I have it installed, but it didn't work for me for this particular video upload and I was being impatient, as usual.decius wrote:Eskarina, there's an extension for Chrome called Proxmate that will bypass GEMA restrictions without consequences.
Eskarina wrote:I have it installed, but it didn't work for me for this particular video upload and I was being impatient, as usual.decius wrote:Eskarina, there's an extension for Chrome called Proxmate that will bypass GEMA restrictions without consequences.
Found another video upload that works.
Thanks nevertheless. :)
I feel a youtube evening coming on.
Saw him live twice and I can only urge anyone to go see him and the Palace Orchestra, if you get the chance (if you are into that kind of music)Git wrote:Ah, someone else who has heard of the genius of Max Raabe!Eskarina wrote:
[youtube]nj46E348NhE[/youtube]
[youtube]fDKwO3__Qqw[/youtube]
Still doesn't work. Copying and pasting the URL into the whatnot bar doesn't work, either. I just get a black youtube screen.decius wrote:Eskarina wrote:I have it installed, but it didn't work for me for this particular video upload and I was being impatient, as usual.decius wrote:Eskarina, there's an extension for Chrome called Proxmate that will bypass GEMA restrictions without consequences.
Found another video upload that works.
Thanks nevertheless. :)
I feel a youtube evening coming on.
It doesn't work on embedded videos. You need to click on the YouTube button at the bottom right and watch it directly on site.
Thank you for capturing this she really is willfully ignorantJan Steen wrote:Yesterday, Yemisi had 16 comments on her post about Amina Tyler. Today there are 14. One was a fairly substantial one by JustAtheist without 'bad werdz'. Just a calm and reasonable refutation of Yemini's hypocritical crap. Now it has been memory holed.
But thanks to Google's cache I can show it here. This is it:
http://i.imgur.com/HkURCZz.jpg
Why did she delete it? Because it made her look like the idiot she is, perhaps?
Yemisi is yet another totally dishonest piece of shit.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynistin ... her-right/
Having gone through the effort of reading Groseclose's paper last night, I would also point out that his model sucks hairy moose balls. At its base is the assumption that the utility of quoting a source is proportional to the alignment of the quoter's and the quotee's political affiliation. Of course, as the ACLU example points out, this is not the case, the value of a quote increases with respect that its source is afforded BY YOUR OPPONENT. He even recognizes that this is the mechanism that causes the ACLU to appear more conservative than he would expect, but treats it as an exception. Further, he uses the same assumption in modeling media slant, but it is again flawed there. A well known method of introducing bias is to present the reasonable proponents on one side and then quote the more extreme and unreasonable sounding proponents on the other. Groseclose's model would evaluate such an article as biased in the opposite direction of its actual bias.Steersman wrote: No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.
If Sagan was talking about scientific ideas - than I agree, I don't know the context of the quote. If he used it with respect to political ideas, then I vehemently disagree.Steersman wrote:Mark Thomas wrote:I quite agree with Shermer. But his thoughts apply as equally to welch, remick, and wonderist.Steersman wrote: <snip>
Good points; quite agree.
Apropos of which is this bit from Shermer’s The Believing Brain – highly recommended:
As you say, cognitive dissonance. And simple filtering through various lenses or coloured by various biases. Rather difficult to disentangle at times.As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both “conservative talk radio†and “progressive talk radio†you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event. Social psychologist Geoffrey Cohen quantified this effect in a study in which he discovered that Democrats are more accepting of a welfare program if they believe it was proposed by a fellow Democrat, even if the proposal came from a Republican and is quite restrictive. Predictably, Cohen found the same effect for Republicans who were far more likely to approve of a generous welfare program if they thought it was proposed by a fellow Republican. In other words, even when examining the exact same data people from both parties arrive at radically different conclusions. [pg #263] (my emphasis)
<snip>
Probably. To a greater or lesser extent depending on the topic under discussion. But that we all have biases isn’t sufficient to make the case that all arguments and biases are created equal or carry equal weight. Apropos of which, I think this quote of Carl Sagan addresses that point:
Not at all easy to identify those biases but I think we’re obliged to make serious efforts to do so. And to make decisions based on that knowledge.The well meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me to be little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit. (Broca’s Brain, pg xii)
No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.I also have a different opinion about who was poking holes in who's theories.
I suspect that Barbie Dahl and Sharon Micucci might be fake ;)Zenspace wrote:ReneeHendricks wrote:If the signatures keep on coming, http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement will have more women in favor than were at WISC2 :D
Now posted on Skeptic Ink:
http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/ ... l-welcome/
I appreciate the reasoned and critical reply - I agree that there are issues with his model (so does he, as I recall) but I do not find those issues fatal.Dave wrote:Having gone through the effort of reading Groseclose's paper last night, I would also point out that his model sucks hairy moose balls. At its base is the assumption that the utility of quoting a source is proportional to the alignment of the quoter's and the quotee's political affiliation. Of course, as the ACLU example points out, this is not the case, the value of a quote increases with respect that its source is afforded BY YOUR OPPONENT. He even recognizes that this is the mechanism that causes the ACLU to appear more conservative than he would expect, but treats it as an exception. Further, he uses the same assumption in modeling media slant, but it is again flawed there. A well known method of introducing bias is to present the reasonable proponents on one side and then quote the more extreme and unreasonable sounding proponents on the other. Groseclose's model would evaluate such an article as biased in the opposite direction of its actual bias.Steersman wrote: No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.
There is also the fact that other papers, such as "Objective Evidence on Media Bias: Newspaper Coverage of Congressional Party Switchers" Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly June 2003 vol. 80 no. 2 311-326 or "Measuring Media Bias: A Content Analysis of Time and Newsweek Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975–2000",Social Science Quarterly, Sep 2007 vol 88:3, 690–706, seem not to find the bias that Groseclose's model suggests.
Love it. It's only offensive if you're an asshole. lolTribble wrote: What a sexist enema nozzle (because douching is too good for him).
You're welcome and now fuck off. (Don't worry, this is just the traditional Slymepit welcome to first time posters.)JustAtheist wrote:Thank you for capturing this she really is willfully ignorantJan Steen wrote:Yesterday, Yemisi had 16 comments on her post about Amina Tyler. Today there are 14. One was a fairly substantial one by JustAtheist without 'bad werdz'. Just a calm and reasonable refutation of Yemini's hypocritical crap. Now it has been memory holed.
But thanks to Google's cache I can show it here. This is it:
http://i.imgur.com/HkURCZz.jpg
Why did she delete it? Because it made her look like the idiot she is, perhaps?
Yemisi is yet another totally dishonest piece of shit.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynistin ... her-right/
Well then that is on their heads. And other cooler ones maybe sitting on the fence will probably draw the conclusion that their position is less credible than they claim. Which is easier to do if the balance of justifications isn't in their favour.Dick Strawkins wrote:With respect Steersman old chum, but I don't think "justification" comes into the picture at all.Steersman wrote: <snip>
Hardly outraged. If you think that the PR of the Pit is helped by making gratuitous insults without justification or context then go big, fill your boots. But don’t be surprised if others think that kind of a dickhead move ….
Your own insult thrown at Svan will be portrayed exactly the same way that any trolls out of the blue expletive is portrayed.
As mentioned before, frequently there may be some benefits to “laying on a bit of hurtingâ€, particularly to get the attention of some rather mulish individuals, or to correct or chastise a child or a sociopath of one sort or another. But unless one can make the case for a “good cop – bad cop†scenario, “excessive†or gratuitous amounts of that “hurting†just looks malicious if not pathological – and rather counter-productive in any case. One thing to spank a child with an open palm; quite another to use a belt or to break a bone or two.How we can balance the right to freedom of expression and robust debate about ideas and issues, with the desire to not unnecessarily hurt people who disagree with us about those ideas.
Agreed. But that looks rather like shooting themselves in the feet. And moving on up to their ankles and knees. Can’t see that redounding much to their credit – or mobility in more ways than one. As with the maliciousness directed at EllenBeth.At the moment they are calling Skep tickle the most vile insults ….
Probably – in her “heart of heartsâ€. Possibly the motivation for her rather disingenuous and transparent efforts to rationalize her actions in that Ethics of Unmasking thread. However, I also think that society has the right if not obligation in cases of seriously anti-social behaviour to limit and curtail that if not actually stomp all over the perpetrators with hobnail boots. The trick is in not doing so for petty, self-serving, or unethical reasons.I am under the impression that Svan is, as she has said herself, acting as their personal thug in this argument. I think she knows she's acting like a petty highschool bully - but she thinks the ends justify the means, even if the means involve a lot of viciousness towards undeserving victims.
Two links, one in which Lindy West cherrypicks some comments she received in response on YouTube debating Jim Norton about rape jokes, and then there's a link to Rebecca Watson "[sharing] the latest volleys from a two-year barrage of hate and abuse."On Tuesday I read Lindy West’s Jezebel piece which recounted the stomach-churning responses she’d received after arguing against rape jokes as a lazy vein of comedy. Then yesterday Rebecca Watson shared the latest volleys from a two-year barrage of hate and abuse. Now it is Thursday morning. If I were to look, I do not doubt I would find another example of it starting all over with someone else. Meanwhile, across the internet, pretty much every feminist article or blog on a high-profile platform, irrespective of its truth or merit, will attract either a smattering or a deluge of abuse, mockery, fury and hate. The broad realm of the manosphere will publish yet more screeds about the iniquity of women and the evil of feminism.
Really? You dont consider the fact that his model fails to accurately model the behavior its intended to in well-known and common situations to be a fatal flaw? Um OK.Mark Thomas wrote: I appreciate the reasoned and critical reply - I agree that there are issues with his model (so does he, as I recall) but I do not find those issues fatal.
Do you understand the issues with his model raised? Because it seems highly unlikely that you can both understand the issue raised and not find them fatal to the conclusions of the paper.Mark Thomas wrote:I appreciate the reasoned and critical reply - I agree that there are issues with his model (so does he, as I recall) but I do not find those issues fatal.Dave wrote:Having gone through the effort of reading Groseclose's paper last night, I would also point out that his model sucks hairy moose balls. At its base is the assumption that the utility of quoting a source is proportional to the alignment of the quoter's and the quotee's political affiliation. Of course, as the ACLU example points out, this is not the case, the value of a quote increases with respect that its source is afforded BY YOUR OPPONENT. He even recognizes that this is the mechanism that causes the ACLU to appear more conservative than he would expect, but treats it as an exception. Further, he uses the same assumption in modeling media slant, but it is again flawed there. A well known method of introducing bias is to present the reasonable proponents on one side and then quote the more extreme and unreasonable sounding proponents on the other. Groseclose's model would evaluate such an article as biased in the opposite direction of its actual bias.Steersman wrote: No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.
There is also the fact that other papers, such as "Objective Evidence on Media Bias: Newspaper Coverage of Congressional Party Switchers" Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly June 2003 vol. 80 no. 2 311-326 or "Measuring Media Bias: A Content Analysis of Time and Newsweek Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975–2000",Social Science Quarterly, Sep 2007 vol 88:3, 690–706, seem not to find the bias that Groseclose's model suggests.
Angry_Drunk wrote:Bullshit.
First, Groseclose's assertion that his self-admitted biases are irrelevant because COMPUTERS is absolutely relevant to his argument. At best they show a penchant for wooly thinking and at worse are an attempt to bamboozle his critics.
Second, you have repeatedly stated that criticizing Groseclose's argument without giving it a "fair hearing" is demonstrating "bias". How the fuck do you know that those criticizing him haven't studied his argument. Oh wait, any intelligent person who read his work would instantly see the validity of it. Congratulations, you're an Objectivist with a side order of the Courtier's Reply.
I fully admit I haven't bothered to read this nitwits paper, because all I need to know to see it's fundamental flaw is the fact that Groseclose views politics on a scale of Michelle Bachman to Nancy Pelosi. For the love of Satan, if he was going to restrict his scale to elected officials he could have at least had the common courtesy to use an actual liberal like Bernie Sanders.
Of course the previously mentioned criticisms go into far more detail on why Groseclose's methodology is fundamentally flawed, but obviously they didn't read his paper.
What's important is that the model confirms his biasesDave wrote:Really? You dont consider the fact that his model fails to accurately model the behavior its intended to in well-known and common situations to be a fatal flaw? Um OK.Mark Thomas wrote: I appreciate the reasoned and critical reply - I agree that there are issues with his model (so does he, as I recall) but I do not find those issues fatal.
Ad Hominem...perfect.Mark Thomas wrote:Angry_Drunk wrote:Bullshit.
First, Groseclose's assertion that his self-admitted biases are irrelevant because COMPUTERS is absolutely relevant to his argument. At best they show a penchant for wooly thinking and at worse are an attempt to bamboozle his critics.
Second, you have repeatedly stated that criticizing Groseclose's argument without giving it a "fair hearing" is demonstrating "bias". How the fuck do you know that those criticizing him haven't studied his argument. Oh wait, any intelligent person who read his work would instantly see the validity of it. Congratulations, you're an Objectivist with a side order of the Courtier's Reply.
I fully admit I haven't bothered to read this nitwits paper, because all I need to know to see it's fundamental flaw is the fact that Groseclose views politics on a scale of Michelle Bachman to Nancy Pelosi. For the love of Satan, if he was going to restrict his scale to elected officials he could have at least had the common courtesy to use an actual liberal like Bernie Sanders.
Of course the previously mentioned criticisms go into far more detail on why Groseclose's methodology is fundamentally flawed, but obviously they didn't read his paper.
Living up to your name...
Mark, I think you're missing the larger point, which is that *reality* really does have a 'liberal bias', in that the right wing in the states *simply*, as a matter of fact, speak falsehoods about *reality* (checkable facts, not value judgments) more often than the left (and I'm no fan of the lies of the political left either!).Mark Thomas wrote:If Sagan was talking about scientific ideas - than I agree, I don't know the context of the quote. If he used it with respect to political ideas, then I vehemently disagree.
You're arguing that political positions - in general, we haven't defined any as of yet - are not created equal and one side is objectively more 'right'. That's nonsensical. Point me to the scientific study which validates that, to use one example, Citizen's United was wrongly decided and that anyone who supports the Supreme Court's decision is objectively wrong. You can't. The closest you would come would be the decision itself and the accompanying rebuttal.
Here's another example - Obamacare. Show me the study which proves that was the objectively right thing to do. You can't.
You can make political arguments for both - and please don't, it's not the point I'm trying to make - and those political arguments boil down to value judgements. Some people value free speech more than they value controlling political campaign contributions. And some people value government control of health care and others value free market alternatives. And there are varying shades of grey in all of these arguments - including the argument that the government doesn't have any business dealing with either of these two issues.
So while facts are an important component to political arguments, goals, methods, legality, among other things, are just as important.
Finally - Groseclose's one sentence about programming is not relevant to his argument, which is detailed at length in his various papers and book. You can disagree with his argument - the Amazon reviewer clearly does. But in my opinion if you disagree with his argument without giving it a fair hearing (having read at least his paper) you're doing so out of bias. I don't agree with creationists but I know and fully understand their arguments. Same with anti-vaxxers.
You could see it, until you get to this line (yes, unfortunately I read this far),treestump wrote:Light relief. Rebecca and Amy have a wild party in Vegas. It's a couple of years old, but demonstrates how the 'chicks don't take shit from nobody (this was well before the blatant harassment of 't-shirt abuse' was invented by an evil MD).
The opening scene has these tough no-nonsense women chasing a man out of the room in his underwear crying and screaming at them "you are all animals!" while they laugh at him (hey, if he's such a pussy that he ends up in tears, well, fuck 'im, he's fair game to the Skepchicks. grrrr.). Our heroes then smash a bottle of whisky against the wall and then Rebecca grabs a man by both of his arse cheeks and squeezes (note: this is not sexual objectification). Look out men, the Skepchicks are here !!
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/guest-post ... -birthday/
Bad writing all around.“Fuck it, come on!†Rebecca said, as she led the group down the street to the next club. I was mentally composing excuses to break off from the group and head home when a police cruiser pulled up next to us. Its siren issued a short burst.
“Miss? You can’t have that bottle open on the street.â€
“Excuse me?†Rebecca asked indignantly.
“You can’t have that bottle open on the street, drop it in the trash or it’s a $400 fine.â€
Rebecca looked the cop dead in the eye and took a long pull of Johnnie Walker. She wiped her mouth with the back of her hand and quietly said, “I dare you.â€
The cop opened his car door and stepped out. POW! Masala Skeptic flew in from nowhere with a hard right cross and knocked him out cold. The Skepchicks all cheered as Elyse grabbed his gun and hat. A.Real.Girl took the wheel. “Get in!†she yelled. The Skepchicks piled into the cruiser…and pulled me in with them.
From Groseclose's book, page 265.Remick wrote:Do you understand the issues with his model raised? Because it seems highly unlikely that you can both understand the issue raised and not find them fatal to the conclusions of the paper.Mark Thomas wrote:I appreciate the reasoned and critical reply - I agree that there are issues with his model (so does he, as I recall) but I do not find those issues fatal.Dave wrote:Having gone through the effort of reading Groseclose's paper last night, I would also point out that his model sucks hairy moose balls. At its base is the assumption that the utility of quoting a source is proportional to the alignment of the quoter's and the quotee's political affiliation. Of course, as the ACLU example points out, this is not the case, the value of a quote increases with respect that its source is afforded BY YOUR OPPONENT. He even recognizes that this is the mechanism that causes the ACLU to appear more conservative than he would expect, but treats it as an exception. Further, he uses the same assumption in modeling media slant, but it is again flawed there. A well known method of introducing bias is to present the reasonable proponents on one side and then quote the more extreme and unreasonable sounding proponents on the other. Groseclose's model would evaluate such an article as biased in the opposite direction of its actual bias.Steersman wrote: No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.
There is also the fact that other papers, such as "Objective Evidence on Media Bias: Newspaper Coverage of Congressional Party Switchers" Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly June 2003 vol. 80 no. 2 311-326 or "Measuring Media Bias: A Content Analysis of Time and Newsweek Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975–2000",Social Science Quarterly, Sep 2007 vol 88:3, 690–706, seem not to find the bias that Groseclose's model suggests.
Seems to me that you’re not adequately differentiating between what is known or not and what is right. That we might not know whether one “political idea†is more “right†than another hardly precludes the possibility that one might actually be more conducive to reaching whatever goal is being discussed. Maybe we don’t have the technology to decide beforehand which is the case – for example through game theory – and might be obliged to “try things out†by actually implementing the associated policies. But it still seems a serious stretch to argue that “all political ideas have equal merit†and are all equally likely to allow us to reach any specified goal.Mark Thomas wrote:If Sagan was talking about scientific ideas - than I agree, I don't know the context of the quote. If he used it with respect to political ideas, then I vehemently disagree.Steersman wrote:Mark Thomas wrote: <snip>
I quite agree with Shermer. But his thoughts apply as equally to welch, remick, and wonderist.
Probably. To a greater or lesser extent depending on the topic under discussion. But that we all have biases isn’t sufficient to make the case that all arguments and biases are created equal or carry equal weight. Apropos of which, I think this quote of Carl Sagan addresses that point:
<snip>The well meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me to be little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit. (Broca’s Brain, pg xii)
You're arguing that political positions - in general, we haven't defined any as of yet - are not created equal and one side is objectively more 'right'. That's nonsensical. Point me to the scientific study which validates that, to use one example, Citizen's United was wrongly decided ….
I suspect the trolls will keep coming. Thanks to whoever is filtering it!bovarchist wrote:I suspect that Barbie Dahl and Sharon Micucci might be fake ;)Zenspace wrote:ReneeHendricks wrote:If the signatures keep on coming, http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement will have more women in favor than were at WISC2 :D
Now posted on Skeptic Ink:
http://www.skepticink.com/lateraltruth/ ... l-welcome/
well, first of all, you're acting like "objective" is some constant even in science. Guess what, it's not. As it turns out, even staying strictly within the sciences, there's a lot of interpretation going on. For example, *we all know* that a theory is...Mark Thomas wrote:If Sagan was talking about scientific ideas - than I agree, I don't know the context of the quote. If he used it with respect to political ideas, then I vehemently disagree.Steersman wrote:Mark Thomas wrote:I quite agree with Shermer. But his thoughts apply as equally to welch, remick, and wonderist.Steersman wrote: <snip>
Good points; quite agree.
Apropos of which is this bit from Shermer’s The Believing Brain – highly recommended:
As you say, cognitive dissonance. And simple filtering through various lenses or coloured by various biases. Rather difficult to disentangle at times.As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both “conservative talk radio†and “progressive talk radio†you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event. Social psychologist Geoffrey Cohen quantified this effect in a study in which he discovered that Democrats are more accepting of a welfare program if they believe it was proposed by a fellow Democrat, even if the proposal came from a Republican and is quite restrictive. Predictably, Cohen found the same effect for Republicans who were far more likely to approve of a generous welfare program if they thought it was proposed by a fellow Republican. In other words, even when examining the exact same data people from both parties arrive at radically different conclusions. [pg #263] (my emphasis)
<snip>
Probably. To a greater or lesser extent depending on the topic under discussion. But that we all have biases isn’t sufficient to make the case that all arguments and biases are created equal or carry equal weight. Apropos of which, I think this quote of Carl Sagan addresses that point:
Not at all easy to identify those biases but I think we’re obliged to make serious efforts to do so. And to make decisions based on that knowledge.The well meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me to be little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit. (Broca’s Brain, pg xii)
No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.I also have a different opinion about who was poking holes in who's theories.
You're arguing that political positions - in general, we haven't defined any as of yet - are not created equal and one side is objectively more 'right'. That's nonsensical. Point me to the scientific study which validates that, to use one example, Citizen's United was wrongly decided and that anyone who supports the Supreme Court's decision is objectively wrong. You can't. The closest you would come would be the decision itself and the accompanying rebuttal.
Right? Well, as we see if you read Earning a PhD by studying a theory that we know is wrong, that's not always the case:a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
So we see that even something as (supposedly) "objective" as What A Theory Is, turns out to be rather, well, subjective. Funny, isn't it.In biology, a theory is indeed the confluence of multiple lines of real-world observations and evidence. That's precisely what scientists mean when they refer to evolution as a theory. And this is how it works in most other areas of science, from the germ theory of disease to the theory of plate tectonics to the big bang theory. But just because a term is used one way, that doesn't mean it isn't also frequently applied in another.
When something is called a theory, it is being compared to the other great theories of the past. In the case of something like the theory of evolution or the germ theory of disease, this comparison is saying that, like the theory of general relativity or evolution, a theory is so well-tested and so thoroughly incorporated into its field that it comes as close as science gets to final truth. Theoretical physics, on the other hand, often uses a different comparison; like general relativity, a theory in theoretical physics is a mathematical framework, a set of rules that describe the behavior of some system. Unlike general relativity, these systems don’t need to be grounded in experiment and they usually aren't even meant to describe the real world. N=4 super Yang-Mills isn't alone; check out Chern-Simons theory, Topological Quantum Field theories, or N=2 Superconformal Field theories.
What these theories do share is a certain level of rigor. Rather than being arbitrary, they involve precisely defined conditions that collectively give rise to interesting properties. While a theory in the theoretical physics sense isn't “true†in that it doesn’t describe the real world, it is “true†in that two researchers will agree on the theory’s properties. This allows interested parties to build off each other’s work.
While this sort of definition is perhaps most jarring in physics, other fields also define "theory" in a similar way. Essentially, every theory in mathematics is a theory in this sense (see Group theory and Category theory). The same is often true in closely related fields like computer science (Type theory, anyone?).
That's a nice try, but without defining terms, population, etc., you can't even define what "right" is. If we don't know what you mean by "right" in the non-directional sense, then we can't even BEGIN to hash that out. It's one reason why everyone in politics thinks they're correct: if you never define your terms, how can you possibly be incorrect?Mark Thomas wrote:Here's another example - Obamacare. Show me the study which proves that was the objectively right thing to do. You can't.
However, none of that precludes looking at someone's analysis and presentation of that analysis, and criticizing those. You're trying very hard to waffle all over the place so that no one can ever say anything is correct or incorrect, because there's just no right answer, and then using that to mean you can't even begin to criticise how someone goes about making their point. That's silly. I can, as other people have, point out real flaws I see in how he's going about things. You are free to dismiss every single criticism presented, which you have, and the speed of that makes me wonder why you even bother engaging, but that doesn't mean "oh, it's all subjective anyway, you can't say anyone's right or wrong."Mark Thomas wrote:You can make political arguments for both - and please don't, it's not the point I'm trying to make - and those political arguments boil down to value judgements. Some people value free speech more than they value controlling political campaign contributions. And some people value government control of health care and others value free market alternatives. And there are varying shades of grey in all of these arguments - including the argument that the government doesn't have any business dealing with either of these two issues.
No, actually, facts are far more important. If you don't have the facts correct, you can't decide legality. Legality kind of requires facts. If your methods ignore pertinent facts, then they're flawed, and any of the goals resulting from those methods is equally flawed. A great example is where Groseclose manages to make the *ACLU* and the *NRA* almost the same in terms of conservative outlook. That is, on any sane level, especially one that actually uses historical data, stupid, especially in the relatively small timeslice Groseclose uses. (The NRA was, many decades ago, not as shitpot nuts as they are now.) The RAND Group is more liberal than the ACLU? That only makes sense if you know nothing about either. But, that's the flaw when you use an overly simplistic metric, as Groseclose did, to base your analysis on. If your results are that out of whack with reality, that's a sign you should re-evaluate what you're doing.Mark Thomas wrote:So while facts are an important component to political arguments, goals, methods, legality, among other things, are just as important.
It is absolutely relevant to his argument, given that he literally uses it to show that there's no way his book can be biased. He used a computer. That's not exaggeration, that's his actual point there. It is, on every level, so incorrect that I cannot believe it was made innocently. There's no way you can have enough CompSCI chops to write your own Stat code, and somehow really believe that a computer has some fucking "remove bias" function. That doesn't even make sense. Computers and software create biased output all the time, including the recent Excel-based one. ESPECIALLY when the results play into your confirmation bias. "Wow, that agrees with what we thought! WE'RE RIGHT".Mark Thomas wrote:Finally - Groseclose's one sentence about programming is not relevant to his argument, which is detailed at length in his various papers and book. You can disagree with his argument - the Amazon reviewer clearly does. But in my opinion if you disagree with his argument without giving it a fair hearing (having read at least his paper) you're doing so out of bias. I don't agree with creationists but I know and fully understand their arguments. Same with anti-vaxxers.
also incorrectAngry_Drunk wrote:Ad Hominem...perfect.Mark Thomas wrote:Living up to your name...
decius wrote:Conservative media are by far more biased than their liberal counterpart and - in some cases - they shamelessly incorporate extreme right-wing views in the most uncritical way.
However, Marxism and liberal bias have been successfully polluting large swathes of academia with agenda-driven advocacy masquerading as indipendente research and outright junk science.
The very reason we are here is an indirect result of this ideological infection.
Well there is Tigzy's threat displays museum. What was up with the "take [it] back to Africa" part of the tweet o hate? Didn't understand that at all. Poe-like.Pitchguest wrote:I'm almost tempted to create my own "Page 'o Hate" now. I mean, since Rebecca is so keen to pick the absolute worst of the worst and it's not really the quantity but the quality that's essential (that is, the absolute worst quality imaginable), I think I can rake up a decent list.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that Groseclose's *models* of things that are actually real and have a lot of real data available end up having NOTHING to do with reality. It's like saying "here, I modeled an orange" and what you get is actually a wombat, but saying it's okay, because it's not subjective.Mark Thomas wrote:From Groseclose's book, page 265.Remick wrote:Do you understand the issues with his model raised? Because it seems highly unlikely that you can both understand the issue raised and not find them fatal to the conclusions of the paper.Mark Thomas wrote:I appreciate the reasoned and critical reply - I agree that there are issues with his model (so does he, as I recall) but I do not find those issues fatal.Dave wrote:Having gone through the effort of reading Groseclose's paper last night, I would also point out that his model sucks hairy moose balls. At its base is the assumption that the utility of quoting a source is proportional to the alignment of the quoter's and the quotee's political affiliation. Of course, as the ACLU example points out, this is not the case, the value of a quote increases with respect that its source is afforded BY YOUR OPPONENT. He even recognizes that this is the mechanism that causes the ACLU to appear more conservative than he would expect, but treats it as an exception. Further, he uses the same assumption in modeling media slant, but it is again flawed there. A well known method of introducing bias is to present the reasonable proponents on one side and then quote the more extreme and unreasonable sounding proponents on the other. Groseclose's model would evaluate such an article as biased in the opposite direction of its actual bias.Steersman wrote: No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.
There is also the fact that other papers, such as "Objective Evidence on Media Bias: Newspaper Coverage of Congressional Party Switchers" Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly June 2003 vol. 80 no. 2 311-326 or "Measuring Media Bias: A Content Analysis of Time and Newsweek Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975–2000",Social Science Quarterly, Sep 2007 vol 88:3, 690–706, seem not to find the bias that Groseclose's model suggests.
"“A feature of our data is that, with only one exception, it does not require us—nor our research assistants—to make any subjective decisions when coding the data. That is, for instance, never did we or our research assistants have to think, “Did that sentence seem liberal, centrist, or conservative?†Instead, all we had to do was note the name of the think tank that was cited.
The one exception was that we excluded cases where a journalist or legislator cited a statement from an expert, but then criticized the statement. Sometimes we had to make a subjective judgment to decide if the expert really was being criticized. However, those cases comprised only a tiny fraction of our data. For instance, of the citations by journalists, only about one percent were cases where the journalist criticized the expert’s statement. Further, even if we had adopted an extremely inclusive definition of criticize, such cases would have comprised only about 1.5 percent of the data.â€
Excerpt From: Tim Groseclose, PhD. “Left Turn.†St. Martin’s Press. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Ill take non-sequiturs for $600, Alex.Mark Thomas wrote:From Groseclose's book, page 265.Remick wrote:Do you understand the issues with his model raised? Because it seems highly unlikely that you can both understand the issue raised and not find them fatal to the conclusions of the paper.Mark Thomas wrote:I appreciate the reasoned and critical reply - I agree that there are issues with his model (so does he, as I recall) but I do not find those issues fatal.Dave wrote:Having gone through the effort of reading Groseclose's paper last night, I would also point out that his model sucks hairy moose balls. At its base is the assumption that the utility of quoting a source is proportional to the alignment of the quoter's and the quotee's political affiliation. Of course, as the ACLU example points out, this is not the case, the value of a quote increases with respect that its source is afforded BY YOUR OPPONENT. He even recognizes that this is the mechanism that causes the ACLU to appear more conservative than he would expect, but treats it as an exception. Further, he uses the same assumption in modeling media slant, but it is again flawed there. A well known method of introducing bias is to present the reasonable proponents on one side and then quote the more extreme and unreasonable sounding proponents on the other. Groseclose's model would evaluate such an article as biased in the opposite direction of its actual bias.Steersman wrote: No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.
There is also the fact that other papers, such as "Objective Evidence on Media Bias: Newspaper Coverage of Congressional Party Switchers" Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly June 2003 vol. 80 no. 2 311-326 or "Measuring Media Bias: A Content Analysis of Time and Newsweek Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975–2000",Social Science Quarterly, Sep 2007 vol 88:3, 690–706, seem not to find the bias that Groseclose's model suggests.
"“A feature of our data is that, with only one exception, it does not require us—nor our research assistants—to make any subjective decisions when coding the data. That is, for instance, never did we or our research assistants have to think, “Did that sentence seem liberal, centrist, or conservative?†Instead, all we had to do was note the name of the think tank that was cited.
The one exception was that we excluded cases where a journalist or legislator cited a statement from an expert, but then criticized the statement. Sometimes we had to make a subjective judgment to decide if the expert really was being criticized. However, those cases comprised only a tiny fraction of our data. For instance, of the citations by journalists, only about one percent were cases where the journalist criticized the expert’s statement. Further, even if we had adopted an extremely inclusive definition of criticize, such cases would have comprised only about 1.5 percent of the data.â€
Excerpt From: Tim Groseclose, PhD. “Left Turn.†St. Martin’s Press. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
I'm actually pretty cranky either way.Guest wrote:also incorrectAngry_Drunk wrote:Ad Hominem...perfect.Mark Thomas wrote:Living up to your name...
i bet youre much more angry while sober
Remind you of anyone? :lol:Men (or people in general) who spent a significant part of their life buying a ‘I must be a doormat to respect women’ type of feminism. I don’t know if this is prevalent in Western culture overall, but I see this in Canada. There are men who just want to be good people, and they assume that means putting women on a pedestal, thinking of women as poor little delicate flowers, etc. Like the “sensitive new age guy†phenomenon. They think you should never disagree with a women or state your needs to a woman. They feel guilty for being sexually attracted to women (and women are often put off by that kind of attitude, and “why do women only love assholes†resentment ensues).
Yes except Tim decided what 'rating' to give each org being cited. He came up with the formula. If the formula is not intentionally biased by him, that doesn't mean it isn't biased by him. The methodology he used to rate everything was arbitrary and biased. Do you dispute this? Do you actually understand how the ratings were given?Mark Thomas wrote:From Groseclose's book, page 265.Remick wrote:Do you understand the issues with his model raised? Because it seems highly unlikely that you can both understand the issue raised and not find them fatal to the conclusions of the paper.Mark Thomas wrote:I appreciate the reasoned and critical reply - I agree that there are issues with his model (so does he, as I recall) but I do not find those issues fatal.Dave wrote:Having gone through the effort of reading Groseclose's paper last night, I would also point out that his model sucks hairy moose balls. At its base is the assumption that the utility of quoting a source is proportional to the alignment of the quoter's and the quotee's political affiliation. Of course, as the ACLU example points out, this is not the case, the value of a quote increases with respect that its source is afforded BY YOUR OPPONENT. He even recognizes that this is the mechanism that causes the ACLU to appear more conservative than he would expect, but treats it as an exception. Further, he uses the same assumption in modeling media slant, but it is again flawed there. A well known method of introducing bias is to present the reasonable proponents on one side and then quote the more extreme and unreasonable sounding proponents on the other. Groseclose's model would evaluate such an article as biased in the opposite direction of its actual bias.Steersman wrote: No doubt. But as we all have opinions the question is who has more facts to put on the table. And while I haven’t followed all of the convolutions of the argument that you and, in particular, welch have been having, it seems to me that welch’s observations about Groseclose’s ignorance about programming and its limitations weigh rather decisively against your position.
There is also the fact that other papers, such as "Objective Evidence on Media Bias: Newspaper Coverage of Congressional Party Switchers" Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly June 2003 vol. 80 no. 2 311-326 or "Measuring Media Bias: A Content Analysis of Time and Newsweek Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975–2000",Social Science Quarterly, Sep 2007 vol 88:3, 690–706, seem not to find the bias that Groseclose's model suggests.
"“A feature of our data is that, with only one exception, it does not require us—nor our research assistants—to make any subjective decisions when coding the data. That is, for instance, never did we or our research assistants have to think, “Did that sentence seem liberal, centrist, or conservative?†Instead, all we had to do was note the name of the think tank that was cited.
The one exception was that we excluded cases where a journalist or legislator cited a statement from an expert, but then criticized the statement. Sometimes we had to make a subjective judgment to decide if the expert really was being criticized. However, those cases comprised only a tiny fraction of our data. For instance, of the citations by journalists, only about one percent were cases where the journalist criticized the expert’s statement. Further, even if we had adopted an extremely inclusive definition of criticize, such cases would have comprised only about 1.5 percent of the data.â€
Excerpt From: Tim Groseclose, PhD. “Left Turn.†St. Martin’s Press. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
A lot to digest here, let me respond to a couple things.Wonderist wrote:Mark, I think you're missing the larger point, which is that *reality* really does have a 'liberal bias', in that the right wing in the states *simply*, as a matter of fact, speak falsehoods about *reality* (checkable facts, not value judgments) more often than the left (and I'm no fan of the lies of the political left either!).Mark Thomas wrote:If Sagan was talking about scientific ideas - than I agree, I don't know the context of the quote. If he used it with respect to political ideas, then I vehemently disagree.
You're arguing that political positions - in general, we haven't defined any as of yet - are not created equal and one side is objectively more 'right'. That's nonsensical. Point me to the scientific study which validates that, to use one example, Citizen's United was wrongly decided and that anyone who supports the Supreme Court's decision is objectively wrong. You can't. The closest you would come would be the decision itself and the accompanying rebuttal.
Here's another example - Obamacare. Show me the study which proves that was the objectively right thing to do. You can't.
You can make political arguments for both - and please don't, it's not the point I'm trying to make - and those political arguments boil down to value judgements. Some people value free speech more than they value controlling political campaign contributions. And some people value government control of health care and others value free market alternatives. And there are varying shades of grey in all of these arguments - including the argument that the government doesn't have any business dealing with either of these two issues.
So while facts are an important component to political arguments, goals, methods, legality, among other things, are just as important.
Finally - Groseclose's one sentence about programming is not relevant to his argument, which is detailed at length in his various papers and book. You can disagree with his argument - the Amazon reviewer clearly does. But in my opinion if you disagree with his argument without giving it a fair hearing (having read at least his paper) you're doing so out of bias. I don't agree with creationists but I know and fully understand their arguments. Same with anti-vaxxers.
I repeat my question to you: Did you vote for George W. Bush?
Here's another, more pertinent question (as it deals with claims about reality, rather than value judgments): Did you believe that the US had evidence of WMDs which was the *factual claim* made used to justify (a value decision) the second Iraq War?
*That's* the kind of bias I'm talking about, not value judgment bias. Hence why I brought up anti-GMOs and anti-vax on the left. Similar equivalents on the right would be creationism, the effects of trickle down economics, the factual claims made to justify the War on Iraq, etc. There's a reason why Canada, who *almost always* (until that point) supported the US in previous wars (e.g. Afghanistan just prior), did not support the Iraq War. The reason is that the Canadians could see, along with most of Europe and the rest of the world, that the US *did not* have sufficient evidence of WMDs to make their claims credible. They had a fucking grainy photo of what sorta looked like a truck taken from a satellite, with a circle and a big red arrow pointing to it saying, "Here be WMDs! Beware!" Literally, they had a fucking PowerPoint slide. That was their fucking evidence.
Did you, like *most* of the US (or at least enough to give Bush/Cheney confidence it wouldn't be political suicide), fall for that line of rhetoric? Those are the kinds of lies and deceptions and biases I'm talking about. That's the kind of reality you need to wake up to. You are being lied to constantly on a daily basis (by *most* media, left or right, though *more* from the right, to be perfectly honest). By people who don't even realize they are lying, most of the time. It's very much like religion, actually. Wake up! Please. The rest of the world needs a non-crazy US populace to wake up from its delusions, and help us fix real world problems. That's the big issue that this square-dancing is traipsing around.
Christianity and Islam are both fucking stupid and wrong and basically lies. I consider Islam far more dangerous at the moment (since we're past most of the medieval shit in Christianity, but not so much with Islam). It's the same with US politics. Democrats and Republicans are both fucking stupid political ideologies and wrong and basically lies. But I consider the Republicans far more dangerous because they are *more* wrong, and more dangerous liars. The connection with religion is not as arbitrary as it might first sound. Take some time to think about it. Check some facts. Do some research. Find out what people in other countries think like, and why. Nobody's got a perfect ideology, not by a long shot. But some are a lot worse than others.
Steersman wrote:Sally Strange said (#40):
So that means you think that the astrological definition or classification of planets (1) should carry any weight? Or that anyone rejecting those is another “astrological-science-denying semi-literate�So then Pitchguest comes along and quotes the dictionary definition of racism. Apparently he thinks this is making some sort of point. Unfortunately for him, the only point it’s making is that he’s another social-science-denying semi-illiterate whose opinion can be summarily dismissed.
Seems that you’re rather conveniently – if not dogmatically or self-servingly – ignoring the question as to whether that particular social-science perspective holds any water or not. My impression - and the dearth of evidence that supports that claim, that opinion, of yours - means that it can be summarily dismissed: FLOOSH.
----
1) “_http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dictionary/clas ... ets.phpâ€;
nippletwister wrote:Agree 100%.
I keep bringing this up on a few blogs in these discussions, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only person who has ever read any feminist literature or so much as a wiki on modern sociology. The marixists have been studying media and learning to hide their politics a bit better, but the "science" aspect of it is still highly debatable, that's the reason for the distinct lack of debate, the claims of "hostility" in the community, the attacks on any science that casts doubt on social theories, and the generally smug behavior...it's to hide the fact that their "science" is pretty thin when it even exists. They've just gotten better at keeping up the bullshit line that questioning the dogma=supporting oppression.
I suppose Saul Alinsky would be proud to have helped turn out a generation of worthless, self-righteous morons and parasites.
I did think about a possible Poe, but then again, Ophelia's followers are so far up her fucking arse they feed off her stomach contents.
Yep, very bad writing. Fun fantasies, downing bottles of whisky, very good, but includes an interesting amount of assaulting men and sexually grabbing men's asses and making men cry. sure, fun fantasies are good, but jokes about 'em that include making women cry might get a *slightly* different reaction; oh well, the gravy train of professional victimhood rolls on and on ...Pitchguest wrote:You could see it, until you get to this line (yes, unfortunately I read this far),treestump wrote:Light relief. Rebecca and Amy have a wild party in Vegas.
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/guest-post ... -birthday/
Bad writing all around.“Fuck it, come on!†Rebecca said, as she led the group down the street to the next club. I was mentally composing excuses to break off from the group and head home when a police cruiser pulled up next to us. Its siren issued a short burst.
“Miss? You can’t have that bottle open on the street.â€
“Excuse me?†Rebecca asked indignantly.
“You can’t have that bottle open on the street, drop it in the trash or it’s a $400 fine.â€
Rebecca looked the cop dead in the eye and took a long pull of Johnnie Walker. She wiped her mouth with the back of her hand and quietly said, “I dare you.â€
The cop opened his car door and stepped out. POW! Masala Skeptic flew in from nowhere with a hard right cross and knocked him out cold. The Skepchicks all cheered as Elyse grabbed his gun and hat. A.Real.Girl took the wheel. “Get in!†she yelled. The Skepchicks piled into the cruiser…and pulled me in with them.
So it's a Con within a Con. At least they're having an attempt. Let's see how they do.treestump wrote:Well, Ophelia's idiot spawn think that Rebecca is organizing conferences.Cunning Punt wrote:As I said before, the solution is obvious. They can set up their own conference, then we can all see for ourselves.CommanderTuvok wrote:Have a gander at this shit-for-brains.
One of Ophelia's cunt worshippers claims Skepchick was responsible for TAM's success in recent years!!! Illusions of grandeur, indeed.
But as others said in response, that would take work.
Yep, they sure are. As it says on the Skepchickcon site http://events.skepchick.org/2013/05/09/ ... ds-may-15/ :great1american1satan wrote: Rebecca and her peeps cenrtainly been better communicators and organizers in recent years than JREF
"Delusionalism, Denialism, Twistedlogicism, Inzvanity and FfTB Bloggers. Buy Surly-ramics AND Cobweb-ramics (new, courtesy of Ophelia Benson) and meet lots of women who all wear those stupid fucking thick-rimmed glasses at SkepchickCon, the science and skepticism track of CONvergence"
Seriously, the "science and skepticism track"?? Oh, really. Anyone actually believes that they are not just going to go on about "Da Feminism" and "Harassment Policies" the whole time...
Yep, as we all know:
1) WiS2 only got 300 attendees, Skepchick could probably manage half that number.
2) even with 100 attendees, they wouldn't be able to organise shit because they are bad communicators who are incapable of organizing.
Compare that to JREF who organise massive conferences with huge numbers of attendees and great speakers, so instead of that, they pay CONvergence to give them a room that they can rant in. The "projection" of Skepchick and FfTB beggars belief.
A bit more honest:
"Skepchickcon 2013: Radical Feminism and the Rise of The Nu-Patriarchy. Join us to discuss the FACT that 83% of ALL women WILL be raped THIS MONTH at least once (and that's not just physical rape, but Men Who Rape With Their Eyes, "which is actually worse than physical rape if you think about it" said Rebecca Watson, noted intellectual), and the Nu-Patriarchies attempts to oppress the wimminz. You are either With Us, or With The Patriarchy!!"
"science and skepticism track". Fucking idiots.
:?:Guest wrote:nippletwister wrote:Agree 100%.
I keep bringing this up on a few blogs in these discussions, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only person who has ever read any feminist literature or so much as a wiki on modern sociology. The marixists have been studying media and learning to hide their politics a bit better, but the "science" aspect of it is still highly debatable, that's the reason for the distinct lack of debate, the claims of "hostility" in the community, the attacks on any science that casts doubt on social theories, and the generally smug behavior...it's to hide the fact that their "science" is pretty thin when it even exists. They've just gotten better at keeping up the bullshit line that questioning the dogma=supporting oppression.
I suppose Saul Alinsky would be proud to have helped turn out a generation of worthless, self-righteous morons and parasites.
ur right dude. bro they should fucking take the RED PILL and learn their proper place. blacks < whites, women < men. simple facts of life. fucking cultural marxist shit. fucking loser leftists. :violin:
This is my point exactly.welch wrote:
That's a nice try, but without defining terms, population, etc., you can't even define what "right" is. If we don't know what you mean by "right" in the non-directional sense, then we can't even BEGIN to hash that out. It's one reason why everyone in politics thinks they're correct: if you never define your terms, how can you possibly be incorrect?
I never said you couldn't criticize. And I'm not saying people can't be right or wrong. I am saying that political public policy decisions are largely based on value judgements and those value judgements aren't inherently right or wrong.welch wrote:However, none of that precludes looking at someone's analysis and presentation of that analysis, and criticizing those. You're trying very hard to waffle all over the place so that no one can ever say anything is correct or incorrect, because there's just no right answer, and then using that to mean you can't even begin to criticise how someone goes about making their point. That's silly. I can, as other people have, point out real flaws I see in how he's going about things. You are free to dismiss every single criticism presented, which you have, and the speed of that makes me wonder why you even bother engaging, but that doesn't mean "oh, it's all subjective anyway, you can't say anyone's right or wrong."Mark Thomas wrote:You can make political arguments for both - and please don't, it's not the point I'm trying to make - and those political arguments boil down to value judgements. Some people value free speech more than they value controlling political campaign contributions. And some people value government control of health care and others value free market alternatives. And there are varying shades of grey in all of these arguments - including the argument that the government doesn't have any business dealing with either of these two issues.
You're arguing against his model, saying that its out of whack with reality. But is it really? He rates Fox New as the most conservative media outlet. He rates the NYTs as one of the most liberal. That makes sense intellectually, right?welch wrote:No, actually, facts are far more important. If you don't have the facts correct, you can't decide legality. Legality kind of requires facts. If your methods ignore pertinent facts, then they're flawed, and any of the goals resulting from those methods is equally flawed. A great example is where Groseclose manages to make the *ACLU* and the *NRA* almost the same in terms of conservative outlook. That is, on any sane level, especially one that actually uses historical data, stupid, especially in the relatively small timeslice Groseclose uses. (The NRA was, many decades ago, not as shitpot nuts as they are now.) The RAND Group is more liberal than the ACLU? That only makes sense if you know nothing about either. But, that's the flaw when you use an overly simplistic metric, as Groseclose did, to base your analysis on. If your results are that out of whack with reality, that's a sign you should re-evaluate what you're doing.Mark Thomas wrote:So while facts are an important component to political arguments, goals, methods, legality, among other things, are just as important.
Groseclose does not "literally uses it to show that there's no way his book can be biased." That you write that sentence tells me that you haven't read the book, or his arguments, in much detail aside from skimming his website and quote mining.welch wrote:It is absolutely relevant to his argument, given that he literally uses it to show that there's no way his book can be biased. He used a computer. That's not exaggeration, that's his actual point there. It is, on every level, so incorrect that I cannot believe it was made innocently. There's no way you can have enough CompSCI chops to write your own Stat code, and somehow really believe that a computer has some fucking "remove bias" function. That doesn't even make sense. Computers and software create biased output all the time, including the recent Excel-based one. ESPECIALLY when the results play into your confirmation bias. "Wow, that agrees with what we thought! WE'RE RIGHT".Mark Thomas wrote:Finally - Groseclose's one sentence about programming is not relevant to his argument, which is detailed at length in his various papers and book. You can disagree with his argument - the Amazon reviewer clearly does. But in my opinion if you disagree with his argument without giving it a fair hearing (having read at least his paper) you're doing so out of bias. I don't agree with creationists but I know and fully understand their arguments. Same with anti-vaxxers.
There's also his rather pathetic appeals to authority. Dick Cheney must be smart. He worked with a guy who worked with a guy who worked with a guy blah, blah, who worked with Paul Erdos.
If that makes Dick Cheney smart, I'm a fucking movie star, because I have FAR less separation from Kevin Bacon than he does from Paul Erdos. Wait, I'm also a rock star, because I've tooled on a guitar with Frank Casanova (former QuickTime Guy for Apple) who played with Ace Frehley once.
Then there's the entire "i disclose my bias, WINNING" shit. What he, and you, are trying to push is that because he is so very aware of his biases, obviously he's able to keep them out of his work. What a pack of shit. What it also means is "I'm disclosing this because I have no intention of doing anything but "proving" what my biases tell me is true, and I'll use pretty much any trick in the book, from appeals to authority to bullshitting you about how computers work to make you think I'm some font of objectivity."
Telling me you're biased has exactly zero value in terms of objectivity. Knowing, or not knowing your bias means shit. For example, I have *no* idea of the political leanings of the snopes.com crew. None. What I do know, is that every time I double-check them, they have their facts straight. They could be eating baby-kabobs dipped in panda scrotum sauce with a blue whale pancreas glaze for all I know. What matters is their output is solid. What I see from Groseclose is one of the most blatant manipulation attempts ever, and that, along with the analysis of his actual methodology, tells me he's naught but yet another bullshit artist.
I immediately thought "I'm not your bro, guy."nippletwister wrote:Guest wrote::?:nippletwister wrote:
ur right dude. bro... --snipped--
But if you're a cunt it's misogynist.Wonderist wrote:Love it. It's only offensive if you're an asshole. lolTribble wrote: What a sexist enema nozzle (because douching is too good for him).
Hi oolon!Guest wrote:nippletwister wrote:Agree 100%.
I keep bringing this up on a few blogs in these discussions, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only person who has ever read any feminist literature or so much as a wiki on modern sociology. The marixists have been studying media and learning to hide their politics a bit better, but the "science" aspect of it is still highly debatable, that's the reason for the distinct lack of debate, the claims of "hostility" in the community, the attacks on any science that casts doubt on social theories, and the generally smug behavior...it's to hide the fact that their "science" is pretty thin when it even exists. They've just gotten better at keeping up the bullshit line that questioning the dogma=supporting oppression.
I suppose Saul Alinsky would be proud to have helped turn out a generation of worthless, self-righteous morons and parasites.
ur right dude. bro they should fucking take the RED PILL and learn their proper place. blacks < whites, women < men. simple facts of life. fucking cultural marxist shit. fucking loser leftists. :violin:
I don't know who you are, but the evidence is overwhelming. Noble Savage theory polluting cultural anthropology, Blank Slate theory afflicting a variety of fields, PostModernism (falsely represented as antagonistic to Marxism, being an outshoot thereof and rendering much of contemporary philosophy a joke), Patriarchy theory (don't get me started on that one), Critical theory and so on and so forth.Guest wrote:
ur right dude. bro they should fucking take the RED PILL and learn their proper place. blacks < whites, women < men. simple facts of life. fucking cultural marxist shit. fucking loser leftists. :violin:
Tribble wrote:bovarchist wrote:Please do not judge all Vancouverites on the basis of Crommunist.
I don't. I've been to Vancouver on vacation. It's a remarkable city with a lot of great people.
Cunning Punt wrote:So it's a Con within a Con. At least they're having an attempt. Let's see how they do.treestump wrote:
A bit more honest:
"Skepchickcon 2013: Radical Feminism and the Rise of The Nu-Patriarchy. Join us to discuss the FACT that 83% of ALL women WILL be raped THIS MONTH at least once (and that's not just physical rape, but Men Who Rape With Their Eyes, "which is actually worse than physical rape if you think about it" said Rebecca Watson, noted intellectual), and the Nu-Patriarchies attempts to oppress the wimminz. You are either With Us, or With The Patriarchy!!"
"science and skepticism track". Fucking idiots.
Can we have a fundraiser to send Justin? :tools-wrench:
Thanks for the clarification, I either landed on a page with wrong figures or made a doodoo when adding the numbers of copies of all the games. I'll be buying the new game soon, what I've seen from it looks good.Tribble wrote:Altair wrote: She'll probably talk about the game but will say/imply that the real reason the game is getting negative reviews is teh patriarchy.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but Remember Me is more or less (in)famous because the game's creative director said during an interview that several publishers refused to publish the game because it had a female character.
Is it possible that they said that? of course, but I find it highly suspicious that someone would use that as a refusal to fund a game saying that a female character would not sell, taking into account that:
- The Tomb Raider franchise has sold more than 8 million units
- Parasite Eve I and II have sold about 2 million units
- Resident Evil 3 sold 3.72 million copies
- Bayonetta sold 1.35 million units
- Final Fantasy X-2, with an all female cast, sold almost 4 million units
Taking into account those figures, I find it hard to believe that companies will refuse a game because of a female character.
It's just a suspicion with no evidence, but to me it sounds like an attempt to create controversy and attract publicity for the game.
Tomb Raider has sold over 32 million copies in all versions of the game, which is a shit load more than 8 million. A bad selling , non-port Tomb Raider will hit multi-million sales. Even late ports to the PS2 & PS3 sold over a million copies.
The new one hit 3.4 million in the first three weeks of March. That's the fastest selling, but not the biggest which is Tomb Raider II at almost 8 million copies as a stand-alone. (More were sold as part of a bundle or as renamed PS2 ports, etc.)
I would also offer up "Douche-Weasel". It first sprang to mind in the inevitable context of Oolon but I think it also works in this instance.Tribble wrote:
What a sexist enema nozzle (because douching is too good for him). He should check his privilege and shut and listen when a woman speaks and stop with his mansplaining and misogyny.
A sole SRSer (groupthinkus maximus) appears only occasionally in the unmoderated wild outside of its herd. While its regard for other living beings verges on absoloute bloodthirsty hatred, upon confrontation it makes haste to communicate its thorough lack of giving a shit by eschewing common standards of punctuation. If you bother lingering to take note of this drab, poorly-groomed plumage, you will invariably find the SRSer's evident lack of giving a shit confirmed by the transparent solipsism in its call. While SRSer is not in any way dangerous, it can get a bit tetchy when alone and you may find it advantageous to flee before its indignance at the general injustice of the situation causes it to shit all over your shoes.Guest wrote:nippletwister wrote:Agree 100%.
I keep bringing this up on a few blogs in these discussions, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only person who has ever read any feminist literature or so much as a wiki on modern sociology. The marixists have been studying media and learning to hide their politics a bit better, but the "science" aspect of it is still highly debatable, that's the reason for the distinct lack of debate, the claims of "hostility" in the community, the attacks on any science that casts doubt on social theories, and the generally smug behavior...it's to hide the fact that their "science" is pretty thin when it even exists. They've just gotten better at keeping up the bullshit line that questioning the dogma=supporting oppression.
I suppose Saul Alinsky would be proud to have helped turn out a generation of worthless, self-righteous morons and parasites.
ur right dude. bro they should fucking take the RED PILL and learn their proper place. blacks < whites, women < men. simple facts of life. fucking cultural marxist shit. fucking loser leftists. :violin:
“Reasonable people, including my friend Loucas George, may ask, (i) “What gives you the authority to decide what ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ mean?†and, related, (ii) “What gives you the authority to decide the issues that measure a person’s liberalness or conservativeness?â€Remick wrote:
Yes except Tim decided what 'rating' to give each org being cited. He came up with the formula. If the formula is not intentionally biased by him, that doesn't mean it isn't biased by him. The methodology he used to rate everything was arbitrary and biased. Do you dispute this? Do you actually understand how the ratings were given?
It's one of the most wealthy cities in the world that happens to have a massive, meth-addled ghetto, so the rich hipster kids who live there believe they are worldly.Oof wrote:Tribble wrote:bovarchist wrote:Please do not judge all Vancouverites on the basis of Crommunist.
I don't. I've been to Vancouver on vacation. It's a remarkable city with a lot of great people.
I don't know, guys, I've seen a lot of crazy radical feminist communist shit coming out of Vancouver.
And this is just one of many incidents. Y'all need to sort that shit out. What the fuck are you teaching up there?
Once again, emotional development stopped at (I'm being generous here) seventeen. Adults do not write that. Adults do not see themselves that way or aspire to that behavior.treestump wrote:Yep, very bad writing. Fun fantasies, downing bottles of whisky, very good, but includes an interesting amount of assaulting men and sexually grabbing men's asses and making men cry. sure, fun fantasies are good, but jokes about 'em that include making women cry might get a *slightly* different reaction; oh well, the gravy train of professional victimhood rolls on and on ...Pitchguest wrote:You could see it, until you get to this line (yes, unfortunately I read this far),treestump wrote:Light relief. Rebecca and Amy have a wild party in Vegas.
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/guest-post ... -birthday/
Bad writing all around.“Fuck it, come on!†Rebecca said, as she led the group down the street to the next club. I was mentally composing excuses to break off from the group and head home when a police cruiser pulled up next to us. Its siren issued a short burst.
“Miss? You can’t have that bottle open on the street.â€
“Excuse me?†Rebecca asked indignantly.
“You can’t have that bottle open on the street, drop it in the trash or it’s a $400 fine.â€
Rebecca looked the cop dead in the eye and took a long pull of Johnnie Walker. She wiped her mouth with the back of her hand and quietly said, “I dare you.â€
The cop opened his car door and stepped out. POW! Masala Skeptic flew in from nowhere with a hard right cross and knocked him out cold. The Skepchicks all cheered as Elyse grabbed his gun and hat. A.Real.Girl took the wheel. “Get in!†she yelled. The Skepchicks piled into the cruiser…and pulled me in with them.
No, I have not read it (indeed was unaware of it until now).CommanderTuvok wrote:BTW, has anybody else seen posh knob Tory Douglas Murray's latest book - called 'Islamophilia'?
In the write-up Murray takes aim at "so many of the celebrities above, have, at some point chosen to abandon any hope or wish to criticize Islam". Among the names included are Sebastian Faulks and Martin Amis, Boris Johnson, South Park, Tony Blair, Ridley Scott, David Cameron, Liam Neeson, Justin Bieber, Random House Publishers, the BBC......., and RICHARD DAWKINS!!!
Is this the same Richard Dawkins who some Baboons think is a raging, frothing-at-the-mouth Islamophobe?
Hilarious stuff.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Islamophilia-eb ... 62663031_5
