Science

Out of context: Reply #682

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 1,010 Responses
  • scarabin1

    http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923…

    A paper that some may find scientifically illuminating: "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit"
    The paper gives a working definition of bullshit, details 4 experiments carried out on the ability of participants to detect pseudo-profound statements (i.e "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" or anything from Deepak Chopra's twitter feed), as well as how receptive participants were to accepting such pseudo-profundities, and based on this data, gives an interpretation as to what mechanisms underlie a person's ability to detect bullshit, or conversely, accept it as truth. The study finds that people who ascribe profundity to bullshit statements are more likely to believe in the paranormal, more likely to accept conspiracy theories, and more likely to endorse alternative medicines.

    scarabin 1Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • ugh I was hoping it was a science paper. kinda of a survey.yurimon
    • were you in it?drgs
    • A survey is scientific.monospaced
    • Survey is mostly political. they set the desired parameters. You could do this with any group you want to target.yurimon
    • I was hoping this would disprove something scientifically. real science.yurimon
    • of course yurimon is defending bullshitscarabin
    • a political poll is still data, yurimon, and data is the basis of any scientific approach. derpmonospaced
    • You can label parameters any way you wish in data collection. I would love real scientific on biased research not a survey to disprove, big difference.yurimon
    • Not exactly. You can interpret data in different ways to show a preconceived bias, but the data itself is inherently unbiased.monospaced
    • not if you start with bias in the parameters. If it started with first disproving the actual parameters with solid science, or proof. not thesis, or theories.yurimon
    • this survey just basically shows peoples preference, its as scientific as netflix recommending you movies.yurimon
    • you're making very vague, sweeping statements that make you look like you haven't even read the article. read it and cite specific flaws in their method.scarabin
    • if you feel there are biases, point out specific examples. if you feel they are interpreting the gathered data incorrectly, cite specific examples.scarabin
    • right now you're just making knee-jerk, emotional statements based on a feeling of being threatened.scarabin
    • I read the paper. I'll post it for you. I didnt highlight what I thought was wrong so I'll reread it for you. ok give me few.yurimon
    • I think what yurimon is saying is that those statements aren't bullshit in the first place. He actually considers it profound, and sees a bias in calling it bsmonospaced
    • if that's the case, then we really shouldn't be discussing this with himmonospaced
    • I'm not accusing the issue as bs. My question is a challenge of understanding, not only mine but all of yours. That is why I am asking what would be the basisyurimon
    • of you supporting bernies solutions or anybody elses in this issue. what is the history of this in fact to lead to current crisis. its not an over night thing.yurimon
    • oops wrong thread. hahahayurimon
    • No what I got out of the paper is that they laid a ground work of parameters of what they consider bullshit. they described what they think is bullshit asideyurimon
    • random generated messages. its doesnt disprove paranormal activity with science like i was hoping. they just said if you believe this your more likely to believyurimon
    • this idea.yurimon
    • its a fucken survey.yurimon
    • so yeah, you're right mono. he's literally defending the bullshit itself. lol.scarabin
    • cats, defined as not cool. Dogs defined as cool.
      q: do you have a cat? a: yes
      q: do live alone a: yes      yurimon
    • conclusion, people who live alone are likely to be not cool.yurimon
    • conclusion, yurimon believes the bullshitmonospaced
    • I like how scientific the word truthiness is. lol good job science report, for using a term claimed to be coined by Stephen Colbert.yurimon
    • maybe this more of reading comprehension test. slash survey.yurimon
    • your inability to comprehend humor is another matter entirelyscarabin
    • Im engaged in humor by entertaining the verisimilitude in the structural accumulation of words inputted and displayed on this device.yurimon
    • it is only logical that I engage in successive, rhythmic, spasmodic expiration.yurimon
    • that's grossscarabin
    • http://img.pandawhal…scarabin
    • still waiting for the analysis, yuri, where you show the biases in the test parameters, and your explanation on how theses and theories aren't part of sciencemonospaced
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread