PDA

View Full Version : Why we have trouble reaching objective assessments (such as ACC)


p.dath
25th February 2010, 08:34
Some people are trying to get an injunction to stop the CERN particle accelerator at the moment as they think it might destroy the earth in a black hole.

But that's not the interesting bit. The interesting bit (quoted below) talks about some of the reasons why groups of people can't come up with objective assessments.

The three below so describe ACC (or does it describe us but we are too blind to see it ...).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527485.700-cern-on-trial-could-a-lawsuit-shut-the-lhc-down.html

Social scientists have identified a number of phenomena that can skew attempts to reach objective assessments of risk. For instance, cognitive dissonance describes the tendency of people to seek information that is consistent with their beliefs and to avoid information that is inconsistent. "Groupthink" describes a process by which intelligent individuals, working in a group, can reach a worry-free outlook that is not justified by the facts. And the phenomenon of confirmation bias - the tendency to filter information so as to confirm working hypotheses - was cited by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board as one explanation for why space shuttle programme managers ignored sure signs of trouble.
R6_kid
25th February 2010, 11:22
I think they're just scared that we'll find out God isn't real, and that the Church and the Government have been deceiving us all along!
Big Dave
25th February 2010, 11:31
Easy.

None of us is as stupid as all of us.
yachtie10
25th February 2010, 12:16
you mean people are idiots
Big Dave
25th February 2010, 13:22
The 50% rule. Put enough people in a room and half of them will disagree.

( ^ i'll claim that if there isn't already a source)
avgas
25th February 2010, 13:42
Ah yes - but the great think about science is its wrong.
Always has been - even Einstein admitted to that.
Stuff always will go outside the boundaries, and we will always be at a loss to wonder why. While the group may agree, the individual will still have conflict.
Very hard to take face value and assume it raw data.
oldrider
25th February 2010, 21:40
The 50% rule. Put enough people in a room and half of them will disagree.

( ^ i'll claim that if there isn't already a source)

I dispute that! :mellow:
Pixie
26th February 2010, 08:02
Ah yes - but the great think about science is its wrong.
Always has been - even Einstein admitted to that.
Stuff always will go outside the boundaries, and we will always be at a loss to wonder why. While the group may agree, the individual will still have conflict.
Very hard to take face value and assume it raw data.

What you talkin' about?
"Science" can not be wrong.The word,from the latin "scientia" means knowledge and therefore describes a concept that is constantly changing.
At any moment in time true,science is correct by definition.
phred
26th February 2010, 08:15
The 50% rule. Put enough people in a room and half of them will disagree.

( ^ i'll claim that if there isn't already a source)

Thats why 2 people posting in the same thread on KB always degenerates into arguements, flame wars and general mayhem.
avgas
26th February 2010, 08:30
What you talkin' about?
"Science" can not be wrong.The word,from the latin "scientia" means knowledge and therefore describes a concept that is constantly changing.
At any moment in time true,science is correct by definition.
Actually your referring to "learning", knowledge is what you know.
But what I was actually referring to the fact that Science is usually heavily regulated by those who enjoy the control, not the learning.
People like Lorenz (among many others) hit the full force of this. Even after May, Mandelbrot, Koch, Feigenbaum all 're-proved' Lorenz's concepts......they were all boxed in with the 'crazies'. To date, very little about Fractals is put into science textbooks.
So while the concept states that Scientia is all about the knowledge - the politics usually take priority.
Flip
26th February 2010, 08:37
Well this about sums it up for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE
oldrider
26th February 2010, 09:31
Actually your referring to "learning", knowledge is what you know.
But what I was actually referring to the fact that Science is usually heavily regulated by those who enjoy the control, not the learning.
People like Lorenz (among many others) hit the full force of this. Even after May, Mandelbrot, Koch, Feigenbaum all 're-proved' Lorenz's concepts......they were all boxed in with the 'crazies'. To date, very little about Fractals is put into science textbooks.
So while the concept states that Scientia is all about the knowledge - the politics usually take priority.

True!........Politics is the biggest box of crazies of all, especially the New Zealand brand of "mock" democracy!
Ixion
26th February 2010, 14:53
The 50% rule. Put enough people in a room and half of them will disagree.

( ^ i'll claim that if there isn't already a source)

I'm in two minds about that. Half of me agrees, the other half differs.
Skyryder
26th February 2010, 16:03
I'm in two minds about that. Half of me agrees, the other half differs.

So is it he left side that agrees or the right side.

My brain is in total unison in that neither can make up its mind whether to agree or disagree with the other side.


Skyryder