General

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

ladyattis — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:55:37 GMT

Sieben:
I see a difference between application and truth. Knowing how to accomplish a goal doesn't require you to have a philosophy.

It is if you want to be called a scientist. Process and result comes to form the basis of method(s). Knowing how one influences the other is philosophy. And knowing how to make the influences to your advantage is a science.

Sieben:
I think most researchers are open to analytical exercises, but if you can't repeat analytical predictions in laboratories people usually conclude that there must be something wrong with the theory (assuming they cant find anything wrong with the experiment).

And that's the issue right there: experiments are not the end all be all of science. They need to take a backseat like they have for the majority of history. Not to be ignored, but not to be ruling the discourse.

Sieben:
You mean we can't use statistics to arrive at scientific law. But we can use statistics to generate a theory that 90% of the population responds positively to medication X.

If you can't get a scientific law then you're just making up a narrative, no better than your opponents. And I can treat their narratives with equal regard from now on.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Sieben — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:02:37 GMT

Scrooge McDuck:
Sieben, I haven't had the time (or interest) to pore over the studies you linked to. I did find a article that references a study which found that medium-high fructose groups had increased waist/hip ratio, fasting blood glucose levels, and other such markers of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease: http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/06/22/fructose-found-to-be-more-harmful-than-glucose/

Here's the pubmed link. Non-fructose groups were told not to consume fructose outside the study, so they probably stopped drinking cokes etc and reduced overall calories. Soft drinks were probably one of the examples of things the researchers told them not to drink. Sodas can make up to 25% of people's calorie intake.

The relevance of calories is that basically everything improves on a weight loss diet. It doesn't really matter what you're eating. Your blood sugar will improve because your body is in an energy deficit, running out of sugar. Similarly with cholestoral and triglyceride levels.

I remember one study showed that if you put obese people on ephedrine/caffeine, and didn't tell them anything else, they lost weight. Even though ephedrine is a vasoconstricter and raises blood pressure in normal weight people, it actually lowered the blood pressure in obese subjects because they were losing weight (not that fast, mind you, compared to a proper diet). But even small amounts of weight loss/catabolism are so overwhelmingly beneficial that they even overpower pharmaceuticals used to treat low blood pressure.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Sieben — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 20:56:05 GMT

Ladyattis:
How? Explain, please.

Well I never said empiricism was "gauranteed success", and I never said it was the only method.

Ladyattis:
I see no difference between truth and its application. Maybe you do.

I see a difference between application and truth. Knowing how to accomplish a goal doesn't require you to have a philosophy.

Ladyattis:
And it's also over the fact that monism in science has impeded the progress of knowledge. Just sayin'.

I think most researchers are open to analytical exercises, but if you can't repeat analytical predictions in laboratories people usually conclude that there must be something wrong with the theory (assuming they cant find anything wrong with the experiment).

Ladyattis:
Only in a limited way. Try and use statistics to actually construct a theory. Oh wait, that's unscientific. :3~

You mean we can't use statistics to arrive at scientific law. But we can use statistics to generate a theory that 90% of the population responds positively to medication X.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Scrooge McDuck — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 19:54:34 GMT

Sieben, I haven't had the time (or interest) to pore over the studies you linked to. I did find a article that references a study which found that medium-high fructose groups had increased waist/hip ratio, fasting blood glucose levels, and other such markers of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease: http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/06/22/fructose-found-to-be-more-harmful-than-glucose/

Thanks for describing the physiology of fructose metabolism.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

ladyattis — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:25:28 GMT

Also, sorry for being short with my responses, I'm busy doing other stuff. Nothing personal.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

ladyattis — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:24:35 GMT

Sieben:
I meet both of these requirements.

How? Explain, please.

Sieben:
Yes you are. First you talk about "truth" and then later in the paragraph you shift to "practicality". Which one is it?

I see no difference between truth and its application. Maybe you do.

Sieben:
I'm glad your whole problem with me has been over taxonomy.

And it's also over the fact that monism in science has impeded the progress of knowledge. Just sayin'.

Sieben:
If you think probabilistics is practical, then no it isn't.

Only in a limited way. Try and use statistics to actually construct a theory. Oh wait, that's unscientific. :3~

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Sieben — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:16:09 GMT

ladyattis:
No you can have empiricism, but you have to accept that there's no absolute guarantees to its success. And to deny alternative methods is to invite blind faith to control the discovery of knowledge.

I meet both of these requirements.

ladyattis:
No, I'm not.

Yes you are. First you talk about "truth" and then later in the paragraph you shift to "practicality". Which one is it?

ladyattis:
It is an oxymoron.

I'm glad your whole problem with me has been over taxonomy.

ladyattis:
So it's masturabatory, thanks for confirming that.

If you think probabilistics is practical, then no it isn't.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Wheylous — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:03:26 GMT

what do you guys think of artificial sweetners causing cancer (not fat gain)?

I'm not an expert in any way, but what I've heard has said that aspartame may cause cancer.

A quick scan of Wikipedia appears to sidpute this claim and cites sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

If you are interested in alternative viewpoints (which may be incorrect, I don't know), I know some people who read Dr. Mercola, whose thgouhts/evidence on aspartame are here:

http://aspartame.mercola.com/

Note that Dr. Mercola appears to also not believe that HIV causes AIDS (which may or may not affect his validity on the topic of Aspartame).

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

ladyattis — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:02:24 GMT

Sieben:
According to your interpretation there can be no empirical science of man whatsoever because "what if black swan"?

No you can have empiricism, but you have to accept that there's no absolute guarantees to its success. And to deny alternative methods is to invite blind faith to control the discovery of knowledge.

Sieben:
Well you're shifting the goalposts here.

No, I'm not.

Sieben:
Its the backbone of empirical sciences. Unless you think empirical science is an oxymoron and there should be "science" and "empiricism".

It is an oxymoron.

Sieben:
Our results don't give us "laws" or "theories", but they give us probablistic guesses.

So it's masturabatory, thanks for confirming that.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Sieben — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:38:50 GMT

Ladyattis:
Um... Do you realize you just went against the very scientific method you're trying to protect? Any case which falsifies the theory means the theory is WRONG according the modern scientific method.

Which is why the theory isn't that "this controlled study holds for everyone forever and ever". It uses statistics to show that these results are *likely* in the rest of the population. According to your interpretation there can be no empirical science of man whatsoever because "what if black swan"?

Ladyattis:
This the same method taught in highschool, entry level college courses, and used as the general guideline to most of the sciences. So you can't have your cake of saying "I'm pro-modern science" and eat from a modified/truncated version of it. So, either you support methodological pluralism, therefore you could make a cause for limited theories, but even then such theories would be purely masturbatory in nature since they don't describe anything useful (gee lots of people are like X, but a few of them in that category are like Y too...). Meaning, it's not predictive.

Well you're shifting the goalposts here. Is the issue that science is "falsifiable" or that its not predictive? If you use the scientific method to come up with a probabilistic theory, then yes it is predictive. If you use the scientific method to come up with an objective theory, then yes it is falsifiable by black swans, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

Ladyattis:
And I won't bother quoting your statistics rambling any further since it seems you're not listening. Statistics do not describe reality. They simply describe what we know in terms of their likelihood. Nothing more.

I know. That's my point.

Ladyattis:
It's not the backbone of science.

Its the backbone of empirical sciences. Unless you think empirical science is an oxymoron and there should be "science" and "empiricism".

Ladyattis:
Otherwise, Public Choice Theory wouldn't be a science. Nor would computer SCIENCE (we don't use stats much, but when we do it's usually dealing with programs, rather than algorithms and proofs). Your obsession statistics shows your own lack of understanding of their limits and your own lack of understanding of their actual uses.

I'm not obsessed with statistics. Its just that they're particularly relevant on this topic - nutrition. We don't have the analytical tools to figure out in advance what the results of certain actions will be, so an alternative is just to experiment under ceteris parabis conditions. Our results don't give us "laws" or "theories", but they give us probablistic guesses.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

ladyattis — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:37:12 GMT

Sieben:
If my theory is that the study is representative of a lot of (not necessarily all) people, then no its not wrong just because of black

Um... Do you realize you just went against the very scientific method you're trying to protect? Any case which falsifies the theory means the theory is WRONG according the modern scientific method. This the same method taught in highschool, entry level college courses, and used as the general guideline to most of the sciences. So you can't have your cake of saying "I'm pro-modern science" and eat from a modified/truncated version of it. So, either you support methodological pluralism, therefore you could make a cause for limited theories, but even then such theories would be purely masturbatory in nature since they don't describe anything useful (gee lots of people are like X, but a few of them in that category are like Y too...). Meaning, it's not predictive.

And I won't bother quoting your statistics rambling any further since it seems you're not listening. Statistics do not describe reality. They simply describe what we know in terms of their likelihood. Nothing more. It's not the backbone of science. Otherwise, Public Choice Theory wouldn't be a science. Nor would computer SCIENCE (we don't use stats much, but when we do it's usually dealing with programs, rather than algorithms and proofs). Your obsession statistics shows your own lack of understanding of their limits and your own lack of understanding of their actual uses.

If you can't acknowledge that much, then we have nothing to discuss. You're wasting my time and yours.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Libertyandlife — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 05:51:59 GMT

Lulz, personal attacks over fructose.

Not to change the topic, but what do you guys think of artificial sweetners causing cancer (not fat gain)? I use them a lot. Webmd and some other sites I've been on said they're fine, but social folklore tells me I will get cancer. Will I?

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Sieben — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 03:20:05 GMT

ladyattis:
But you're not considering the alternative that your theory is wrong. That's the problem.

If my theory is that the study is representative of a lot of (not necessarily all) people, then no its not wrong just because of black swans.

ladyattis:
Samples have nothing to do with it. It has to do with that knowledge is not deterministic in its formation. Knowledge follows not from cause-effect, but from another basis altogether. So, drop the assumption that statistics is the gateway to knowledge, it's not scientific to even use it in this context.

Well I said that sample size gives you statistical plausibility. Its assumed (maybe unjustifiably) that statistics has practical application. I don't know how this ties in with "knowledge". As far as I can see, I'm not making a knowledge claim beyond what the study has directly investigated in its sample.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

ladyattis — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 03:04:38 GMT

Sieben:
True. But they are an *attempt* to deal with the problem of low sample sizes. And the idea that you can improve study accuracy by increasing sample sizes also holds statistical water.

Well, that's why it's better to do it with one study than many. Ever read about the funny meta-analysis of 35k people using their birthsigns vs their perceived personality traits? The researchers claimed it was proof that horoscopes were accurate, but when it was found out that it was an meta-analysis and their definition of personality traits a tad loose, they were laughed at. :3~

Sieben:
I do consider alternatives. But only for person X. For everyone else my tools are working fine. And the alternatives I consider for X would also probably be based on the scientific method - trial and error, or educated guesses, etc.

But you're not considering the alternative that your theory is wrong. That's the problem.

Sieben:
Because the assumptions are wrong. But the assumption that a sample size of 10,000 will be able to represent a large amount of the total population is correct, or at least statistically very very likely.

Samples have nothing to do with it. It has to do with that knowledge is not deterministic in its formation. Knowledge follows not from cause-effect, but from another basis altogether. So, drop the assumption that statistics is the gateway to knowledge, it's not scientific to even use it in this context.

Re: Debating Science isn't any better

Sieben — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 02:46:06 GMT

ladyattis:
Nope, meta-analysis is even softer than individual studies. You have to be careful which studies you combine otherwise, you'll get some funny results.

True. But they are an *attempt* to deal with the problem of low sample sizes. And the idea that you can improve study accuracy by increasing sample sizes also holds statistical water.

ladyattis:
Actually, they matter in all aspects of knowledge. If it doesn't work for X person, that means your assumptions about X person are W-R-O-N-G. So, you have to consider alternatives both in method and knowledge.

I do consider alternatives. But only for person X. For everyone else my tools are working fine. And the alternatives I consider for X would also probably be based on the scientific method - trial and error, or educated guesses, etc.

ladyattis:
Why can I find right answers from wrong assumptions? That's a good start for a question, I think.

Because the assumptions are wrong. But the assumption that a sample size of 10,000 will be able to represent a large amount of the total population is correct, or at least statistically very very likely.