I want to BELONG

[Itsme]

a research culture of establishing an ideological position first and demonstrating its truth by selective evidence second is also common in social sciences

do you have an example of this?

You can also rephrase it as: Establishing a hypothesis first and demonstrating its truth by selective experiments. This is quite common in science.

 

[LilWabbit]

do you have an example of this?

Sampling bias is one example of biased research in social sciences and psychology and usually concerns population samples.

You can also rephrase it as: Establishing a hypothesis first and demonstrating its truth by selective experiments. This is quite common in science.

The scientific standard of empirical adequacy is poorly met by selective experiments or selective samples whilst ignoring counter-examples that a broader sampling often reveals.

"Empirical adequacy involves the truth of all observational consequences" of a hypothesis. Not just some.

 

[Itsme]

Sampling bias is one example of biased research in social sciences and psychology and usually concerns population samples.

I meant an example of an actual research publication in sociology..

 

[LilWabbit]

I meant an example of an actual research publication in sociology..

Article:

Sampling bias is common in studies of transgender women, in which convenience samples are primarily drawn from urban sites over-representing street-active women, including HIV testing sites. Although such studies are important in reporting HIV vulnerabilities experienced by segments of the transgender population, we caution against broadly extrapolating to transgender women.

Evidence for greater heterogeneity has emerged in new population studies with large samples and self- reported data. In North America, three studies2–4 have observed self-reported HIV prevalences in transgender women of between 2·2% and 3·8%. These results contrast by a factor of four with the summary statistic of 11·8% from Herbst's meta-analysis of US studies with self-report measures,5 studies that were similar in design to those used by Baral and colleagues.

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(13)70242-1.pdf

 

[deirdre]

Claims such as "There are more than two biological sexes" or "There is a gay gene" are common enough to constitute appropriate MB thread-starters for 'debunking' with a link to the claim.

I've never heard anyone say there are more than TWO biological sexes. Things like this is why direct quotes of claims, vs member's paraphrases what they perceive some random claim is.. is important and should be cracked down on.

so that would NOT be an appropriate thread starter. and if you find some random guy on twitter making that claim it is still not appropriate. MB should be for bunk more than 1 person believes. and should crack down on the "of evidence" part of "specific claims of evidence". Evidence is not just 1 or 6 people saying something.

 

[LilWabbit]

I've never heard anyone say there are more than TWO biological sexes. Things like this is why direct quotes of claims,

From the link I gave a few posts back:

Article:

"This article aims to deconstruct this binarism, suggesting that it is not coherent to speak of two sexes, but rather of a multiplicity."

Source: https://journals.openedition.org/rccsar/558

This is not a thread to start debunking so I didn't think it necessary emulate an OP and to quote something that I thought was already commonly known as (one of many) a postmodern gender ideology claim of the type @Sauron was referring to.

 

[deirdre]

From the link I gave a few posts back:

what post? (excessive hyperlinks drive me nuts too)

This is not a thread to start debunking so I didn't think it necessary emulate an OP and to quote something

im not saying you do, i'm saying if someone wanted to start an OP they do. well, obviously they dont as many OPs dont, but they SHOULD.

 

[Ann K]

Whichever sociological theory is the trendiest and the least likely to be politically frowned upon in the sociologist's peer-group is the winner. At least for a spell until the political currents shift.

It looks as if you are accusing sociologists of staking out a political position, or a popular one. But the lives of the people who are the subject of their study can be described as the "facts" with which they deal, and they seem unlikely to change with the political currents. You've just denigrated an entire field of study which I would describe as being basically honest but imperfect.

I'm a hard-science person, a research chemist, but I know that chemistry can only provide chemical answers, and other disciplines require expertise from people with other skills and training. I don't think it wise to disregard sociology.

 

[LilWabbit]

what post? (excessive hyperlinks drive me nuts too)


im not saying you do, i'm saying if someone wanted to start an OP they do. well, obviously they dont as many OPs dont, but they SHOULD.

This is exactly the type of legalistic nitpicking on 'procedure' which also derails threads and to which the OP rightly reacted to howbeit with a bit of a snarky attitude.

As helpful as the MB rules are, to constantly police fellow-posters over their strict observance can derail threads and thereby undermine the very purpose they were devised -- a polite and reasoned conversation focused on the substance of 'bunk'.

 

[LilWabbit]

It looks as if you are accusing sociologists of staking out a political position, or a popular one.

Then you're putting words in my mouth.

You've just denigrated an entire field of study which I would describe as being basically honest but imperfect.

There are sociologists and there are sociologists. Actually I wrote my thesis back in the varsity on the challenges of sociology as it is currently practiced in meeting basic scientific standards. Out of the two professors who graded my thesis one thought exactly like you do by taking unnecessary personal offense. The other one gave it maximum grade and thought I had made accurate observations with evidence to back it up.

If you want to discuss further the matter of humanities as younger sciences learning being more scientific as they slowly mature, start a thread.

 

[deirdre]

to constantly police fellow-posters over their strict observance can derail threads

youre talking about transgender people in a thread about moderation issues. at least my comment is about moderation issues, dont accuse ME of derailing the thread.

 

[LilWabbit]

youre talking about transgender people in a thread about moderation issues. at least my comment is about moderation issues, dont accuse ME of derailing the thread.

We were discussing whether or not mainstream bunk should also be debunked at MB and giving examples (as opposed to just fringe bunk). We were very much on the overall topic of improving the site, its MO and moderation issues which preceded it.

 

[deirdre]

We were very much on the overall topic of improving the site, its MO and moderation issues which preceded it.

yea so was i. i'll take this as an apology for accusing me of derailing the thread.

 

[LilWabbit]

yea so was i. i'll take this as an apology for accusing me of derailing the thread.

We're starting to sound like an old couple.

(This was a derail.)

 

[Henkka]

You will also find those identifying themselves as skeptics as well as others split amongst themselves on these issues. Whilst not so much on flat earth and 9/11 conspiracies.

Hey, I'm a skeptic… Now I never got into debunking UFOs or bigfoot, but back in the day I was hugely into the religion debates. My heroes were like Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, Sam Harris, Carl Sagan and so on. Still got their books right on my shelf. I think that qualifies me.

 

[econ41]

Hey, I'm a skeptic… .....My heroes were like Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, Sam Harris, Carl Sagan and so on. Still got their books right on my shelf. I think that qualifies me.

I was a moderator on the R Dawkins Forum - 2008-9 - before it "closed". (Transferred.) And moderator of the single 9/11 WTC collapse discussion thread PLUS leading explainer - the only engineer posting. Talk about "Conflict of Interest" until I persuaded the team to change the rule... and promptly got the job of oversight rules and moderation quality.

There are times when it pays to keep quiet.

I'm still frustrated by the bastardised change of meaning in the online use of the word "meme"... but, ever pragmatic, even Dawkins recognised that he lost that one.

 

[Mendel]

I've never heard anyone say there are more than TWO biological sexes.

Would you like to?

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kT0HJkr1jj4

 

[LilWabbit]

Hey, I'm a skeptic… Now I never got into debunking UFOs or bigfoot, but back in the day I was hugely into the religion debates. My heroes were like Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, Sam Harris, Carl Sagan and so on. Still got their books right on my shelf. I think that qualifies me.

The fact that self-identified skeptics disagree majorly about the things they are skeptical about begs the question. How meaningful is the term?

Do we always have to 'belong' to a group and put out an 'identity' around some label that makes us feel special -- say smart or rational as opposed to stupid and gullible?

Isn't it enough to just say: I value science, objective evidence and reason as the primary means to acquire knowledge.

Philosophically the part in italics is 'scientism', 'rationalism' and/or 'empiricism' within which there are many sub-variants. But these are just fancy words to say essentially the same. I think most of us would agree on the great the importance of reason, evidence and the scientific method, despite our somewhat different conclusions on things.

The real question is: Have we all really been scientific about all the things we claim to have accepted on the basis of science and reason.

The answer is no. None of us.

 

[Itsme]

The fact that self-identified skeptics disagree majorly about the things they are skeptical about begs the question. How meaningful is the term?

I don't see a problem with that. The scientific method is stable yet the knowledge it produces is not. Scientific knowledge constantly shifts and changes as new data becomes available (as illustrated by the video posted by Mendel above).

Any field of knowledge for which there is insufficient data, or where data is ambiguous, can lead to disagreements that last until more data is acquired. And even knowledge that seems rock solid may change over time (like Newton's concept of gravity).

Do we always have to 'belong' to a group and put out an 'identity' around some label that makes us feel special -- say smart or rational as opposed to stupid and gullible?

This desire often leads to tribal behavior where confirmation bias rules and the scientific method suffers. We've all been there..

 

[LilWabbit]

Scientific knowledge constantly shifts and changes as new data becomes available (as illustrated by the video posted by Mendel above).

However, some scientific fundamentals stay just the same as illustrated in this video 'debunking' claims like the ones mentioned in @Mendel's video. To discuss this fascinating theme further, however, we probably should start a thread including both videos (plus citations from biological studies) titled: Claim: There are more than two sexes.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZswkuxhAVA

This desire often leads to tribal behavior where confirmation bias rules and the scientific method suffers. We've all been there..

Well put.

 

[Itsme]

However, some scientific fundamentals stay just the same as illustrated in this video 'debunking' claims like the ones mentioned in @Mendel's video.

You mean that architecture student who studies biology as a hobby? Hmmm...
https://www.zacharyaelliott.com/about-me.html

I tend to put more trust in people who dare to admit there's still a lot we don't know than people who think they know it all.

 

[LilWabbit]

You mean that architecture student who studies biology as a hobby? Hmmm...
https://www.zacharyaelliott.com/about-me.html

I tend to put more trust in people who dare to admit there's still a lot we don't know than people who think they know it all.

I wouldn't trust any Youtube video at face value. But I'd still watch them without bias and study the merits of their argument. The scientific credentials of neither video are apparent. And yet I watched them in their entirety and was very curious of their argument.

In fact the two videos agree on the main facts but the debunk video highlighted some relevant facts that were omitted such as the presence and normal functioning of the SRY gene (within the Y chromosome) being the key binary sex-determinant in human biology. It's either present (male) or not (female), and reproductively functional (fertile) or not (sterile). Most intersex people have different types of SRY gene disorders while genetically still falling under male (such as Klinefelter, Swyer and XX Male Syndrome).

 

[Itsme]

the debunk video highlighted some relevant facts that were omitted such as the presence and normal functioning of the SRY gene (within the Y chromosome) being the key binary sex-determinant in human biology. It's either present (male) or not (female), and reproductively functional (fertile) or not (sterile).

Apart from selection bias in their arguments, these 'youtube experts' often become a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. By studying a topic they feel they comprehend it but in reality they are at the first peak of the Dunning-Kruger curve:

A real expert (right side of curve) is actually less confident about their knowledge because a real expert knows what is still unknown.

An example relevant to this topic:

In 1990, researchers made headlines when they uncovered the identity of this gene, which they called SRY. Just by itself, this gene can switch the gonad from ovarian to testicular development. For example, XX individuals who carry a fragment of the Y chromosome that contains SRY develop as males.

By the turn of the millennium, however, the idea of femaleness being a passive default option had been toppled by the discovery of genes that actively promote ovarian development and suppress the testicular programme—such as one called WNT4. XY individuals with extra copies of this gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes. In 2011, researchers showed that if another key ovarian gene, RSPO1, is not working normally, it causes XX people to develop an ovotestis—a gonad with areas of both ovarian and testicular development.

These discoveries have pointed to a complex process of sex determination, in which the identity of the gonad emerges from a contest between two opposing networks of gene activity. Changes in the activity or amounts of molecules (such as WNT4) in the networks can tip the balance towards or away from the sex seemingly spelled out by the chromosomes. "It has been, in a sense, a philosophical change in our way of looking at sex; that it's a balance," says Eric Vilain, a clinician and the director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles. "It's more of a systems-biology view of the world of sex."

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

 

[LilWabbit]

By the turn of the millennium, however, the idea of femaleness being a passive default option had been toppled by the discovery of genes that actively promote ovarian development and suppress the testicular programme

False dichotomy. The idea of a "femaleness being a passive default option" is not what the fact of SRY gene being a key determinant of binary sex means. Nor does anything in your citation (pretending to muddle genetic fundamentals) really refute this fact or what was propounded earlier. The cases of XY with extra copies of WNT4 are genetically males and were also discussed in the debunk video. Why don't you start a proper thread on the claim? We're derailing the thread.

 

[Ravi]

False dichotomy. The idea of a "passive default option" is not what the fact of SRY gene being a key determinant of binary sex means. Nor does anything in your citation (pretending to muddle genetic fundamentals) really refute this fact or what was propounded earlier. Why don't you start a proper thread on the claim? We're derailing the thread.

Indeed. This discussion should be in another thread. But in my humble opinion it is not a topic that should be discussed on metabunk. Too many people have an extremely emotional opinion on it, and this will only cause problems. Best to stay with physics I would say, but I am not a staff member.

 

[LilWabbit]

Indeed. This discussion should be in another thread. But in my humble opinion it is not a topic that should be discussed on metabunk. Too many people have an extremely emotional opinion on it, and this will only cause problems. Best to stay with phyics I would say, but I am not a staff member.

I agree it's a tough one politically and can affect MB's impartial reputation by falsely identifying MB, in the eyes of a superficial outside observer, into a stronghold of a particular political affiliation. Most mainstream bunk is 'sensitive' and potentially inflammatory to start debunking, whether from the Right, the Left, or, say, mainstream religions.

If MB is to be open to debunking mainstream bunk, it should be done in a politically independent manner and by picking bunk claims equally from all mainstream ideologies to explore rather than focusing on particular ideologies whilst leaving others 'safe' from its clutches. We could even list some of those bunk claims from all sides.

But if we wanna play it safe, then we just continue focusing on fringe bunk.

 

[Henkka]

Every other website nowadays is people bickering over politics and gender, I kind of like that MB is about the more traditional stuff like UFOs and 9/11

 

[Ann K]

If MB is to be open to debunking mainstream bunk, it should be done in a politically independent manner and by picking bunk claims equally from all mainstream ideologies to explore rather than focusing on particular ideologies whilst leaving others 'safe' from its clutches. We could even list some of those bunk claims from all sides.

That sounds a lot like the much-derided "both-siderism", the tu quoque fallacy. I think Metabunk is more suited to considering claims of fact without questioning any political ideology that might be behind them, not by "picking bunk claims equally".

 

[LilWabbit]

That sounds a lot like the much-derided "both-siderism", the tu quoque fallacy.

Nah, picking bunk claims alternately/equally does not logically imply all sides entertain an equal amount of bunk claims. It only attempts to avoid any false impression of political affiliation.

But I agree, it may not be a good idea for MB to try and pander to superficial impressions of impartiality. It can still be genuinely impartial without always appearing to be so to the superficial observer.

 

[deirdre]

Would you like to?

I would like you to back me up on the actual point of my comment: That way too many OPs on MB do not quote and link a specific claim of evidence. They just paraphrase what the writer feels is the [alleged] claim.

 

[Itsme]

I agree it's a tough one politically and can affect MB's impartial reputation by falsely identifying MB, in the eyes of a superficial outside observer, into a stronghold of a particular political affiliation.

Wow, I thought this was a rather neutral topic to illustrate the pitfalls of scientific argumentation. Apparently this topic has become politically charged in the US as well nowadays (I'm from the Netherlands, where we have about a dozen political parties instead of just two). Is there anything left in the US that can be freely discussed without getting stuck in political battles?

 

[Ann K]

Is there anything left in the US that can be freely discussed without getting stuck in political battles?

Very little, it would seem. (Opinion follows, based on my observations, for which I have no factual sources to cite at the moment.) But that's not the fault of the topics. Some things that were once discussed in a neutral way are now seen as if to say "you're on this team, and so we now take this position as a badge of membership". In other words, it's as poorly reasoned as wearing the right color to support a particular sports team. We have particular parties that NOW subscribe to things that were never considered political before, to the point that sensible discussions of fact are difficult. Cases in point: gender and sex, abortion, anthropogenic climate change, immunology and epidemiology, and trust in science in general.

These things are, it would appear, derived from the particular preferences of the big money donors. But political strategists have changed the minds of the voters, rather than the reverse. You might want to read about what's referred to as the Southern Strategy.

In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

 

[deirdre]

I think Metabunk is more suited to considering claims of fact without questioning any political ideology that might be behind them,

but we are using political ideology to CHOOSE which claims we feel are worth considering.

Readers probably wouldnt assume the debunk is politically biased , if there were a few from "the other side". I don't agree with equal amounts, just one a year would make me happy. (Readers would probably prefer 1 in 10)

 

[Ann K]

but we are using political ideology to CHOOSE which claims we feel are worth considering.

Readers probably wouldnt assume the debunk is politically biased , if there were a few from "the other side". I don't agree with equal amounts, just one a year would make me happy. (Readers would probably prefer 1 in 10)

It's the members who present the topics, and the members who decide what's worth engaging with. There isn't a scorekeeper in that respect.

 

[deirdre]

It's the members who present the topics, and the members who decide what's worth engaging with.

I'm aware.

There isn't a scorekeeper in that respect.

Yes there is.

But i think MB has given up on trying to "reach people on the fence", and is more focused on writing for the choir now. So i'm sure it doesn't matter what people think. Of course choir-card-holder family members who come here to learn, might too be offended for their loved ones. c'est la vie.

 

[Mendel]

The scientific method is stable yet the knowledge it produces is not.

Funny you should mention gravity, Newton changed the scientific method (from what Francis Bacon had established) to allow astronomical observations, as they're not open to be experimented upon by mere mortals. The scientific method evolves. The knowledge is also fairly stable, we simply learn more about its accuracy and limitations.

. Is there anything left in the US that can be freely discussed without getting stuck in political battles?

When wearing a face mask (or not) became a political statement, I reckon it was time to give up on the "apolitical discussion" in the US.

But i think MB has given up on trying to "reach people on the fence", and is more focused on writing for the choir now.

I am happy to write for anyone, but I can't write for people offended by the truth.

 

[Itsme]

The knowledge is also fairly stable, we simply learn more about its accuracy and limitations.

I disagree. New concepts like space-time curvature, quantum mechanics, and the discovery of black matter and black energy really upended our knowledge. But it all depends on ones definition of 'fairly stable' of course..

 

[Mendel]

I disagree. New concepts like space-time curvature, quantum mechanics, and the discovery of black matter and black energy really upended our knowledge. But it all depends on ones definition of 'fairly stable' of course..

What exactly was "upended"?

The biggest upset was when stochiometric methods proved the idea of the alchemical elements wrong, plus the upset of the geocentric cosmology.

But I expect the physics in Newton's Principia is still in use today.

 

[econ41]

I disagree. New concepts like space-time curvature, quantum mechanics, and the discovery of black matter and black energy really upended our knowledge.

I suggest "extended" rather than "upended". Relativity effects extend understanding into areas where Newtonian mechanics becomes increasingly less relevant or accurate. BUT I can still explain most physical phenomena that I need to deal wth as an engineer by relying on Isaac's version. I'm a civil/structural/hydraulics engineer. It could sometimes be different if I was aero space oriented...

But it all depends on ones definition of 'fairly stable' of course..

Yes. Define it, as it is, as "moving evolutionarily forward gaining new knowledge"** Dynamically stable progression, Not implying that "stable" means "static".

** .. and possibly with occasional wrong steps, derails or false trails BUT net result forward progress.

 

[NoParty]

But I expect the physics in Newton's Principia is still in use today.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was actually among
the newer textbooks at my high school...