Hello Shad

"I am really not in the mood to eat fast food; i feel like we have been eating out too much. " Are you calling me FAT?

lol

@Nic Harvard You don't think you should marry your parents? What kind of crazy world do you live in!

^^^^ context fail

You should see my parents Shad

@ManAnimal I never fail at context.... it was a joke.

Yes animal, wrong resolution basically

lol

👹

that WAS the joke

' i never fail'..( smirks)

Oddly @Shadows if you are a bee, you have to.

@ManAnimal Also,
"no 'wrong answer' in soft sciences i think
.. it is why they are 'soft'
'less probable' perhaps"
This is all kinds of wrong... That's the problem with "soft sciences", most of what they do requires no falsification, meaning most of what they provide is useless.

how is that inconsistent with my assertion?

The males are unfertilised. So haploid clones. So daddy actually = granddaddy

Anyway, I’m out. Busy morning in six hours

Incompleteness is also a characterization of a logical set of assertions as well as falsification

MECE

haha got ya

Mutually exclusive comprehensively exhaustive. Work for me in soft probability science

one cannot 'falsify' a statistical based conclusion

because correlation isn't causality

yup; only way to prove a negative is to prove it's postive mutual exclusion

If you can not show how the work you provide has value, whats different about that and a work that has no value.

what is your criteria of value?

in my view, there are conclusions of fact using reason and conclusions of judgement made with experience. A statitical correlation is equivalent to a conclusion of judgement. If it allows you to make a prediction that has a high probabilty of being correct, then that 'incomplete conclusion' has value

it just doesn't have the same 'weight' or 'reliability' as a conclusion of fact

as long as you keep these seperate, each has value in it's own right

"All models are wrong; but SOME are very useful"

besides, you use statistics/judgement when you don't have any specific information to go on. if you DID, then you'd use it.

"X causes cancer." Technically, this is false because not everyone will responds the same way. Statitically, one person will have found a way to resist X. So it's simply a very high probability.. not a' cause'

This isn't to say that some of the work "soft sciences" does is all useless, i think its important to explore a lot of these issues/ideas to see what value you can show if any in them, but its part of the problem we have with that field of study at the time, almost none of it is providing anything real useful (which creating a terrible structure about not having to provide anything of merit because no one is every really "wrong"). These things can be infinitely entertaining to study (for some), but at some point you have to provide evidence for the claims you make, if they involve anything about reality.

i think i see what you are saying. I agree to an extent. In my view, because academics that teach soft-sciences, say Evolution or Archeology aren't willing to come out and say,"While this theory is the best we have to date that fits the discovered evidence, it is by no means the ONLY possible theory", the layperson can sense this arrogance as a lie. that in turn, causes too many to doubt EVERYTHING... even that the earth is round.

being realistic regarding the usefulness of such theories is crutial to filter the signal from the noise

Do you remember those "hoax papers" (yes we didn't need that to happen because we already knew it, it just brought more light to the issue) that made the practice look bad? My point being, that some places can continue to look at things forever "trying" to find answers to really hard questions we may never know, which is fine. But it also leaves open the door for people to just make it all look terrible because there aren't enough standards about what is just crap soft science, but at least they aren't "wrong".....

yeah. I follow what you are saying. People seem to forget that if you study ANYTHING long enough, you can find a way to justify your argument or pet theory. Not having definitive criteria and enforcing said criteria uniformly for what constitutes 'legitimate science' devalues all science.

I just quit my PhD in a STEM field. Academia is bullshit.

If it isn’t social justice, only affirmative papers ever get published. If you disprove something, you won’t ever get attention. So people will go lengths to try to spin results so they can get a publication

Shiiiet

What's the plan now, lad?