Vegetarian Discussion: Does Science Only Measure What It Can See? The Streetlight Effect

Does Science Only Measure What It Can See? The Streetlight Effect
Posts: 285

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Immortalist
2010-12-27 11:43:07 EST
Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on
his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the
officer he’s looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he’s
sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he
thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you
looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light’s
better here, explains the drunk man.

In other words, scientists are sometimes forced to measure what they
can rather than what they should – not because they’re lazy or
incompetent, but because it’s impossible to do anything else.

Error and uncertainty in science - the streetlight effect
http://climatide.wgbh.org/2010/12/error-and-uncertainty-in-science-the-streetlight-effect/

But observation necessarily plays a role in making observations of the
phenomenon and testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an
observational study, or a field study. Also the need for
reproducibility requires that observations by different observers be
comparable produces another correction to personal biases. Finally
since human sense impressions are subjective and qualitative making
them difficult to record or compare, the idea of measurement evolved
to allow recording and comparison of observations made at different
times and places by different people, thus producing further limits
upon human biases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study

Rod Speed
2010-12-27 14:23:06 EST
Nope, it also measures heaps of stuff that can
not be seen, most obviously with nuclear science.

Immortalist wrote:

> Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on
> his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the
> officer he\ufffds looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he\ufffds
> sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he
> thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you
> looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light\ufffds
> better here, explains the drunk man.

> In other words, scientists are sometimes forced to measure what
> they can rather than what they should \ufffd not because they\ufffdre lazy
> or incompetent, but because it\ufffds impossible to do anything else.

That is completely and utterly mindlessly silly.

> Error and uncertainty in science - the streetlight effect
> http://climatide.wgbh.org/2010/12/error-and-uncertainty-in-science-the-streetlight-effect/

Just another completely mindless steaming turd from the net truffle pig.

> But observation necessarily plays a role in making observations
> of the phenomenon and testing the hypothesis by an experiment,
> an observational study, or a field study.

Yes, but hardly ever are street lights involved.

> Also the need for reproducibility requires that observations by different
> observers be comparable produces another correction to personal biases.

Pigs arse it does. We invented double blind trials for a reason, stupid.

> Finally since human sense impressions are subjective and qualitative

We invented double blind trials for a reason, stupid.

> making them difficult to record or compare,

Thats why real science mostly doesnt use human sense impressions, stupid.

> the idea of measurement evolved to allow recording and comparison
> of observations made at different times and places by different people,
> thus producing further limits upon human biases.

And rigorous science produced some very dramatic advances anyway.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_bias
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study



Trevor Wilson
2010-12-27 14:33:55 EST
Immortalist wrote:
> Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on
> his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the
> officer he\ufffds looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he\ufffds
> sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he
> thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you
> looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light\ufffds
> better here, explains the drunk man.
>
> In other words, scientists are sometimes forced to measure what they
> can rather than what they should \ufffd not because they\ufffdre lazy or
> incompetent, but because it\ufffds impossible to do anything else.
>
> Error and uncertainty in science - the streetlight effect
> http://climatide.wgbh.org/2010/12/error-and-uncertainty-in-science-the-streetlight-effect/
>
> But observation necessarily plays a role in making observations of the
> phenomenon and testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an
> observational study, or a field study. Also the need for
> reproducibility requires that observations by different observers be
> comparable produces another correction to personal biases. Finally
> since human sense impressions are subjective and qualitative making
> them difficult to record or compare, the idea of measurement evolved
> to allow recording and comparison of observations made at different
> times and places by different people, thus producing further limits
> upon human biases.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_bias
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study

**You're an idiot. Read Rod Speed's response again.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Michael Gordge
2010-12-27 16:03:27 EST
On Dec 28, 1:43 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on
> his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the
> officer he’s looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he’s
> sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he
> thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you
> looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light’s
> better here, explains the drunk man.
>
> In other words, scientists.................

He was a drunk scientist?

Does he have anything to do with the AGW hoax? because they're
obviously always drunk.
Seriously Mortal, who but a bunch of fuckwitted alcoholic scientists
would ever claim the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt by 2035?

MG

Geode
2010-12-27 16:43:37 EST
On Dec 27, 9:03 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:43 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on
> > his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the
> > officer he’s looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he’s
> > sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he
> > thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you
> > looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light’s
> > better here, explains the drunk man.
>
> > In other words, scientists.................
>
> He was a drunk scientist?
>
> Does he have anything to do with the AGW hoax? because they're
> obviously always drunk.
> Seriously Mortal, who but a bunch of fuckwitted alcoholic scientists
> would ever claim the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt by 2035?
>
> MG

What would tell if they do? What would you tell in the arctic cap of
ice is totally melted in ten or twenty years during the summer?

I can doubt some of the predictions of scientists alarming over the
AGW, but I cannot discard they could be right.
many people was predicting the present economic crisis, and the same
with other economic crisis, like that 1929 crash of Wall Street.
Another question is the leaders wont like these catastrophic
predictions. Is what politicians like to tell. While they are
governing the economy goes all right. When they are in the opposition
"the economy is in shambles by the politics of the president".

Most leaders are in charge of the economy in general. They don't want
to hear the alarms of Casandra about a doomed future.
Geode
.


Rod Speed
2010-12-27 17:02:38 EST
Geode wrote
> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote

>> Does he have anything to do with the AGW hoax?
>> because they're obviously always drunk.

>> Seriously Mortal, who but a bunch of fuckwitted alcoholic scientists
>> would ever claim the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt by 2035?

> What would tell if they do?

The lack of glaciers there.

> What would you tell in the arctic cap of ice is totally
> melted in ten or twenty years during the summer?

The lack of ice there.

> I can doubt some of the predictions of scientists alarming
> over the AGW, but I cannot discard they could be right.

He was obviously talking about some of the sillier predictions.

> many people was predicting the present economic crisis, and the
> same with other economic crisis, like that 1929 crash of Wall Street.

Different matter entirely to what science claims the evidence shows about AGW.

> Another question is the leaders wont like these catastrophic predictions.

Hardly surprising. And plenty of them with like Malthus and
the Club of Rome have turned out to be just plain wrong too.

> Is what politicians like to tell. While they are governing the economy goes all right. When
> they are in the opposition "the economy is in shambles by the politics of the president".

Again, nothing to do with what SCIENTISTS are claiming to predict.

> Most leaders are in charge of the economy in general.

Politicians actually have very little effect on the economy in general, whatever they claim.

> They don't want to hear the alarms of Casandra about a doomed future.

And they are understandably skeptical when the sillier claims like about Himalayan glaciers are made.



Michael Gordge
2010-12-27 17:10:05 EST
On Dec 28, 6:43 am, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What would tell if they do?

I dont hypothesize leftist fucking nonsense.

> What would you tell in the arctic cap of
> ice is totally melted in ten or twenty years during the summer?

I dont hypothesize leftist fucking nonsense.

> I can doubt some of the predictions of scientists alarming over the
> AGW,

Like what, the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?

> but I cannot discard they could be right.

They could be right about what? The Himalayan glaciers melting by
2035? You cant be serious.

MG


Michael Gordge
2010-12-27 19:18:20 EST
On Dec 28, 7:02 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

> And they are understandably skeptical when the sillier claims like about Himalayan glaciers are made.

You are pretending there is something to be skeptical about, when
there isn't, ewe fuckwit, its all a pack of lies, its a gigantic
fucking hoax -- or are skeptical its a hoax? You deny its a fucking
hoax dont ewe?

The IPCC used the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 hoax to con dopey
brain dead lefturdian governments, that fuckwits like ewe voted for,
out of billions of dollars.

MG


Jonathan
2010-12-27 19:47:55 EST

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ns7csF333U1@mid.individual.net...
> Nope, it also measures heaps of stuff that can
> not be seen, most obviously with nuclear science.
>
> Immortalist wrote:
>
>> Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on
>> his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the
>> officer he's looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he's
>> sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he
>> thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you
>> looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light's
>> better here, explains the drunk man.
>
>> In other words, scientists are sometimes forced to measure what
>> they can rather than what they should - not because they're lazy
>> or incompetent, but because it's impossible to do anything else.
>
> That is completely and utterly mindlessly silly.


Well then, show me the equation for the Mona Lisa?
Does 'funny' vary exponentially? And while you're at
it, look up the equation for the ideal poem, and quantify
for me good and evil.

Oh that's right, silly me, I forgot, science ....doesn't do
those things. And how many other realms does your
beloved science ignore as 'beneath' them., or are just
too messy? For instance the why question, why do
we exist and so on, science doesn't do that either.

So your response to the post that science is limited
in application isn't very well thought out. Unless of
course you think it's only a matter of a better
computer.

Science only sees what it can equate and quantify and
objectively prove and so on. These things that science
can detail and prove happen to be the most simple
things around. The least meaningful.

The subjective realm of opinions and emotions and
beauty happen to be not only the most complicated
things around, but also the most ....meaningful.

Science looks only under the objective street lamp.


Sir Frederick Martin
2010-12-27 20:36:24 EST
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:47:55 -0500, "Jonathan" <Johnm@yahou.net> wrote:

>
>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8ns7csF333U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Nope, it also measures heaps of stuff that can
>> not be seen, most obviously with nuclear science.
>>
>> Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on
>>> his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the
>>> officer he's looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he's
>>> sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he
>>> thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you
>>> looking over here? the befuddled officer asks. Because the light's
>>> better here, explains the drunk man.
>>
>>> In other words, scientists are sometimes forced to measure what
>>> they can rather than what they should - not because they're lazy
>>> or incompetent, but because it's impossible to do anything else.
>>
>> That is completely and utterly mindlessly silly.
>
>
>Well then, show me the equation for the Mona Lisa?
>Does 'funny' vary exponentially? And while you're at
>it, look up the equation for the ideal poem, and quantify
>for me good and evil.
>
>Oh that's right, silly me, I forgot, science ....doesn't do
>those things. And how many other realms does your
>beloved science ignore as 'beneath' them., or are just
>too messy? For instance the why question, why do
>we exist and so on, science doesn't do that either.
>
>So your response to the post that science is limited
>in application isn't very well thought out. Unless of
>course you think it's only a matter of a better
>computer.
>
>Science only sees what it can equate and quantify and
>objectively prove and so on. These things that science
>can detail and prove happen to be the most simple
>things around. The least meaningful.
>
>The subjective realm of opinions and emotions and
>beauty happen to be not only the most complicated
>things around, but also the most ....meaningful.
>
>Science looks only under the objective street lamp.

The 'human' brain is encased in bone. It is also quite
complicated. Understanding it means working through
a lot of ignorance and misleading folk talk. "Opinions
and emotions", etc. will eventually be 'understood'
objectively, though 'we' will always experience them
subjectively. In fact they will become more substantive
when they are no longer diluted and understood in
folk talk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_experience
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron