|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.12.242.202
In Reply to: RE: Scientists identify the most important music genre... posted by Palustris on May 09, 2015 at 10:09:26
way larger number of people buying music 40 years after the British Invasion.
That seems to have been ignored, talk about junk science.
Follow Ups:
...science doesn't care about that.
Most influential, but maybe not for you.
Science is about facts, not opinions.
Genungo's past post at IC about how terrible cats are is an example.
Science is keen on developing tested knowledge, but not all human knowledge or issues are amenable to science.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Funny you should bring that topic up out of the blue, once again. I'm sorry if you were offended, as it seems that I have become something of a target for you.Nice try, but if I remember correctly, I never really said or even implied that cats themselves are "terrible" (except when people work at making them so). I like cats and most other animals very much. Man out of balance with nature is the *terrible thing*, and I might suggest that modern selfish people sometimes entertain "pet fetishes" and when they do, they become part of that terrible thing.
Suggest such a thing to certain "cat lovers" and they'll begin to lose all objectivity on the matter. Now, some crazy cat person might try to assassinate me for blaspheming so, but I guess that's just the way of the world.
Edits: 05/16/15
:-) Part of a trend that others have named scientism.'Look, science says this.' when a scientist or group of have done a study - setting out to show that '............' . okay?
I don't see the world in left/liberal/right terms, but as a mixture of authoritarian and democratic approaches to human problems and governance.
When I see reports of a study or a survey ....... . I want to see the probability of error that will be inevitably and necessarily built into it because of how it was carried out. OR, why they chose an unbiassed estimator which is rarely a good idea but (weirdly to me) dominant.
As you might already have noted, these 'facts' about a given study are rarely if ever published. Or you aren't / weren't aware of those issues and hadn't thought about it.
So, think about why this is so rarely done or discussed openly within science or public discussion of studies, surveys and reports?
Happy to discuss more off line as this might be edging into politics.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Edits: 05/16/15
For my part, I don't remember claiming or even supposing that any scientific study is "agenda free". If a study is a good one it might be 90% agenda free - or, about as good as is humanly possible. If the findings of a study seem to coincide with my experience I might tend to trust it, though. You can call that "having an agenda", if you wish.
the 30+ science mistakes were erased by the board honcho. But, I know you read them.
Science has been wrong for centuries, it has also been right. But it is not always right.
Edits: 05/10/15
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: