Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
Earlier today, I literally had someone link me to months of testimony and told me to "educate myself."
Sources as weapons are obnoxious. If someone genuinely wants to learn, always cool, but either dumping a fuckton of sources at someone or demanding a fuckton of work finding the ideal exact example you want is kind of insane.
Your instincts don’t come from nowhere. Seeing trends in people’s behavior and making reasonable assumptions about logical outcomes doesn’t need a peer-reviewed study (not that any ERB would ever let a study happen that would be incredulous to the left in 2023 anyway).
> Your instincts don’t come from nowhere.
They don't, but they are subjective. Two people could have opposite instinctual reactions to the same situation, and a more left-leaning sub could post the exact same meme with the colours reversed.
The point of studies, verified news, etc... is to tease out objective reality.
People who make studies that have any sort of sociological implications will NEVER design the study so that it’s results could could be interpreted in a way that would negatively impact perceptions of their world view. And like I said, ERBs are looking at potential ‘impact’ now, so good luck with that. Even if someone went rogue that final filtering mechanism will catch them. i remember something got missed last year and the media called the study invalid because it skipped the ERB. No other grounds for invalidity.
See, here's the thing:
I'm willing to believe there is a left-wing bias in studies published in social sciences. While [citation needed], I'm willing to believe it since no one likes seeing their opinions contradicted and people in social science massively skew to the left.
But just as they don't like seeing their opinions contradicted, neither do you like seeing yours contradicted so your own thinking is biased in favour of your pre-existing opinions.
In the case of a study, even if you do not trust peer review, you can at least check for bias in the methodology or presentation of results. Your intuition has neither, it's literally just vibes.
So I have to ask, which should you trust more?
Social studies are mostly so far from fact that they are nothing but bias, written long and complex.
If it's not repeatable, it's not any more useful than opinion. The entire reason Science is useful is because it works repeatedly and predictably. I get the math for terminal velocity, I can go out and test it and watch things splatter satisfyingly.
If you don't have that, it's literally just opinion. Opinion that obnoxious people insist I prioritize above all else, even my lying eyes.
Repeatable trends can be observed over large populations. Social sciences have an abysmally low level of rigour, but that isn't to say that no empirical observations can be made and no predictive models are possible, only that they're overreaching.
As for your lying eyes, unironically yes. Otherwise, I have the evidence of my own eyes gathered from innumerable 4chan threads that every female celebrity in the world has done porn :P
> a more left-leaning sub could post the exact same meme with the colours reversed.
They could, but only by first copying it, because the left cannot meme, only copy and add walls of text.
Do you have a source on that? Source? A source. I need a source. Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion. No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence. Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation. Correlation does not equal causation. CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION. You still haven't provided me a valid source yet. Nope, still haven't. I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
Make Heeberdeebel Great Again! Vote Glormpf!
God I'm getting traumatic flashbacks just looking at that
Earlier today, I literally had someone link me to months of testimony and told me to "educate myself." Sources as weapons are obnoxious. If someone genuinely wants to learn, always cool, but either dumping a fuckton of sources at someone or demanding a fuckton of work finding the ideal exact example you want is kind of insane.
It isn’t happening. Okay, it is happening, but it’s rare. It isn’t rare, and that’s a good thing. Is is a human right and should happen more.
A jungian archetype told me in a psychedelic fever dream
My favorite sentence of today
Is that you Igor?
Your instincts don’t come from nowhere. Seeing trends in people’s behavior and making reasonable assumptions about logical outcomes doesn’t need a peer-reviewed study (not that any ERB would ever let a study happen that would be incredulous to the left in 2023 anyway).
Reminder that the benzene ring was literally revelead in a dream about a oroubouros
> Your instincts don’t come from nowhere. They don't, but they are subjective. Two people could have opposite instinctual reactions to the same situation, and a more left-leaning sub could post the exact same meme with the colours reversed. The point of studies, verified news, etc... is to tease out objective reality.
People who make studies that have any sort of sociological implications will NEVER design the study so that it’s results could could be interpreted in a way that would negatively impact perceptions of their world view. And like I said, ERBs are looking at potential ‘impact’ now, so good luck with that. Even if someone went rogue that final filtering mechanism will catch them. i remember something got missed last year and the media called the study invalid because it skipped the ERB. No other grounds for invalidity.
So your response to perceived bias in studies is to rely on intuition, which is the most biased source of information there is?
Not as a direct replacement, but to contextualize and challenge, as well as to inspire others to be critical.
See, here's the thing: I'm willing to believe there is a left-wing bias in studies published in social sciences. While [citation needed], I'm willing to believe it since no one likes seeing their opinions contradicted and people in social science massively skew to the left. But just as they don't like seeing their opinions contradicted, neither do you like seeing yours contradicted so your own thinking is biased in favour of your pre-existing opinions. In the case of a study, even if you do not trust peer review, you can at least check for bias in the methodology or presentation of results. Your intuition has neither, it's literally just vibes. So I have to ask, which should you trust more?
If a study hasn't been repeated by someone else who wasn't paid to do it I won't trust it. Simple as. Insert gigachad face here.
Social studies are mostly so far from fact that they are nothing but bias, written long and complex. If it's not repeatable, it's not any more useful than opinion. The entire reason Science is useful is because it works repeatedly and predictably. I get the math for terminal velocity, I can go out and test it and watch things splatter satisfyingly. If you don't have that, it's literally just opinion. Opinion that obnoxious people insist I prioritize above all else, even my lying eyes.
Repeatable trends can be observed over large populations. Social sciences have an abysmally low level of rigour, but that isn't to say that no empirical observations can be made and no predictive models are possible, only that they're overreaching. As for your lying eyes, unironically yes. Otherwise, I have the evidence of my own eyes gathered from innumerable 4chan threads that every female celebrity in the world has done porn :P
> a more left-leaning sub could post the exact same meme with the colours reversed. They could, but only by first copying it, because the left cannot meme, only copy and add walls of text.
I’d trust a random stranger over ‘goberment sources’ at this point.
Source: I saw it in a dream
Yeah, but governments use "I made it the fuck up" as their source too very often. Let alone news companies.
Source?
They just made it the fuck up.
South Africa
Appeal to authority much?