Originally posted by Bardock42
Feynman on "Why?"
ugh, physicists
Originally posted by Bardock42
Feynman on "Why?"
ugh, physicists
Originally posted by inimalist
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.
The point where dadude starts making things up completely is usually about the point where I just end the conversation. It's descended into a contest of rehtoric.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I know, right? They are so close, but still always a step away. If only they were Mathematicians 🙁
I was thinking about it
we probably shouldn't be surprised that people who communicate through math and understand the world in these abstract, spatial ways don't know how to effectively communicate in spoken language. I know its the oldest cliche ever, but it really seems logical that people whose most important form of communication is in equations and such wouldn't have the best skills communicating their points in other modalities. They just don't have the practice with it, because they don't need to professionally.
Originally posted by inimalist
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.
The moment you tried to define "scientific" as a trump card over my post is the instant you tried to present a superior truth when even your use/definition of "scientific" is anthropic and subjective.
Originally posted by inimalist
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.
No, I don't. I said what I said because I meant to say it. No correction required.
http://www.graphpad.com/articles/pvalue.htm
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The point where dadude starts making things up completely is usually about the point where I just end the conversation. It's descended into a contest of rehtoric.
You mean that point where I call you out on dodging and using strawman arguments is when you go silent. Let's not go back to trolling.
Originally posted by inimalist
I was thinking about itwe probably shouldn't be surprised that people who communicate through math and understand the world in these abstract, spatial ways don't know how to effectively communicate in spoken language. I know its the oldest cliche ever, but it really seems logical that people whose most important form of communication is in equations and such wouldn't have the best skills communicating their points in other modalities. They just don't have the practice with it, because they don't need to professionally.
You turned that around well, kudos!
Originally posted by dadudemon
The moment you tried to define "scientific" as a trump card over my post is the instant you tried to present a superior truth when even your use/definition of "scientific" is anthropic and subjective.
please indicate where I used science as a trump, rather than saying you were not doing science...
in fact, if you look through my posts in the thread, I've gone to pains, multiple times, to say that I'm not arguing science is better or is a trump card, but that to do science you must follow specific rules. I have point blank claimed that I was not saying following these rules is better.
For instance:
Originally posted by inimalist
it doesn't make science irrefutable or objective, and I'm really not even arguing that science is superior here, however, there is a very specific type of evidence required for something to be scientific, and your prayer revelation does not meet that standard.
Originally posted by inimalist
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, again, lets stop putting words in my mouth, or, you know, show me where I've even tacitly implied what you are saying
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I don't. I said what I said because I meant to say it. No correction required.
that page is painfully introductory to the concept in the first place, and doing a quick ctrl+f for alpha returns me being correct about statistics. You know, something I've had graduate level education in and work with on, literally, a daily basis.
Statistical hypothesis testingThe P value is a fraction. In many situations, the best thing to do is report that number to summarize the results of a comparison. If you do this, you can totally avoid the term "statistically significant", which is often misinterpreted.
In other situations, you'll want to make a decision based on a single comparison. In these situations, follow the steps of statistical hypothesis testing.
Set a threshold P value before you do the experiment. Ideally, you should set this value based on the relative consequences of missing a true difference or falsely finding a difference. In fact, the threshold value (called alpha) is traditionally almost always set to 0.05.
Define the null hypothesis. If you are comparing two means, the null hypothesis is that the two populations have the same mean.
Do the appropriate statistical test to compute the P value.
Compare the P value to the preset threshold value. If the P value is less than the threshold, state that you "reject the null hypothesis" and that the difference is "statistically significant". If the P value is greater than the threshold, state that you "do not reject the null hypothesis" and that the difference is "not statistically significant".Note that statisticians use the term hypothesis testing very differently than scientists.
/facepalm
Originally posted by dadudemon
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlphaValue.html
how is this unclear to you? alpha is the threshold where p is significant... that is, literally, what both your links say...
Originally posted by inimalist
I was thinking about itwe probably shouldn't be surprised that people who communicate through math and understand the world in these abstract, spatial ways don't know how to effectively communicate in spoken language. I know its the oldest cliche ever, but it really seems logical that people whose most important form of communication is in equations and such wouldn't have the best skills communicating their points in other modalities. They just don't have the practice with it, because they don't need to professionally.
Feynman was famously good at explaining things, actually. He created visual representations of path integrals specifically so that wouldn't have to explain math to people. QED actually begins with him saying (paraphrased): "I'm not going to show you any of the math because you wouldn't understand it."
The Cohen brothers, of all people, got the core issue in a throwaway line from A Serious Man. "The math is how it really works." As you move further away from the math the explanation gets worse and worse. This isn't unique to physics or math, any specialized field develops a jargon, a set of words which carry the baggage of textbooks worth of information.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean that point where I call you out on dodging and using strawman arguments is when you go silent. Let's not go back to trolling.
You mean when I ask if you really mean the things you say and then you flip out? Once you've actually said a thing it ceases to be a strawman to say that you've made the claim. Truth is a perfect defense against libel.
In any event people can go see you trolling me in other threads.
Originally posted by inimalist
please indicate where I used science as a trump, rather than saying you were not doing science...
The hell?
No, you go back and read the thread. I even put in quotes what I was referring to. 😬
Originally posted by inimalist
so, again, lets stop putting words in my mouth, or, you know, show me where I've even tacitly implied what you are saying
No, you stop dancing and dodging. And don't pretend my point was something it wasn't.
If you're truly interested in a conversation and not doing the typical dance you have been, lately, then PM me and I will quote your post privately.
If you're just doing this for more posturing/pissing contest, I am not interested in further dialogue.
Originally posted by inimalist
that page is painfully introductory to the concept in the first place, and doing a quick ctrl+f for alpha returns me being correct about statistics. You know, something I've had graduate level education in and work with on, literally, a daily basis./facepalm
how is this unclear to you? alpha is the threshold where p is significant... that is, literally, what both your links say...
Prove that this:
"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."
Is wrong when it is directly right.
FFS, I explained this to you in another thread, already. facepalm
You know, I could ask you to stop putting words in my mouth...but IDGAF. If this is your agenda, cool. I hope it makes you feel better.
look, I'm done. You can throw around whatever accusations you want, not only can people read the thread, but they can actually see the two examples I provided where I am doing exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. you will show me in PM? no, please, I'm a big boy, I can take the public humiliation that would come with you showing me where I've used science as a trump card in this thread.
as for the p-value thing, go ask a stats prof and try not to be too embarrassed.
(just to clarify, that statement is saying often a p-value of .05 will be significant BECAUSE OFTEN THE ALPHA LEVEL IS .05. I would not be allowed to do the work I do if I didn't know this...)
Originally posted by Bardock42Yeah, I got the gist. It just reminded me of a three-year-old who keeps asking "Why?" everytime you give him/her a response to a previous question, til you have a whole chain of why-answer-why-answer-why-answer...
I think he is making a valid point. And the question is basically the equivalent, because it presupposes so many things.
I like Feynman. And I grok where he was coming from. Still, I just couldn't help imagining the interviewer doing a mental facepalm.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIf he would've said something like, "It's the sensation of magnetic repulsion being passed through the magnets into your fingers," that would've done it for me.
The answer "magnetic force" isn't a satisfying one, which seems to be the whole point.
But then, just an Edy's lime fruit bar can make me happy.
Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, I got the gist. It just reminded me of a three-year-old who keeps asking "Why?" everytime you give him/her a response to a previous question, til you have a whole chain of why-answer-why-answer-why-answer...I like Feynman. And I grok where he was coming from. Still, I just couldn't help imagining the interviewer doing a mental facepalm.
I don't understand...that's exactly his point. He is remarking on the fact that you can always ask "why" and at some point you either accept something as a given or you continue forever. That's exactly what you are saying about children. He's not behaving like a child that does that, he's pointing out the underlying cause of why a child can do that.
Originally posted by Mindship
If he would've said something like, "It's the sensation of magnetic repulsion being passed through the magnets into your fingers," that would've done it for me.
But it's a ridiculous question. The initial question was "what is the feeling", which is weird, cause it relates to how you feel, it's no different to touching a chair (which Feynman points out the interviewer would perfectly accept as fulfilling answer).
He did, then, in clarifying his answer ask "why do they attract", to which Feynman tried to explain to him that there's not really a layman's explanation for this, he's come to the bottom of "why" without going into harder concepts.
Originally posted by Bardock42My bad. I didn't really mean it as an insult. It just struck me as funny.
I don't understand...that's exactly his point. He is remarking on the fact that you can always ask "why" and at some point you either accept something as a given or you continue forever. That's exactly what you are saying about children. He's not behaving like a child that does that, he's pointing out the underlying cause of why a child can do that.
yes, but he said "why" in terms of "what is happening to produce this effect".
its like using the movement of electrons to explain how an engine moves a car forward. It makes sense, but not a really appropriate answer to the question.
It seems to me that he just talked enough that someone confused verbosity with depth.