. Must be that there leftist hypocrisy.
There is one part of the OP that refers to life in Bricker-world. It’s the part about incredible arrogance. In his case however it’s more accurately described as stubborn petulance.
OK, I’ll take that definition: “a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”
Would it be also fair to say that the scientific method involves advancing a hypothesis and then testing it, using that method of inquiry that’s based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence?
Look, Bricker, you’re simply not going to be able to winnow down a meaningful definition of “science” to the point at which making any observation becomes science.
How about this: A. Marley23 is now an administrator. B. The number of crimes in Virginia will go down next year.
Now, when we measure the number of crimes in Virginia next year, will that be science? Why or why not?
If you were a student of mine, I would ask you to sketch out your theoretical model of open carry laws and criminal behaviors. I’d ask you to do this pictorially, using little circles and arrows. That’s beyond my capacity here, so let’s move on using text alone.
Right now, it appears that you would have an underpants gnomes model for the relationship between gun carrying and crime rates.
Open carry laws
???
Lower crime rates
Profit!
What are the constructs in your model? What is the mechanism of change in your model? What confounding variables do you think need to be controlled for in your model? How are you operationalizing the constructs in your model? How will you collect your data?
And not just science, but in many instances unchallengeable science.
For instance, if someone was to say that Kate Upton is sexy and backed that up with a listing of her key measurements, those would be numbers and thereby make the claim scientific. Denying her attractiveness would constitute science denialism, not to mention intellectual dishonesty.
You know why I often give up on these conversations?
Because, like a dope, when someone poses a direct question to me, i answer it, and then pose a direct question in return, assuming the courtesy will be returned.
And it often is not.
In your example, no: it would be meaningless to describe the sequence of events you just gave as “science.”
Now please answer my question: Would it be also fair to say that the scientific method involves advancing a hypothesis and then testing it, using that method of inquiry that’s based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence?
No, that’s not remotely close to what I’m claiming.
And this is pretty upsetting. Here’s a thread supposedly extolling the virtues of science. I posted a comment by Feynman about the importance of intellectual honesty in observations, and it appeared to resonate with the mood of the thread.
But now that I have a specific example of a specific factual claim that was made, and was wrong, and my sole request is to see who is willing to simply state it was wrong, I get this kind of garbage.
And this.
And all of you people that were patting yourselves on the back for your commitment to intellectual honesty earlier sit by and let it happen.
Why? Because I’m a conservative, up against liberals?
Despite the attempts to narrow down the conversation until it’s about the word “science” it’s clear to me that the discussion in this thread was about intellectual honesty, the cornerstone of ensuring that the scientifiic method produces correct results. Was it?
I gotta admit, the more I think about it I’m having a hard time understanding how **Bricker’s **original problem actually relates to the thread, except under the hazy theme of “intellectual honesty”.
I mean, there’s (in science) a profound and (generally) quantifiable difference between saying “I bet that single data point is an outlier/wrong/irrelevant” and “I believe the entire extant set of data and/or theories are wrong/irrelevant”. Especially when trying to determine the repercussions of a change with potential long-term effects, one year’s total incidents aren’t much of anything meaningful in terms of proving anything.
Why else would you say, “Especially when trying to determine the repercussions of a change with potential long-term effects, one year’s total incidents aren’t much of anything meaningful in terms of proving anything?”
That’s all I’m asking. Why in the world would you talk about one year’s total incidents aren’t much of anything meaningful in terms of proving anything? I agree. I don’t say they prove anything about the long term.
But you (I hope) would agree that they prove what they say: that in that one year, in that one state, crime dropped.
I seriously am asking this: did I not make that point clear? Did I not say repeatedly that I wasn’t asking anyone to agree that this proves policy should be changed?
I just asked that people admit what happened. Instead, in that thread, I got a guy saying the only thing it proved was there was a conspiracy between police and the newspaper to lie about crime.
And in this thread I have Heckle and Jekyl double-teaming me.
Do you, Zeriel, understand what I’m asking? Can you help me explain it better?
There’s also a difference between saying “I bet that single data point is an outlier/irrelevant,” and “I bet that single data point is wrong.”
Correct? I mean, there’s a huge difference between an outlier as the result of experimental error and a data point that someone just made up, right?
If we were looking at a single data point from, say, your re-creation of Milliken’s experiment, the mere fact that it was an outlier doesn’t mean that the data point doesn’t exist. Right?
I’m asking for an admission that the data point is real.
I’m not compelling any particular interpretation of that data point.
You want to redefine an entire, established human enterprise in order to shoehorn in your preferred example, and when you get contradicted in that effort by a couple of people, you suggest that it may be due to your political orientation?
And you contend you are arguing for intellectual integrity?
Bricker, I think there is one item that you are missing, when I said that the ones opposing the measure were wrong by claiming that crime would go up I also said that the ones claiming it would go down were also wrong, they both are not doing science yet.
It is **how **they are wrong what is important, a single year is not enough to establish a trend, based on what the The National Academies of Sciences concluded, both the ones making the point that crime would go down and the ones claiming that it would go up are not doing science. One would need more time and evidence to overturn the more scientifically based current conclusion that it is “not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates”
Okay, I’m with Bricker on this one. He’s making a small enough point. Admitting the point he made is true (which I’ll stipulate–I frankly haven’t looked at the stats myself) is a no-brainer. He’s stating:
The concealed-carry permits went into effect;
Crime rates didn’t rise.
He’s not saying:
3) Crime rates are never affected by concealed-carry-permit changes.
4) This is an example of science.
Simply because I have no interest in your strawmen doesn’t mean that I haven’t shown that you are proving my point (not “show where you were wrong” I have no idea whether you are right or wrong there). Which you have apparently forgotten, so here it is, just for you -
“This thread is helping me to understand why it is that too many people in here jump all over someone who dares to ask questions”. In this case, I didn’t even ask a question…
Well… how about we say, “They’re doing science by tracking the numbers; they’re not doing science if they purport to draw conclusions from a single data point?”
