The premise of this thread is dumb. You don't need to read the writings of Newton to understand math principles that came about because of his work.
"Darwinian" doesn't imply that he's some sort of revered figure that needs to be read. He was simply the originator of the idea.
This is a great example of a difference between religion and non-religion. I probably couldn't really be considered a Christian if I didn't have at least a passing familiarity with the Bible. But one can easily be an atheist, one who cites evolution as part of their reasoning, having not read Darwin. One enterprise changes knowledge as we learn more, the other stays the same. It's what happens when you don't have a dogma.
Like others have said, as scientific exposition, Darwin's fairly worthless now. It would be interesting as historical curiosity only.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, you can have your "science"I wont even ask you about independent variables
Nor will I ask you about the subjective tools used in your supposed purely objective science. Don't forget your arbitrary p-values. 😉
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
🙄 There is nothing more sarcastic then a Buddhist saying thank god. 😛
There's nothing more silly than an agnostic theist thinking he's thanking God every time he prays.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nor will I ask you about the subjective tools used in your supposed purely objective science. Don't forget your arbitrary p-values. 😉
see, this is the problem, and I really don't want to get into it, but there is a huge difference between the epistemology of science and scientific evidence and the methods used within this more overarching scientific method.
So, for instance, the idea of peer review is fundamental to science. In fact, without such review, people are not engaged in science (so, even highly scientific books dealing with science topics [guns germs steel, meme machine, history of the universe, ancestor's tale, selfish gene] that do not undergo peer review are not science).
Now, the way one sets up peer review is subjective, and there are more or less satisfactory ways of doing it, but there is no way you can be doing science if such a review is not happening.
also, there is nothing arbitrary with p-values... I think you mean alpha values or you are talking about the difference between the probability of your results representing chance (p-value) and your results representing the probability of your hypothesis being true (some other, normally Bayesian, method). Again, data analysis is a part of the scientific method, one that cannot be excluded from the method to still be doing science, but there are more or less satisfactory ways to do it, and there is a subjective component to which you choose. EDIT: just to reinforce this, the p-value CAN'T be an integral and necessary part of science, as it wasn't developed until the 1930s. This would mean that a huge portion of chemistry and physics, not to mention early psychology done by people like Wundt, Ebbinghaus or James are all not science, which they clearly are, if with the consideration that their data analysis methods are inferior to what we have developed today.
You are focused on the trees, I'm talking about the forest. The Scientific Method, not the choices individual researchers have to make while operating within that method.
Originally posted by inimalist
see, this is the problem, and I really don't want to get into it,
Yet you typed up a bunch.
Originally posted by inimalist
You are focused on the trees, I'm talking about the forest. The Scientific Method, not the choices individual researchers have to make while operating within that method.
You have that backwards.
You're focused on the trees, while I'm talking about the forest.
The only thing truly objective about science is that is subjective.
"We should choose a .05 p-value"
Why?
"Most stuff is 'caught' with that."
Why?
"Just cause, damnit! I don't want to admit that even that is subjective!"
Why?
"Because everything can be boiled down to an anthropic mess of subjectivity. Everything is in relative terms of subjectiveness."
Cool
"You ass."
Originally posted by inimalist
think about how much that means I could have said on the topic.😉
Just think of how much faster the conversations would be if we could actually have them instead of painstakingly typing them out?
😐
I grow weary of typed conversation. We could have been done with this conversation in 5 minutes or less. Instead, we will continue to have this conversation for days.
Feynman on "Why?"
Originally posted by Bardock42
Feynman on "Why?"
Holy sh*t!
I have not seen this explanation before! He explained what I'm explaining in better terms than I could possibly have accomplished my entire life.
"Because everything can be boiled down to an anthropic mess of subjectivity. Everything is in relative terms of subjectiveness."
Yeah right...I'll take his explanation any day of the weak (quantum physics pun for those that will catch it).
Originally posted by dadudemon
You have that backwards.You're focused on the trees, while I'm talking about the forest.
I don't think so. You continue to bring up choices individual researchers make while doing science, whereas I am talking about the philosophy and methods of science as a whole.
you are talking about the things contained within the thing I am talking about... much like how trees are contained within a forest...
/shrug
Originally posted by dadudemon
The only thing truly objective about science is that is subjective.
I'd like you to quote where I said the knowledge contained within science is objectivity or that science leads to absolute truths.
I'm saying there are a set of methods that one has to follow to be doing science, nothing about the veracity of those methods. Just that you must follow certain rules to be doing science.
Originally posted by dadudemon
"We should choose a .05 p-value"
ah, you do mean alpha-value. Alpha is the value you choose, p represents the probability of chance explaining your results.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why?
funny story, RA Fisher, who developed the p-value, said off hand in a single paper that .05 may be a good alpha value, for no real reason, and it has caught on.
I personally prefer a .01 value (I think a 1 in 100 chance of false positive is far better than 1 in 20), but that is a choice I make as a researcher, and if I got a .04, I'd still go with it being significant just for the publication.
this means, yes, whether you get a significant result with a p-value of .03 depends on your alpha value. This is not even related to the fact that to do science you must do some form of data analysis. Its about the choices you make about how to do data analysis, the overall method of science that includes data analysis is not challenged at all. Are you saying science before the 1930s was not actual science?
Originally posted by Bardock42facepalm2
Feynman on "Why?"
"But Dr. Feynman, I did not ask, 'Why magnets attract each other?'" [6:44] "I asked, 'What is it, the feeling, between the two magnets?'" [:11].
Dick would give Sheldon Cooper a headache.
I bet the interviewer's off-camera question was, "Why did I ask?"
Originally posted by Mindship
facepalm2"But Dr. Feynman, I did not ask, 'Why magnets attract each other?'" [6:44] "I asked, 'What is it, the feeling, between the two magnets?'" [:11].
Dick would give Sheldon Cooper a headache.
I bet the interviewer's off-camera question was, "Why did I ask?"
I think he is making a valid point. And the question is basically the equivalent, because it presupposes so many things.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think so. You continue to bring up choices individual researchers make while doing science, whereas I am talking about the philosophy and methods of science as a whole.you are talking about the things contained within the thing I am talking about... much like how trees are contained within a forest...
/shrug
I disagree. You continue to bring up the minute details (of which I only indulged twice) and I continue to summarize the entire discussion.
You're talking about the things within the things I am talking about. The entire picture. Literally, the big "everything" for why yo u think science is science is what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd like you to quote where I said the knowledge contained within science is objectivity or that science leads to absolute truths.I'm saying there are a set of methods that one has to follow to be doing science, nothing about the veracity of those methods. Just that you must follow certain rules to be doing science.
So you're amending your position to be mine? Cool.
You do realize that you're not arguing my point, right?
Originally posted by inimalist
ah, you do mean alpha-value. Alpha is the value you choose, p represents the probability of chance explaining your results..
No, I'm arguing the p-value.
Often, your p-value will be .05 for verifying if your null hypothesis is true. The opposite of testing for statistical significance of the objective.
Originally posted by inimalist
funny story, RA Fisher, who developed the p-value, said off hand in a single paper that .05 may be a good alpha value, for no real reason, and it has caught on.I personally prefer a .01 value (I think a 1 in 100 chance of false positive is far better than 1 in 20), but that is a choice I make as a researcher, and if I got a .04, I'd still go with it being significant just for the publication.
this means, yes, whether you get a significant result with a p-value of .03 depends on your alpha value. This is not even related to the fact that to do science you must do some form of data analysis. Its about the choices you make about how to do data analysis, the overall method of science that includes data analysis is not challenged at all. Are you saying science before the 1930s was not actual science?
Stop stealing my....thunder. 🙁
Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're amending your position to be mine? Cool.You do realize that you're not arguing my point, right?
be clear: I never, never, NEVER, EVER, have said science produces absolute truths. For some reason, you started assuming I did, thus my request to point out where I had implied something like that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I'm arguing the p-value.Often, your p-value will be .05 for verifying if your null hypothesis is true. The opposite of testing for statistical significance of the objective.
you mean alpha, trust me. P is a value you get from your data that says how likely the results are due to chance, essentially based on a lack of pattern in the data. Alpha is the value of P you as a researcher select that represents how small P has to be before something is significant.
P reflects data and is not manipulable by a researcher, alpha is the level of P one thinks represents a "non-chance" explanation for the data.