Ethics and Science Quarantine Zone - The Bear and Badger

Vela

@dyno I'm not trying to be snooty and bait you into anything here. It might read like an ackbar.gif (ok looking back it appears exactly as one) but I'm coming at it from the exact opposite as you.

You are saying that you like to express caution and particularly in communication of data/interpretations. I'm saying that the caution has already been exercised in those two field (QM and GR for instance) and you may as well include the standard particle model in discussion as well. 5 sigma confidence levels (a percentage certainty measure) are what we are talking about here.

These measures of confidence underpin the stuff we know about climate. I reference navier-stokes because we dont have a solution for fluid flow (e.g an atmosphere) in three dimensions. And even if we could model one accurately, we still have to measure it perfectly. But what we are talking about here is really a 50 year trend or more. Its unfortunate but most of what we are seeing now was locked in before most of us here were born (sorry G.man, its all your fault).

Out of respect for you I've not quoted you in case you want to edit. I sincerely wish you well whatever is up, and as much as it might sound like I'm having a go, I like you and I just disagree with your interpretation. Youre not harming anyone by it, and hell, I'd be happier if you were correct.

djchump

JRPC wrote:

I don't understand.

True.

JRPC wrote:

It's a simple question - why no answer?

I did answer. You didn't understand it.

ProTip: Try reading the wiki page I linked, yeah? Do the fucking legwork.

Kow

I'm pretty sure that my theory that the weather is racist is on the ball.

monkey

The weather is determined by the genes of the people in the country. Black people = hot weather. It’s not racist, just simple science. It’s why global temperature is rising, because of all the migration. Simple. And gays make it flood.

dynamiteReady

Vela wrote:

Out of respect for you I've not quoted you in case you want to edit. I sincerely wish you well whatever is up, and as much as it might sound like I'm having a go, I like you and I just disagree with your interpretation. Youre not harming anyone by it, and hell, I'd be happier if you were correct.

I'm not editing that... It's somewhat relevant.
But appreciate the sensitivity.

As for our debate, if I ruled the world, I'd enforce 20 years of environmental austerity, just to see if any of the models matched, citing the clearly proven economic and medical benefits along the way.

Vela

dynamiteReady wrote:

Vela wrote:

Out of respect for you I've not quoted you in case you want to edit. I sincerely wish you well whatever is up, and as much as it might sound like I'm having a go, I like you and I just disagree with your interpretation. Youre not harming anyone by it, and hell, I'd be happier if you were correct.

I'm not editing that... It's somewhat relevant. But appreciate the sensitivity. As for our debate, if I ruled the world, I'd enforce 20 years of environmental austerity, just to see if any of the models matched, citing the cleanly proven economical and medical benefits along the way. Just to prove to everyone that the whole journey was a good idea, no matter which way you slice it.

The coal miners would be the biggest beneficiaries. Just dont call it austerity, it's out of favour right now.

superflyninja

AJ wrote:

So, in short and without any links, what is this "Harris/Klein thing" then?

This.

Yossarian

monkey wrote:

The weather is determined by the genes of the people in the country. Black people = hot weather. It’s not racist, just simple science. It’s why global temperature is rising, because of all the migration. Simple. And gays make it flood.

This is the best post in this thread.

Vela

Yossarian wrote:

monkey wrote:

The weather is determined by the genes of the people in the country. Black people = hot weather. It’s not racist, just simple science. It’s why global temperature is rising, because of all the migration. Simple. And gays make it flood.

This is the best post in this thread.

GurtTractor

[ The video in question ]

JRPC wrote:

I've seen this clip. This is a really good example. From where I'm sat, you lot are the guy on the right. I mean seriously, you're doing exactly the same thing.

Umm, actually not quite what I was thinking. I posted it because of something Malcolm Robert said regarding facts, and what you said -

JRPC wrote:

...As we delve deeper into how we tick we are going to stumble repeatedly into the hard facts about the ways in which we are similar and the ways we are not...

Which is rather problematic. Too tired and hungry to go into it right now, so I'll probably end up detailing what I mean long after the convo has rolled on to something different

Also Roberts has coal and oil connections up the wazoo. Totally guessed as I was watching, wondering about what his deal was. Scrolled down and lo and behold there was a comment about said connections and stuff (further corroborated by taking a quick look about the net).

GurtTractor

Best dog.

nick_md

I've taken to just swiping up, reading a sentence of whichever post it lands on, swipe up, read a sentence of whichever post it lands on, rinse and repeat.

Facewon

Some stuff on former senator Roberts, because he's hilariously fucking idiotic.

He was a One Nation Senator, One Nation being our BNP equiv.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4740054.htm He's not anymore. And the back and forth with him and the judges was amazing.

Facewon

JRPC wrote:

Quick question on that point about politics and science - do you agree that the ideal would be to have no political bias in data interpretation

JRPC wrote:

I don't understand. It's a simple question - why no answer?

Ok, I'll answer the silly question, and pre-empt where you're heading.

Yes it would be ideal if data interpretation would be free of bias (political is pointless there, except as the usual Harris is being objective everyone else is doing Identity Politics.)

But since you're talking interpretation, it's impossible for there not to be some bias in there. That doesn't mean we throw out all interpretation and data and science, it just means a little humility and care is required when trying to follow the science on whatever subject.

I am not a post modernist, I am happy to call some things true. But the more complex the thing you're trying to study, the more careful you need to be of strong claims to truth, IMO.

Brooks

Data is fucking meaningless without political bias.

Facewon

http://quillette.com/2017/01/17/saints-sinners-a-dialogue-on-the-hardest-topic-in-science/

To suggest that these race differences in traits might matter, though, offends many of our colleagues desperately — some of whom persist in bizarre notions that traits like general intelligence don’t even exist, or that it doesn’t capture anything meaningful, or that the instruments used to probe its existence are biased; as well as several other popular misconceptions. Proposing that we should account for race differences in these relevant traits when examining differences in behavioral outcomes is often met with baffled stares; bald incredulity that someone could suggest something so barbaric and distasteful. Returning quickly to the issue of the role that genetic differences between groups might play in creating the differences we observe for violence, cognitive ability, executive functioning, so on and so forth.

As folks before me have noted, there are three possibilities: genes explain all of the difference, they explain none of the difference, or genetic differences account for some of the differences, in some (but not all) traits. The answer to that question is not up for political grabs. It is empirical, subject to scientific inquiry, quantifiable, and in short, answerable. Researchers in the first camp need to stop punishing us for trying to answer something that is an answerable question. That is our job.

I’ll end with a short note about “social justice.” It is a deeply lamentable term, because it means nothing. It could have meant something, and likely did mean something at some point, but recently is seems to have been co-opted, now used to refer to anything politically correct and to identify the “righteous” among us. There is a disconcerting push, moreover, to drag it into science. You must either seek social justice, or reside among the unclean masses. Being a biosocial scholar of race differences has been twisted to represent the inverse of social justice. The biological underpinnings of race differences will exist or not, though, regardless of how the prevailing political winds are blowing. It is every bit as reasonable to explore the role that biology plays in creating those differences as it is to explore the possibility that social biases entirely explain those differences. The demonization has to stop.

There you go, J, I went and found you a source....

Meanwhile, this made me chuckle...

The best way to get a sense of the typical Quillette reader is by perusing the comments section under any essay, especially those about feminism and the leftist threat to western civilization. Quillette’s readers see themselves as inheritors of the western tradition of dispassionate, boring debate instead of what they likely are: people trying to kill time at work by sounding off in the comments. They hate “leftist identitarians” and “corrosive marxists” who ruin this dispassionate, boring debate by deigning to have an emotional stake in the subjects they study. They resent writers who inject politics and ideology into fields that should be studied objectively, like neuroscience and classical studies, because after all, there is only one objective truth and those shrill social justice warriors should just accept it. They love using really big words, because really big words make you sound smart.

CONSERVATIVES LOVE PLAYING THE VICTIM

JRPC

Facewon wrote:

JRPC wrote:

Quick question on that point about politics and science - do you agree that the ideal would be to have no political bias in data interpretation

JRPC wrote:

I don't understand. It's a simple question - why no answer?

Ok, I'll answer the silly question, and pre-empt where you're heading. Yes it would be ideal if data interpretation would be free of bias (political is pointless there, except as the usual Harris is being objective everyone else is doing Identity Politics.) But since you're talking interpretation, it's impossible for there not to be some bias in there. That doesn't mean we throw out all interpretation and data and science, it just means a little humility and care is required when trying to follow the science on whatever subject. I am not a post modernist, I am happy to call some things true. But the more complex the thing you're trying to study, the more careful you need to be of strong claims to truth, IMO.

Ok this is informative.

I know I've addressed a lot of my criticisms towards you, but that's actually because you've seemed to me to be one the very few reasonable folks involved here. You'd have to be a masochist to try and engage with dj or legaldinho, but I got the sense with you there was at least an actual desire to discuss something.

I'm now thinking that maybe I've misjudged that.

We're back to the most uncharitable readings of what I'm saying and apparently mind-reading what my actual intentions are (hint: they were not what you think).

We're at a point where asking a simple yes/no question for clarity is responded to with evasion, suspicion and hostility. Instead of a simple good faith reply, I get links to Wikipedia articles about Plato and Nietzsche.

This is just no way to have a conversation. Its just not possible.

g.man

JRPC

Facewon wrote:

http://quillette.com/2017/01/17/saints-sinners-a-dialogue-on-the-hardest-topic-in-science/

To suggest that these race differences in traits might matter, though, offends many of our colleagues desperately — some of whom persist in bizarre notions that traits like general intelligence don’t even exist, or that it doesn’t capture anything meaningful, or that the instruments used to probe its existence are biased; as well as several other popular misconceptions. Proposing that we should account for race differences in these relevant traits when examining differences in behavioral outcomes is often met with baffled stares; bald incredulity that someone could suggest something so barbaric and distasteful. Returning quickly to the issue of the role that genetic differences between groups might play in creating the differences we observe for violence, cognitive ability, executive functioning, so on and so forth. As folks before me have noted, there are three possibilities: genes explain all of the difference, they explain none of the difference, or genetic differences account for some of the differences, in some (but not all) traits. The answer to that question is not up for political grabs. It is empirical, subject to scientific inquiry, quantifiable, and in short, answerable. Researchers in the first camp need to stop punishing us for trying to answer something that is an answerable question. That is our job. I’ll end with a short note about “social justice.” It is a deeply lamentable term, because it means nothing. It could have meant something, and likely did mean something at some point, but recently is seems to have been co-opted, now used to refer to anything politically correct and to identify the “righteous” among us. There is a disconcerting push, moreover, to drag it into science. You must either seek social justice, or reside among the unclean masses. Being a biosocial scholar of race differences has been twisted to represent the inverse of social justice. The biological underpinnings of race differences will exist or not, though, regardless of how the prevailing political winds are blowing. It is every bit as reasonable to explore the role that biology plays in creating those differences as it is to explore the possibility that social biases entirely explain those differences. The demonization has to stop.

There you go, J, I went and found you a source.... Meanwhile, this made me chuckle...

The best way to get a sense of the typical Quillette reader is by perusing the comments section under any essay, especially those about feminism and the leftist threat to western civilization. Quillette’s readers see themselves as inheritors of the western tradition of dispassionate, boring debate instead of what they likely are: people trying to kill time at work by sounding off in the comments. They hate “leftist identitarians” and “corrosive marxists” who ruin this dispassionate, boring debate by deigning to have an emotional stake in the subjects they study. They resent writers who inject politics and ideology into fields that should be studied objectively, like neuroscience and classical studies, because after all, there is only one objective truth and those shrill social justice warriors should just accept it. They love using really big words, because really big words make you sound smart.

CONSERVATIVES LOVE PLAYING THE VICTIM

Yep, on board with all of that.

Even the second bit.

RedDave2

I'm still not sure where you stand. But I'll take a stab...

You are worried that political/ personal/ whatever beliefs mean that we can't have hard discussions on 'pure science' especially if the 'empirical data' might point to something that makes people uncomfortable (you sited the example of 'what if' the neanderthal link was found only in Black people and not in whites and that this would be jumped on as a racist finding and I can see the point both you and Harris were making in the podcast)

If the above is true, the only problem is that when the data is called into question (and it clearly was in relation to the Bell curve stuff) and surely that data cant be seen as a pure data. I suppose there is always the potential for this and I take the point that ideally it should not be this way but if we take a stance that once data is presented it should be considered as automatically flawless because it is data than I think that is a system that is open for huge abuse.

Also, and I may be stretching but a very base example, but data on its own doesnt paint anything close to a clear picture. The example could be taken with sports. A football striker scores a huge number of goals and that single data on its own implies he is the best striker in a league - but it doesnt take into fact the 'environment' around him - at it's base the quality of the players around him in the squad and their ability to provide the assists, how many starts he makes, the overall style of the teams play (he could be scoring loads as they cavalier forward but conceded lots of goals), it also takes ways the other factors - does he have a particular strike partner who he works well with, the quality of the manager who motivates him and the financials that he will benefit from if he performs well. So, ok, I've gone off point a lot there but you get my point that data on its own isn't a clear indicator ?

Facewon

Ok, I'll answer the ~~silly~~ question, ~~and pre-empt where you're heading.~~ Yes it would be ideal if data interpretation would be free of bias (~~political is pointless there, except as the usual Harris is being objective everyone else is doing Identity Politics~~.) But since you're talking interpretation, it's impossible for there not to be some bias in there. That doesn't mean we throw out all interpretation and data and science, it just means a little humility and care is required when trying to follow the science on whatever subject. I am not a post modernist, I am happy to call some things true. But the more complex the thing you're trying to study, the more careful you need to be of strong claims to truth, IMO.

Because apparently ANY emotion or quips is BAD FAITH you'll clutch pearls.

I freakin answered the question. Don't you dare evade again.

We're at a point where asking a simple yes/no question for clarity is responded to with evasion, suspicion and hostility. Instead of a simple good faith reply, I get links to Wikipedia articles about Plato and Nietzsche.

No, it was about perspectivism. Entirely fucking pertinent. And yet again, you completely fail to engage with anything people share. You are doing a Harris. Deciding what's allowed to be talked about and ignoring and disparaging any response.

Links are too long, quotes are too dense, why can't it all be kept in the lane you're happy with.

JRPC

RedDave2 wrote:

I'm still not sure where you stand. But I'll take a stab... You are worried that political/ personal/ whatever beliefs mean that we can't have hard discussions on 'pure science' especially if the 'empirical data' might point to something that makes people uncomfortable (you sited the example of 'what if' the neanderthal link was found only in Black people and not in whites and that this would be jumped on as a racist finding and I can see the point both you and Harris were making in the podcast)

Yes, agree with that but it goes futher...

RedDave2 wrote:

If the above is true, the only problem is that when the data is called into question (and it clearly was in relation to the Bell curve stuff) and surely that data cant be seen as a pure data. I suppose there is always the potential for this and I take the point that ideally it should not be this way but if we take a stance that once data is presented it should be considered as automatically flawless because it is data than I think that is a system that is open for huge abuse.

So this is fairly key and I think the main point of confusion here on B&B.

Harris' claim is that the controversy around the Bell Curve was not at all a good-faith criticism or debate about complicated multifactorial science, but was actually witch hunt and absolutely a piece with that neanderthal hypothetical.

Despite Murray's conclusion in the chapter that dealt with race and IQ being that he remained agnostic about the degree genes play a role, Harris' view (which I've been now persuaded of) is that Murray is the victim of a 20 year campaign of smearing and vilification that goes Infinity beyond honest good-faith scientific criticism.

Harris had Murray on his podcast to discuss the consequences of free and open speech around charged issues like this, and not actually to really discuss the science of race and IQ in of itself. Since then, for daring to have had this conversation, Harris has himslef become embroiled in the controversy and tarred with the same racist brush by the likes of Klein and Vox (and most people here).

RedDave2 wrote:

Also, and I may be stretching but a very base example, but data on its own doesn't paint anything close to a clear picture. The example could be taken with sports. A football striker scores a huge number of goals and that single data on its own implies he is the best striker in a league - but it doesnt take into fact the 'environment' around him - at it's base the quality of the players around him in the squad and their ability to provide the assists, how many starts he makes, the overall style of the teams play (he could be scoring loads as they cavalier forward but conceded lots of goals), it also takes ways the other factors - does he have a particular strike partner who he works well with, the quality of the manager who motivates him and the financials that he will benefit from if he performs well. So, ok, I've gone off point a lot there but you get my point that data on its own isn't a clear indicator ?

Again this actually isn't about how complicated data is thought about. Harris and Murray are both scientific fundementalists and are actually advocating for open interpretation that looks at all factors.

What Harris is objecting to here, and what this is really actually about, is when people of good integrity who are involved in such conversations get unfairly smeared as Nazis and bigots in an attempt to shut down the conversation. This is the "forbidden knowledge" that Harris called the Murray podacst.

(I've written this a bit rushed while cooking so reserve the right to edit later!)

Brooks

Free and open includes the possibility of being repeatedly owned in the discourse. Suck it up.

djchump

JRPC wrote:

Ok this is informative. I know I've addressed a lot of my criticisms towards you, but that's actually because you've seemed to me to be one the very few reasonable folks involved here.

Face has the patience of a saint.
Where others will link you to an answer, he's willing to spend the time to actually spell it out for you in simple terms.

JRPC wrote:

You'd have to be a masochist to try and engage with dj or legaldinho, but I got the sense with you there was at least an actual desire to discuss something.

Yup, as pointed out, Face has been doing that from the very start, but you've mostly been completely ignoring him - thus far totally disproving your claim to "want to have a good faith discussion".

JRPC wrote:

I'm now thinking that maybe I've misjudged that.

Hoo boy. You were so close.

JRPC wrote:

We're back to the most uncharitable readings of what I'm saying and apparently mind-reading what my actual intentions are (hint: they were not what you think). We're at a point where asking a simple yes/no question for clarity is responded to with evasion, suspicion and hostility. Instead of a simple good faith reply, I get links to Wikipedia articles about Plato and Nietzsche. This is just no way to have a conversation. Its just not possible.

He gave you a well-written and well-explained answer. He bothered to explain to you exactly what I meant when I wrote "There's never *not* bias. Being eyes open is a first step to trying to overcome it/them." and why the answer to the question "but is the ideal for there to be no bias" is implicitly and completely 100% contained within it. (hint: look at the word trying. Look at it. Parse it. Look at it again. Have you understood it yet? Try looking again. Now again. Look at it. Just look.)

Whereas I answered you with snark, mockery and further prods to see if you'd actually bother to make any kind of effort to understand what I'd written (hint: there's my socratic method at work), Face had the patience and made the effort to explain it to you simply. At which point, you're throwing that back in his face because "oooh, someone else was snarky and rude to me! I'm so offended!".

What make it not possible to have a conversation is when one person involved absolutely refuses to make any kind of effort to do any kind of thinking for themselves.

JonB

JRPC wrote:

We're at a point where asking a simple yes/no question for clarity is responded to with evasion, suspicion and hostility. Instead of a simple good faith reply, I get links to Wikipedia articles about Plato and Nietzsche. This is just no way to have a conversation. Its just not possible.

The irony is people are actually trying to help you out here. The question was flawed - it didn't have a simple yes/no answer. Why not try and think about that rather then just dismiss it?

Anyway, I've read more than enough now to see you actually aren't capable of engaging in the discussion properly (maybe it's genetic). I've no idea why Face goes to the lengths he does. Have fun folks.

JRPC

Brooks wrote:

Free and open includes the possibility of being repeatedly owned in the discourse. Suck it up.

It absolutely does. It's actually desirable!

But being owned is not the same thing as being driven out of town by an angry pitchfork-wielding mob.

Brooks

Did that literally happen.

JRPC

@jon

You think the question "do you think that the ideal is to look at these things without bias" doesn't have a yes/no answer?

hunk

@jrpc
Scientific fundamentalism? Harris and Murray preaching for open interpretation of all factors?
Hahaha, how's that alt right kool aid? Refreshing no?

Harris and Murray aren't even considering their Conservative definition of IQ to be outdated and that racism can in fact be defined as an environmental factor when interpreting the Bell curve data. How's that open interpretation?

Klein-Liberal camp: Your definition of iq sucks. You can measure IQ all you want but all you are measuring is social inequality? What is the fucking point?
Even if there are genetic differences in iq between races (which we seriously doubt) you cannot quantify and proof it with current tech. Yet, you're already talking race policies? Are we gonna repeat the eugenics debacle?

Murray-consevative alt-rightian-neo nazi camp: Whaddya mean? We're past racism since 50 years. Blacks and poor people should quit whining, racism's effects don't exist anymore. We have the better genes and our Iq is higher and policies should reflect that. Harris is in our camp! Whaddya mean he's now tarred?

Harris: WTF? I'm so confused. Ezra, I just wanted the forbidden fruit.
(Touches battlescars)

djchump

JRPC wrote:

So my grand plans to watch The Last Jedi tonight have succumbed to the lure of the wrongness.

I'm gonna reply to your thing about Buzzfeed and then the political bias thing (although my tired brain has already forgotten the point I wanted to make), and then probably Hunk's quote. After that maybe I'll call it a day there. I think I can probably get everything I have left to say out of those things.

This will be tomorrow though coz I am now going to bed.
...

It’s tomorrow now.
Just sayin’

(I’ll be charitable here and not post any snark like “I do hope this is followed up as stated and not another hollow ‘I’ll get back to this later, honest!’ evasion”, or point out how your statement “think I can probably get everything I have left to say out of those things” implies that you aren’t interested in debate, you only want to make proclamations, have everyone agree with you and waltz away.
Oh shit, I haven’t been charitable at all; I just did both those things! Whoops!)

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories