Real Scientists Disagree with SSkeptics About World's Top Concerns for the Future

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 



I simply tallied the list of quotes themselves. Not trying to re-cite either articles' packaging spin. The list is the list, either way.


Yes, but you are deliberately misrepresenting what the list is. The list is not of the chief concerns for the future, but of concerns for the future other than the obvious. It's as if someone asked a group of sports writers: "other than the players in the Hall of Fame, who do you consider to be the best players," and you then tried to use the list of names to "prove" that the players in the Hall of Fame are not the best players. Surely you know this, but I want the less critically minded to be aware of the deception.




posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 



Some of what you contend here is true, and some is false. Together they have crafted your version of the same.


In other words, you admit that you are neither ethical nor skeptical.


No, as a skeptic I point out the flaws of pundit motivation, and its negative impact on science-

and as an ethic I am not slipping into the pejorative as you are here.

If you have anything besides negative personal attacks on your mind. Call again. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 



No, as a skeptic I point out the flaws of pundit motivation, and its negative impact on science-

and as an ethic I am not slipping into the pejorative as you are here.


I, as a skeptic, have examined your methodology and find it so highly skewed as to suggest deliberate fabrication. My ethics demand that I expose this fraud, and call the motivations of the perpetrator into question.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Awwwwwww, tantrum throwing when someone has an opinion which differs from yours is not what a skeptic does.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


Yeah, problem is, DJW is right - you've totally misrepresented both the Slate and Edge articles with your own skew that has no real validity to it - mainly since they obviously state:


idea was to identify new problems arising in science, tech, and culture that haven't yet been widely recognized.


So it's not as if these scientists aren't concerned with the standard concerns (AGW, disease, war, asteroids, etc, etc), it's that they're weeding out concerns that perhaps have not been on the public's radar.

ETA: I really wish there was a negative-flag option for threads..
edit on 3-4-2013 by redtic because: grumble



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


My mistake for not realizing how far off base you were then. When I read, "pretend scientists", I took it to mean you were patronizing amateur scientists; not actually being defamatory of job titles, based solely on undesired views. You're really something.


Cleverly masked pretentiousness is very pretentious.


I'm going to give you stars and flags just for cracking me up.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 



Awwwwwww, tantrum throwing when someone has an opinion which differs from yours is not what a skeptic does.


That's why I am not throwing a tantrum, but you are. Funny how your supposedly rigorous statistical analysis has now become just an "opinion." At least you posted this in the correct forum. It is a lovely bit of disinformation. Let's deconstruct it in greater detail:

The title of the thread not only makes a bold, seemingly objective statement, it includes two phrases designed to evoke an emotional response. First, the phrase "Real Scientists." This implies that not all scientists are actually scientists. Nowhere do you define what this actually means. Second, you use the expression SSkeptics. The use of the SS is undoubtedly a derogatory reference to the elite Nazi army corps. Therefore, your title seeks to establish a dichotomy between "real scientists" and people who you would later label "pseudo-skeptics." The problem is that skepticism is inherent in the Scientific Method. All scientists are skeptical by training, if not by nature.

You begin your thread by making a bold statement of your conclusions, allegedly based on hard data. You claim that this data was collected in a survey of top thinkers, then you cite a secondary source, rather than a primary source. This should always raise a red flag for a critical thinker; it suggests that there may already be a level of interpretation imposed upon the material. As it turns out, it is to disguise the fact that you have completely misrepresented the nature of the data!

Consulting the original piece in edge.com, it is clear that this was not a survey to determine the top concerns of leading thinkers, as you claim. Rather, many individuals from a variety of fields volunteered concerns that they felt were not receiving enough attention. By definition, these would not include the usual top concerns (climate change, superstition, etc.) because they were precluded by the very nature of the exercise!

Then you claim to do a statistical analysis. You do not provide actual data tables, nor do you provide proper definitions for the categories. You place individuals into categories based on their self-identification in their submissions. This is not a reflection of their qualifications as scientists, but how they want the sophisticated readers of edge.com to perceive them. One active particle physics researcher described himself as an "author." One "artist and musician" could equally have called himself an "electronic engineer."

You reduce complicated ideas in a way that favors your anti-science bias. For example, you quote Stephen H. Alexander: “I am worried about who gets to be players in the science game—and who is left out.” You do not explain what you think he meant by that, or how you categorized it while doing your analysis. I suspect you only quoted it because it sounds vaguely sinister, and can be construed to mean that the cranks and fringe researchers are being deliberately oppressed by the Scientific Establishment. In reality, it is probably about "social justice," reflecting the relatively poor representation of women and minorities in the field.

As any elementary school teacher would point out: you do not show your work. Accepting your statistical analysis requires an act of Faith. Critical thinkers are not long on Faith.

You conclude with meaningless graphics. I think you may have attended one too many Marketing Department Powerpoint presentations.

In short, you have taken a fluff piece designed to bring up concerns that are not agreed to be major, made arbitrary distinctions to create two classes that are not, in reality, mutually exclusive, reduced their opinions into a small set of arbitrary categories which you do not define, you wave your hands and claim to have done a statistical analysis without presenting any actual data, and then conclude that these two arbitrary classes of people are not in agreement... which is not surprising, given that the whole point of the original project was to tease out concerns they were not in agreement about!

Your turn.

edit on 4-4-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join