The 2017 Election Thread

[Katman]

So, Expert opinion isn't valid evidence then....

That's a real slippery slope you're about to slide down.

What's that you like to say........?

Ahh, that's right........ argumentum ad verecundiam.

[Brian d marge]

What's that you like to say........?

Ahh, that's right........ argumentum ad verecundiam.

I think your thinking of
From memory

Pies lesu domine
Eis requiem
.
Holy grail...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

What's that you like to say........?

Ahh, that's right........ argumentum ad verecundiam.

Except, not a fallacy if the person is held to be an expert in the field...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority

Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument.

[TheDemonLord]

In his dreams, fuckface.

My Dreams are much more interesting.

[TheDemonLord]

Of course it isn't (in a scientific sense, I'm sure you've got contrived examples for other irrelevancies). To think otherwise shows you are at the wrong end of a slope already.

Certainly in the softer sciences, expert opinion is valid, on the proviso that it is backed by some form of evidence.

In fact, There have been numerous peer reviewed and published scientific papers that are essential opinion on a topic, with reference to the available evidence.

The whole point of peer review, of "Nullius in verba" is to ensure that science is not formed by opinion, but by reproducible evidence and proven fact.

You mean like multiple IQ tests across large scale populations all showing Males have a greater test variation?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Suck it up boys.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ad-in-new-poll

[jasonu]

Suck it up boys.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ad-in-new-poll

And tomorrow there will be a poll that says the opposite.

[Crasherfromwayback]

And tomorrow there will be a poll that says the opposite.

Nah. That'll take a week.

[TheDemonLord]

Suck it up boys.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ad-in-new-poll

Would that be the same polling institution that said Hilary was ahead in the Polls, that Brexit would never happen?

[Graystone]

Certainly in the softer sciences, expert opinion is valid, on the proviso that it is backed by some form of evidence.

In fact, There have been numerous peer reviewed and published scientific papers that are essential opinion on a topic, with reference to the available evidence.



You mean like multiple IQ tests across large scale populations all showing Males have a greater test variation?

Soft science is not fit for purpose here.

Yet all you've posted is some stats which do not support your causality conclusion, a paper which actively denies it, and an opinion article. Why don't you instead post one of these peer reviewed and published 'essential opinions' to support your belief?

Exactly like that, none of that numerous evidence tells us there is a direct causal link between the IQ variance and gender biology. Stop trying to shoehorn your unscientific sexism into their real science you fucking charlatan.

[TheDemonLord]

Soft science is not fit for purpose here.

You've repeatedly affirmed that there is a social science aspect, and social science is definitely a softer science.

Yet all you've posted is some stats which do not support your causality conclusion

There is no other explanation, that explains the repeated results of multiple, large scale test results.

a paper which actively denies it

Eh, not quite. It certainly says they haven't proved the Causal link - and I even conceded that point (cause that is part of being intellectually honest) however - it did mention that:

1: "Scientists have showed on intact animals that other factors such as genetics and gender itself are mostly responsible forthe sex differences in behavior and cognition." - and that since we are part of the animal kingdom, it is not unreasonable that the above should hold true for us as well

2: "Nevertheless, also according to the numerous published studies and animal experiments, testosterone seems to affect brain functions." - Which has been at the core of my argument all along. We are not the same, so expecting the same performance isn't reasonable

3: "Many researchers in this field complain about negative results that are very difficult to publish in the relevant journals." It seems that experiments that don't conform to a certain ideological narrative are being suppressed.

and an opinion article.

By one of the leading authorities in this field.

Why don't you instead post one of these peer reviewed and published 'essential opinions' to support your belief?

I've referenced the Scottish experiment (which is considered one of the Gold Standards in this area) and a couple of papers that did an analysis of this. I've also referenced a paper that indicates that the results support the Male Variability theory.

Exactly like that, none of that numerous evidence tells us there is a direct causal link between the IQ variance and gender biology.

Even if I grant you that statement, you are still left with a large body of evidence that points to a singular conclusion of there being a biological component.

Stop trying to shoehorn your unscientific sexism into their real science you fucking charlatan.

So is Steven Pinker a Charlatan who is sexist?

[Graystone]

You've repeatedly affirmed that there is a social science aspect, and social science is definitely a softer science.



There is no other explanation, that explains the repeated results of multiple, large scale test results.



Eh, not quite. It certainly says they haven't proved the Causal link - and I even conceded that point (cause that is part of being intellectually honest) however - it did mention that:

1: "Scientists have showed on intact animals that other factors such as genetics and gender itself are mostly responsible forthe sex differences in behavior and cognition." - and that since we are part of the animal kingdom, it is not unreasonable that the above should hold true for us as well

2: "Nevertheless, also according to the numerous published studies and animal experiments, testosterone seems to affect brain functions." - Which has been at the core of my argument all along. We are not the same, so expecting the same performance isn't reasonable

3: "Many researchers in this field complain about negative results that are very difficult to publish in the relevant journals." It seems that experiments that don't conform to a certain ideological narrative are being suppressed.



By one of the leading authorities in this field.



I've referenced the Scottish experiment (which is considered one of the Gold Standards in this area) and a couple of papers that did an analysis of this. I've also referenced a paper that indicates that the results support the Male Variability theory.



Even if I grant you that statement, you are still left with a large body of evidence that points to a singular conclusion of there being a biological component.



So is Steven Pinker a Charlatan who is sexist?

I've repeatedly affirmed its plausibility.

There's no other explanation? Isn't that the god of the gaps argument? Pretty difficult to conclude causality based on what isn't there, try using what is instead.

It actively denies your conclusion that causality has been proven.

So do any of those analysis's or indications make the conclusion you are?

Who the fuck is Stephen Plinker and why should I care?

[TheDemonLord]

I've repeatedly affirmed its plausibility.

That makes no sense given what it is in response to.

There's no other explanation? Isn't that the god of the gaps argument? Pretty difficult to conclude causality based on what isn't there, try using what is instead.

Not really a god of the gaps, more like deductive reasoning - when the impossible (or in this case, contradictory) has been eliminated, the improbable (or in this case, socially taboo) must remain.

In this case, every other explanation for the differences (such as social conditioning etc.) fails because it is invalidated by other studies.

It actively denies your conclusion that causality has been proven.

On that one paper, it says it's not a Causal link - and I conceded that, however when I cited it, I was referencing that in Animals, Causal differences have been found, so it is not a stretch, since we are Animals.

So do any of those analysis's or indications make the conclusion you are?

There is this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/

Studies of young infants and children (Matsuzawa et al., 2001), and especially longitudinal studies (Giedd et al., 1999), may help explain the causal direction and the development of sex differences in the relation between brain neuroanatomy and cognitive performance.

Who the fuck is Stephen Plinker and why should I care?

I dunno who Steven Plinker is either.

Steven Pinker on the other hand is only a leading authority on evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.

But that still doesn't answer the question - is he a Sexist Charlatan too?

[Graystone]

That makes no sense given what it is in response to.



Not really a god of the gaps, more like deductive reasoning - when the impossible (or in this case, contradictory) has been eliminated, the improbable (or in this case, socially taboo) must remain.

In this case, every other explanation for the differences (such as social conditioning etc.) fails because it is invalidated by other studies.



On that one paper, it says it's not a Causal link - and I conceded that, however when I cited it, I was referencing that in Animals, Causal differences have been found, so it is not a stretch, since we are Animals.



There is this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/





I dunno who Steven Plinker is either.

Steven Pinker on the other hand is only a leading authority on evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.

But that still doesn't answer the question - is he a Sexist Charlatan too?

I've repeatedly affirmed that is is plausible there is a social bias (social science aspect), I haven't repeatedly affirmed there definitely is one.

Except it has not been eliminated, there is just a lack of evidence for it, ie, a gap.

It is most definetly a stretch, that is why they specifically said it did not prove a causal link.

That conclusion is nowhere near the same as the one you try to draw, highlight the "may help explain" bit.

So, no reason I should care, leading authorities in scientific field get there by letting their science do the talking. I don't know him, nor do I follow his work, so I'm not sure how you expect me to answer that question? Or why it should be relevant?

[Katman]

Or why it should be relevant?

Something to do with autism.