—“The word “scientific” needs updated to mean “accountable”.”—Steve Pender
(Genius)
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-23 16:56:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1131604879883956224
—“The word “scientific” needs updated to mean “accountable”.”—Steve Pender
(Genius)
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-23 16:56:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1131604879883956224
—“The cortex is a location processor that consists of many many copies of an earlier structure in the hippocampal region, the function of which is the construct orientation, location, from heterogenous stimuli necessary for motion(action).”— (Rough translation of Hawkins)
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-22 16:44:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1131239340074504199
rupert sheldrake is master of false equivalency.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-21 20:03:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130927216966217739
(I was involved in AGW in 2009 and have followed you for almost ten years – and you are the scientist most committed to the demand for infallibility (truth) that I know of in the field. So much so that I use you as an example of scientific due diligence in my course. )
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-21 19:23:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130916979672584193
Reply addressees: @curryja @Revkin @Lijnonline @colognav @MichaelEMann @Knutti_ETH @ClimateOpp @NaomiOreskes @deepuncertainty @bobkopp
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130908503537668096
IN REPLY TO:
@curryja
@Revkin @Lijnonline @colognav @MichaelEMann @Knutti_ETH @ClimateOpp @NaomiOreskes @deepuncertainty @bobkopp And I’m called a ‘denier’ for saying exactly the same things about uncertainty for the past decade. Glad to see that others are ‘catching up’ with me on this.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1130908503537668096
—Are you capable of making ONE rebuttal that doesn’t result to personal attack? GSRRM all over this.—Victoria Medley
In any argument that is untruthful (unscientific) or attempts to shame, i use a very simple method that I publish frequently:(a) return the same (gsrrm)(b) provide answers or education to improve understanding (c) repeat the central argument, (d) repeat until the person… i) understands, (consent, success)… ii) goes away to think (undecided, conditional)… iii) demonstrates exhaustion, frustration, or anger. (failure)(e) never give up because immoral, stupid, and wrong will always be defeated by moral, intelligent, and true.
So I always return GSRRM as punishment for using it, as a means of educating the opposition in their tactic, and removing its utility through exposition.
In other words, use argumentative opportunity to educate. Vary it by intellectual honesty, degree of previous consideration of the subject, and degree of empirical evidence to support position. I basically abuse intellectually dishonest people into frustration; incrementally educate intellectually honest but overconfident (ignorant) people. and I just fking answer questions…. lol.
It takes YEARS for some people to come around. And only a few of them every make it to disambiguation, serialization, reciprocity, supply, and demand.
I can count those people on my fingers. It’s fking hard.Hence the need for course and book.Hence the need for different explanations for different classes each of which is searching for how it’s relevant and beneficial to them.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 22:02:01 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/10637292157148479
Logic <->Physics<->Economics<->Sentience
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 13:32:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1128654466268508162
The problem with economics, which Taleb states somewhat poorly, is selective accounting of measured capital and the use of pseudoscientific, quantitative sophism (innumeracy), and linguistic sophistry, to obscure export of cost and risk, without warranty of due diligence.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-11 18:14:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1127275884434604032
Reply addressees: @Bryan_of_Sweden @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1127256226990055424
IN REPLY TO:
@Bryan_of_Sweden
@curtdoolittle @JayMan471 Based on a specific scientific theory? I assume your theory is not be-all & end-all of this subject?Theories are always based on ceratin types of evidence & reasoning,if it within the realm of economic theory it is also highly probable that it will never be proved consclusively.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1127256226990055424
I suspect that defunding student loans for pseudoscience is on the horizon. Last year ended nature-nurture with nature. This year is ending group indifferences with differences. The replication crisis is having expected consequences. Postmoderns will join philosophy and theology.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-08 22:58:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126260234043961345
Reply addressees: @NicoleBarbaro @hbdchick
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126171646853885953
IN REPLY TO:
@NicoleBarbaro
Psychological research is going to fundamentally fork in the very near future: One path with be enveloped by biology and genetics, the other path enveloped by social justice sciences and humanities departments. The ‘field’ will likely be the latter… https://t.co/PstHTXXZX5
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126171646853885953
Yes. But what if you didn’t like what it said? Man demonstrates he is amoral and moral or immoral as sees fit. History like the sciences can be contemplated at hierarchical scales. The largest longest scales say the very obvious. Not as nicely as Durant
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-08 22:45:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1126256826629095426
Reply addressees: @insurrealist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125803035794518016
IN REPLY TO:
@insurrealist
Is there a version of historical materialism that’s for adults? That is, doesn’t smuggle any eschatological or moral nonsense anywhere and goes on to treat people like materials. No garbage like “human flourishing” or people being ends in themselves or whatever.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125803035794518016
Predict or explain. As determinism decreases (from the physical to the economic to the conceptual for example) theories can explain the data, and only within the limits of their arbitrary precision but they cannot predict the future.
Source date (UTC): 2019-05-05 12:16:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125011322851221504
Reply addressees: @Scientific_Bird
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124761167883325451
IN REPLY TO:
@Scientific_Bird
A good scientific theory makes predictions about a phenomenon.
Consequently, a big part of progress in science should be centered around understanding how we can become better at making robust and reliable predictions.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124761167883325451