The "Effectiveness Question" Again...

[jobo]

I never said anything of the sort. I merely said it is not nearly as old as you incorrectly imply. Answer a question with an answer; what it Your definition of SM? (it seems your mind is indecently going somewhere else)
I use it regularly in my line of work, it cannot be performed without using scientific method to define process.

so tell me exactly how old it is.?

i'm not implying anything i've stated it goes back to the pliocene, your turn, how old do you think it is

 

[dvcochran]

so tell me exactly how old it is.?

i'm not implying anything i've stated it goes back to the pliocene, your turn, how old do you think it is

If memory serves, we were taught in college that it began around the 17th century.

 

[dvcochran]

what, you think gods give you the gift of technoligy cause you pray a lot ?

meanwhile afghanistan who also pray a lot get invaded by your advanced technology, with a frightening death toll, i suppose god takes sides and its their fault for choosing the wrong dessert religion to follow

the level of delusion get more scary by the minute

Run with you ideas; just remember they are Your ideas, not anyone else's. People who refuse to consider higher minded ideas are often similar to you. Sad, mad, disenfranchised people.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no i meant ALLOWED, if you dont allow false positives ( ie things that disagree with your hypothesis) into your data set set, then there's significant conformational bias in your study

Once you know they're false, they're no longer false positives, I think. My head's not clear right now, so I may not be thinking that through, though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

im beginning to think we can add '' the scientific method'' to the list of things you don't understand !

why don't you tell me what you think it is therefore and why rudentary medical advances in the pliocene, does not count as the SM

I think the issue is control for variables and attempt to falsify (test) one's own hypothesis. For much of mankind's existence, those weren't much done. Folks just used what seemed to work, often developing superstitious beliefs because of non-causal coincidences.

 

[jobo]

Run with you ideas; just remember they are Your ideas, not anyone else's. People who refuse to consider higher minded ideas are often similar to you. Sad, mad, disenfranchised people.

I'm neither sad, just a bit melancholy sometimes, nor particularly mad in comparison to people who believe in fairys and the only time I've been disenfranchised was when I was banned frthe McDonalds for complaining there wasnt any cream in the ice cream

but I'm fascinated how you can lecture me on the scientific method whilst applying no intellectual rigur to your talking sky fairy idea

 

[jobo]

Once you know they're false, they're no longer false positives, I think. My head's not clear right now, so I may not be thinking that through, though.

 

[jobo]

I think the issue is control for variables and attempt to falsify (test) one's own hypothesis. For much of mankind's existence, those weren't much done. Folks just used what seemed to work, often developing superstitious beliefs because of non-causal coincidences.

no that's not how it works, people develop superstitions and then look for coincidences to support the superstition, not the other way round

hypothesis, if I tie two bit of wood to my broken leg, it will mend straight,
how do I test that ? I know il tie two bits of wood to my broken leg, oops the wood broke, get better wood and try again, get better rope and try again, tie rope tighter and try again yes that worked, I think il call them splints, think il invent the crutch next

what not scientific about that method?

 

[drop bear]

no that's not how it works, people develop superstitions and then look for coincidences to support the superstition, not the other way round

hypothesis, if I tie two bit of wood to my broken leg, it will mend straight,
how do I test that ? I know il tie two bits of wood to my broken leg, oops the wood broke, get better wood and try again, get better rope and try again, yes that worked, I think il call them splints

what not scientific about that method?

Ok.

Then what happened to medicine that sent it off the rails?

We can look back in history and see some pretty silly stuff.

I mean we can even look at is spinal manipulation effective?

Anecdotal says yes. Science says probably not.
Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice

 

[jobo]

If memory serves, we were taught in college that it began around the 17th century.knowledge

If memory serves, we were taught in college that it began around the 17th century.

think you mean the 16th century and the 1700s, the, age of reason meant a big leap forward, in science, but not because they had discovered the scientific method, that had been round for countless millennium, what do you think the Greeks were using ? just the religious bigots stop executing scientist for as heretics, so thwit could get on with it

, the, age of reason meant a big leap forward, in science, but not because they had discovered the scientific method, that had been round for countless millennium, what do you think the Greeks were using ? just the religious bigots stop executing scientist for as heretics, so thwit could get on with it

 

[jobo]

Ok.

Then what happened to medicine that sent it off the rails?

We can look back in history and see some pretty silly stuff.

I mean we can even look at is spinal manipulation effective?

Anecdotal says yes. Science says probably not.
Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice

it took a long time to test the hypothesis and gather data and of course they had no way to predict the existence of anything they couldn't see with the eye and knowledge of anatomy was made difficult by religious practises

that said a lot of folk remedies had a lot of truth in them, a number of these were taken, patented and refined by drug companies

8m sure in a 100 years or so, they will be laughing at how stupid, primitive we are

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no that's not how it works, people develop superstitions and then look for coincidences to support the superstition, not the other way round

hypothesis, if I tie two bit of wood to my broken leg, it will mend straight,
how do I test that ? I know il tie two bits of wood to my broken leg, oops the wood broke, get better wood and try again, get better rope and try again, tie rope tighter and try again yes that worked, I think il call them splints, think il invent the crutch next

what not scientific about that method?

Actually, no. Superstitions are often attempts to understand. We can actually recreate a similar process in animal behavior experiments. The rationalization happens as folks later try to hold onto those superstitious beliefs.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS:

Religious discussion is not allowed on MartialTalk, per the user guidelines you agreed to when you registered.

——-
Gerry Seymour
MartialTalk Moderator
@gpseymour

 

[jobo]

Actually, no. Superstitions are often attempts to understand. We can actually recreate a similar process in animal behavior experiments. The rationalization happens as folks later try to hold onto those superstitious beliefs.

i take it were ok with superstition,? though i'm not at all sure what the differences is

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i take it were ok with superstition,? though i'm not at all sure what the differences is

Whether we are okay with superstition or not isn’t relevant to the process by which they form. The salient point is that - absent any attempt to control and falsify - superstition is a false assignment of causality, backed by confirmation bias. It is very much not in keeping with the principles of the scientific method.

 

[jobo]

Whether we are okay with superstition or not isn’t relevant to the process by which they form. The salient point is that - absent any attempt to control and falsify - superstition is a false assignment of causality, backed by confirmation bias. It is very much not in keeping with the principles of the scientific method.

i ment in regard to your instruction on '' religious' discussion.

though the fact you've continued the discussion about superstition answers the query

 

[jobo]

i ment in regard to your instruction on '' religious' discussion.

though the fact you've continued the discussion about superstition answers the query

 

[jobo]

Whether we are okay with superstition or not isn’t relevant to the process by which they form. The salient point is that - absent any attempt to control and falsify - superstition is a false assignment of causality, backed by confirmation bias. It is very much not in keeping with the principles of the scientific method.

ok lets take a well known superstition, say walking under a ladder.

there's no false causation in that belief as the vast majority have no experienced any ill effects, and as they never walk under a ladder are unlikely to ever do so. yet some people continue to believe that its unlucky purley because someone told them it was

the ones i grew up with was throwing spilled salt over your left shoulder to blind the devil and never ever put shoes on the table, even brand new shoes still in the box, for reasons i'm not completely sure about. i was however assured it was extremely unlucky,

i still follow these superstitions, as i'm indoctrinated with these irrational beliefs,ive also passed them onto children in my care. so where is the false causation ?

 

[dvcochran]

, the, age of reason meant a big leap forward, in science, but not because they had discovered the scientific method, that had been round for countless millennium, what do you think the Greeks were using ? just the religious bigots stop executing scientist for as heretics, so thwit could get on with it

The are of reason is Totally different from SM Quite trying to change the frame of your argument.

 

[dvcochran]

i ment in regard to your instruction on '' religious' discussion.

though the fact you've continued the discussion about superstition answers the query

I believe the warning referred to a few post before the superstition comment where you mentioned praying.