Gender Differences & the Scientific Method

[Clancy]

If you don't believe scientific studies have any validity, next time a doctor tells you you need antibiotics or your life is at risk you might as well save the expense and just take aspirin, since both have been studied thoroughly by people trying to prove something.

dearest Patrick,

unfortunately you are not supplying the the contrary point but actualy, you are extrapolating my point that science is not as reliable as it pertains to be. Good science, bad science?
Science is only as good as the next studie who proves otherwise.
case in point; antioxidents!
btw; I have neither hamburgers, nor tv's nor cars in my life to examine

[pbrinton]

Well, as I said, I had no ambition to persuade you from your views; I can see that you twist whatever input you receive to feed your preconceptions. If I am correctly understanding your somewhat idiosyncratic way of using words (extrapolating, pertains?) then once again you state the exact opposite of the case. Since scientific studies include estimates of the likelihood of error, scientific studies are in fact pretty much as reliable as they claim to be!

Maybe you are confusing the studies themselves with the way they are used by people who do not necessarily even understand them, and are all too often willing to omit whatever parts do not suit their arguments.

I know it can be confusing when studies show that something that has been previously thought to be useful also has dangers under some circumstances (antioxidants, for instance). That is where clear thought and judgement come in; my own observation is that pretty much everything in life has a medicinal dose and a toxic dose, and it is up to the consumer to determine from the information provided what those doses are.

Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence. Crtical thinking does not tell you the answer, any more than a good sharp knife makes you a good cook. If the evidence in fact supports your point of view, then you can use critical thinking to establish that fact. As it is, even though you may in fact be correct about some of your conclusions, your ways of arguing them, and your insistance on making statements that are at the very least highly misleading, do more to conceal that possibility than to reveal it.

I think at this point that I have said pretty much everything I have to say on the subject, and for me at least this discussion is reaching its toxic dose!

Patrick Brinton
(who prefers not to be addressed as "dearest" by those he is not acquainted with, and whose views he vehemently disagrees with.)

dearest Patrick,

unfortunately you are not supplying the the contrary point but actualy, you are extrapolating my point that science is not as reliable as it pertains to be. Good science, bad science?
Science is only as good as the next studie who proves otherwise.
case in point; antioxidents!
btw; I have neither hamburgers, nor tv's nor cars in my life to examine

[Zeno Swijtink]

ThePhiant, aka Lul DeGrote (Dutch for "Large Prick") will be forever Defiant. Great screen. I love it.

If you don't believe scientific studies have any validity, next time a doctor tells you you need antibiotics or your life is at risk you might as well save the expense and just take aspirin, since both have been studied thoroughly by people trying to prove something.

[ThePhiant]

Dear Patrick,



"As it is, even though you may in fact be correct about some of your conclusions, your ways of arguing them, and your insistance on making statements that are at the very least highly misleading, do more to conceal that possibility than to reveal it."

this is quite a sentence, Patrick, but what are you refering to?
making vague but convoluted accusations is merely character assassination. get to the point!


"Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system. I do not believe that there is a significant number of studies that are falsified for financial gain. Scientific hoaxes have certainly happened, but generally in important cases a lot of scrutiny is brought to bear, and it is hard to sustain a lie. There is a great deal of rivalry in science, and there are a great many scientists who are genuinely motivated by a search for verifiable and useful truths. They are constantly checking each others' work in hopes of finding errors."

these are YOUR WORDS, Patrick,
not mine!
this is how YOU see science!
I merely have stated that science is not objective.
you opened up a whole new world for me, they are looking at each others work for errors? like Spy vs Spy?


as I have stated before and you have confirmed people are "too often willing to omit whatever parts do not suit their arguments."

Well, as I said, I had no ambition to persuade you from your views; I can see that you twist whatever input you receive to feed your preconceptions. If I am correctly understanding your somewhat idiosyncratic way of using words (extrapolating, pertains?) then once again you state the exact opposite of the case. Since scientific studies include estimates of the likelihood of error, scientific studies are in fact pretty much as reliable as they claim to be!

Maybe you are confusing the studies themselves with the way they are used by people who do not necessarily even understand them, and are all too often willing to omit whatever parts do not suit their arguments.

I know it can be confusing when studies show that something that has been previously thought to be useful also has dangers under some circumstances (antioxidants, for instance). That is where clear thought and judgement come in; my own observation is that pretty much everything in life has a medicinal dose and a toxic dose, and it is up to the consumer to determine from the information provided what those doses are.

Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence. Crtical thinking does not tell you the answer, any more than a good sharp knife makes you a good cook. If the evidence in fact supports your point of view, then you can use critical thinking to establish that fact. As it is, even though you may in fact be correct about some of your conclusions, your ways of arguing them, and your insistance on making statements that are at the very least highly misleading, do more to conceal that possibility than to reveal it.

I think at this point that I have said pretty much everything I have to say on the subject, and for me at least this discussion is reaching its toxic dose!

Patrick Brinton
(who prefers not to be addressed as "dearest" by those he is not acquainted with, and whose views he vehemently disagrees with.)

[Juggledude]

these are YOUR WORDS, Patrick,
not mine!
this is how YOU see science!
I merely have stated that science is not objective.
you opened up a whole new world for me, they are looking at each others work for errors? like Spy vs Spy?


as I have stated before and you have confirmed people are "too often willing to omit whatever parts do not suit their arguments."

de Phiant, (french translation)

You seem to be taking the paved route to hell, here, quoting peoples words which do not support your professed point in order to (assumedly?) support your point, and then omitting whatever parts do not suit your arguments, even while quoting and demonizing that very action!

Are you being intentionally argumentative and perverse, or does your brain actually work this way?

Truly curious,

Royce

[pbrinton]

My own thoughts exactly. I rest my case.

Patrick Brinton

de Phiant, (french translation)

You seem to be taking the paved route to hell, here, quoting peoples words which do not support your professed point in order to (assumedly?) support your point, and then omitting whatever parts do not suit your arguments, even while quoting and demonizing that very action!

Are you being intentionally argumentative and perverse, or does your brain actually work this way?

Truly curious,

Royce

[ThePhiant]

well. well. well.
looks like some boys got their knickers in a twist
(hope your founding member didn't get hurt)

so I guess I have to spell it out for you and Patrick, I was hoping that with all your collective critical thinking skills it would be obvious what I was alluding to. Alas.

I said studies are subjective
Patrick says;

"Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system."
ThePhiant said;

"as you probably know, any study or data can be used to prove anybody's point. bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective. having said that my main point is that generalizations however subject-ive they may be, don't mean a thing in the real world.
your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you."
; .
Patrick says;
"Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence."


now as for you dude (american version)
I printed a whole paragraph of unedited ambivalence from Patrick,to show that PB is actually saying the same as me namely that there are so many suspect variables that it is hard to take a study at face value.
and that it takes a healthy dose of critical thinking to get to the truth of it all. ( even though I am not allowed to use critical thinking on PB's words)
you on the other hand cherry picked, some irrelevant passage just to be provocative and question my mental constitution.

Ms Wacco told me to be nice,
so love and kisses to you from

Lulu

de Phiant, (french translation)

You seem to be taking the paved route to hell, here, quoting peoples words which do not support your professed point in order to (assumedly?) support your point, and then omitting whatever parts do not suit your arguments, even while quoting and demonizing that very action!

Are you being intentionally argumentative and perverse, or does your brain actually work this way?

Truly curious,

Royce

[Juggledude]

Lulu,

Welcome out from behind the screen of anonymity! and a warm welcome at that, I'll see your love and kisses, and raise you a hug.

I appreciate your concept regarding the application of critical thinking to the myriad of studies and the sometimes unscrupulous light in which they are presented. However, I believe your antagonistic tone is exacerbating the miscommunication, as opposed to allowing the light of reason to fall upon the similarities in the thought processes.

These similarities, that you both agree studies can be used to support polarized viewpoints, and that it takes great care and possibly skill to personally evaluate the truth of any given matter, are important. And, quite obviously, agreed upon. What I'm getting from an overview of this debate is that there seems to be difference in the assumed preponderance of technique.

PB et. al seem to be saying that while studies done in accord with proper scientific method admittedly have their foibles, they are, by and large, (and due to the peer review and built in checks and balances) accurate representations of an objective reality. As such, they are a useful tool.

You seem to be saying that more oft than not, studies are used to foster and promote a particular agenda, and as such, are not a useful tool.

Does seem accurate to you?

As far as "cherry picking some irrelevant passage", I quoted 72.5 % of the original words in your post. Are you implying that 72.5% of your words are irrelevant? And while I can see how my words could be construed as provacative, your assumption of my intent is incorrect. My intent was to express curiosity, to draw out more information, with the ultimate goal of understanding and through understanding, reach accord.

Leaving us with your statement regarding my questioning of your mental constitution. It is your mental process I was questioning, and this type of assumptive behavior is exactly what I reference above as "antagonistic tone"

I believe we would all be well served to remind ourselves of the dangers inherent in online discourse, and remember that an extra layer or three of psychic 'skin' is necessary here, as we don't have the benefit of the subtle exchange of energy which can smooth the pathways of a similar conversation in person.

With knickers neither twisted nor tented,

Royce

well. well. well.
looks like some boys got their knickers in a twist
(hope your founding member didn't get hurt)

so I guess I have to spell it out for you and Patrick, I was hoping that with all your collective critical thinking skills it would be obvious what I was alluding to. Alas.

I said studies are subjective
Patrick says;

"Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system."
ThePhiant said;

"as you probably know, any study or data can be used to prove anybody's point. bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective. having said that my main point is that generalizations however subject-ive they may be, don't mean a thing in the real world.
your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you."
; .
Patrick says;
"Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence."


now as for you dude (american version)
I printed a whole paragraph of unedited ambivalence from Patrick,to show that PB is actually saying the same as me namely that there are so many suspect variables that it is hard to take a study at face value.
and that it takes a healthy dose of critical thinking to get to the truth of it all. ( even though I am not allowed to use critical thinking on PB's words)
you on the other hand cherry picked, some irrelevant passage just to be provocative and question my mental constitution.

Ms Wacco told me to be nice,
so love and kisses to you from

Lulu

[pbrinton]

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

I think I have beaten my head against this particular wall for long enough; I will just go for a nice long walk and enjoy the green sky and the pink grass.

Wake me up when sanity returns.

Patrick

well. well. well.
looks like some boys got their knickers in a twist
(hope your founding member didn't get hurt)

so I guess I have to spell it out for you and Patrick, I was hoping that with all your collective critical thinking skills it would be obvious what I was alluding to. Alas.

I said studies are subjective
Patrick says;

"Yes, many studies are commissioned by interested parties hoping to prove something, but this does not always succeed; many studies go the other way. Yes, this often results in the suppression of those particular studies, and that is unfortunate, but is part and parcel of the capitalist system."
ThePhiant said;

"as you probably know, any study or data can be used to prove anybody's point. bunching a number of study's together and coming to a conclusion is always subjective. having said that my main point is that generalizations however subject-ive they may be, don't mean a thing in the real world.
your partner in life or at work is more than likely the opposite of what those studies are telling you."
; .
Patrick says;
"Making sense of these kinds of complex issues, where conflicting evidence needs to be properly weighed and evaluated, is greatly facilitated by the use of critical thinking skills. Critical thinking was developed for exactly this purpose; to provide a tool for examining controversial questions and coming to the conclusions that are best supported by the available evidence."


now as for you dude (american version)
I printed a whole paragraph of unedited ambivalence from Patrick,to show that PB is actually saying the same as me namely that there are so many suspect variables that it is hard to take a study at face value.
and that it takes a healthy dose of critical thinking to get to the truth of it all. ( even though I am not allowed to use critical thinking on PB's words)
you on the other hand cherry picked, some irrelevant passage just to be provocative and question my mental constitution.

Ms Wacco told me to be nice,
so love and kisses to you from

Lulu

[saysni]

[this post was posted several days earlier. I reposted it by mistake -Barry]

Dear 'A', aka sunnykait (alas, there is no 'private reply' option available);

There seems to be a core of folks on this board (that, if you read here much, you will very quickly recognize) who enjoy 'debate', and will publicly pick apart almost anything anyone has to say if they can find an 'in', or any perceived 'chink in the armor'. This is not to rap those whom i reference, it is merely to point out the pitfalls of any indirect communication-via-internet.
To wit please read the following quote (sage advise) i copied from a previous wacco posting (unannotated, uncredited, and completely without the author's permission because, frankly, i did not note the source):

Part of the limit and inadequacy of email [and website] correspondence is that it does not allow for rapid reciprocity and the expression of nuanced emotional response. It is not the same as conversation where visual and aural cues allow a participant to adjust content and delivery style. This leads to emotional conflicts when people feel slighted.
But if one is to use this medium, one must recognize that this problem is an inherent part of the process and [one ought] do ones best to avoid reacting, knowing that the other participants aren't in the same room with you adjusting their behavior to accomodate yours. This goes both ways and from what I've seen over the last seventeen years it is an unavoidable part of this medium.

Wise words.

Many thanks to the o.p.'s and well wishes to all,
-Stuart

*** Clancy:
Perhaps you guys are a little defensive on this one, rather than actually taking a little constructive observation under consideration? We all have to grow, no one is exempt. The fact that what I have written is receiving somewhat of a mild form of hostility is actually proof that there is resistance to some form of fear. I have alot of compassion for men, my father and brother are actually men... Please read the following and understand that it is written for the good of both genders..

[ThePhiant]

look what happens when you are in a hurry, things get lost .
for those of you, who missed my notations
one more time

Lulu,

Welcome out from behind the screen of anonymity! and a warm welcome at that, I'll see your love and kisses, and raise you a hug.
dude, I was never hiding, I didn't realize you were looking for me

I appreciate your concept regarding the application of critical thinking to the myriad of studies and the sometimes unscrupulous light in which they are presented. However, I believe your antagonistic tone is exacerbating the miscommunication, as opposed to allowing the light of reason to fall upon the similarities in the thought processes.
dude, YOUR post was antagonistic and provocative on purpose, by playing reasonable now, you are only exposing your self as being Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. (Jekyll was also in denial of his actions)

These similarities, that you both agree studies can be used to support polarized viewpoints, and that it takes great care and possibly skill to personally evaluate the truth of any given matter, are important. And, quite obviously, agreed upon. What I'm getting from an overview of this debate is that there seems to be difference in the assumed preponderance of technique.

PB et. al seem to be saying that while studies done in accord with proper scientific method admittedly have their foibles, they are, by and large, (and due to the peer review and built in checks and balances) accurate representations of an objective reality. As such, they are a useful tool.

You seem to be saying that more oft than not, studies are used to foster and promote a particular agenda, and as such, are not a useful tool.

Does seem accurate to you? I am saying they are a circumspect tool, and don't necessary apply to you or I as an individual. reread my first posts

As far as "cherry picking some irrelevant passage", I quoted 72.5 % of the original words in your post. Are you implying that 72.5% of your words are irrelevant? this is a highly misleading way to represent me. 72,5%? did you count all my words?
my word choice here was a little confusing. what I meant, is that my words become irrelevant, by you leaving out the quote.

And while I can see how my words could be construed as provacative, your assumption of my intent is incorrect.
your words were not just provocative, but antagonistic and with a purpose to draw me out! did you succeed?

My intent was to express curiosity, to draw out more information, with the ultimate goal of understanding and through understanding, reach accord.

Leaving us with your statement regarding my questioning of your mental constitution. It is your mental process I was questioning, and this type of assumptive behavior is exactly what I reference above as "antagonistic tone" I think you are in denial, just because you are playing Mr NiceGuy right now, that doesn't change your 1st post.
compare your 2 posts and you will see that they have a different tone.
and you can apply your own platitude to it;"this type of assumptive behavior is exactly what I reference above as "antagonistic tone"

I believe we would all be well served to remind ourselves of the dangers inherent in online discourse, and remember that an extra layer or three of psychic 'skin' is necessary here, as we don't have the benefit of the subtle exchange of energy which can smooth the pathways of a similar conversation in person. Oh yes, but then what would we do with our computers?


With knickers neither twisted nor tented,
Have you tried Viagra?
or are you just juggling your balls, dude

your Lulu

Royce

[ThePhiant]

patrick, does that mean you are talking to the little people?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

I think I have beaten my head against this particular wall for long enough; I will just go for a nice long walk and enjoy the green sky and the pink grass.

Wake me up when sanity returns.

Patrick

[nicofrog]

It's amazing how people can have time to sit and type discuss on computer just reading 40% of it(No I did NOT Count the words) is more than I can fit in.
ah The INTELLECT how we flex it like a muscle.There are some people who LIVE for debate to be right and wrong is bigger than love itself!
GENDER DIFFERENCE IS AN ILLUSION WE CREATE TO KEEP US APART
Just like so many other isms. religions etc. miss or mister De Phiant
just loves to lock wits and befuddle everyone with a seemingly NEW viewpoint that is as old as anarchy.
My vote on kicking her ,him, or it off is why bother,if something is off the wall, responding to it is like throwing gasoline on a fire you want to put out.
Want to be hurt and outraged and bitter about society? just imagine being a hermaphrodite for awhile.Want to stop a fight? leave the bar.
Love ya all my dear parents were argumentaholics. I'm a reconciliateaholic.
Nico