4 ms·

"Brain-training games may still prove useful for aging adults or people suffering from addiction or unhealthy behaviors, the researchers caution. Given the con

by abtinf 9y ago

"Brain-training games may still prove useful for aging adults or people suffering from addiction or unhealthy behaviors, the researchers caution. Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement. It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. If the researchers have a positive reason to believe brain-training games are a form of medical treatment for aging or addicted populations, they should state that. None of this "may" nonsense.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement. It is neither unscientific nor immoral to note a popular belief which the study does not provide a basis for rejecting on which a conclusion might be likely to be improperly formed based on the study. "May" is not a statement of positive belief.
- abtinf 9y ago
  The popularity of a belief does not grant validity to a claim. "May" is a word that does not belong in scientific language. If there is evidence for a claim, you state it. If there evidence against it, you state it. If there is no evidence either way, you say "I don't know." "May" implies something is possible without the burden of identifying the evidence that suggests that possibility. Consider a different statement: assume there was a study that showed rhino horn is not effective in improving mental performance in young adults, and then you read "Rhino horn may still prove useful for those suffering from cancer, the researchers cautioned." How would you react?
rodiger 9y ago
>It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. If you have no evidence against it, it is not irrational to believe something is possible.
- abtinf 9y ago
  To believe something is possible, you must have some evidence for it. If you believe something without any evidence, you are dealing with arbitrary whims or claims. If I claim there are tiny, sentient gnomes running around in my garden, I should have some evidence for that claim. If I insist it's possible without identifying any evidence, you would rightly conclude I'm insane. You evaluation of evidence, or your logical process, could both be mistaken and so you might believe things that are not true. But if your belief is based on evidence, you can test it and revise your understanding.
  - rodiger 9y ago
    I believe you're incorrectly conflating belief in possibility, and belief in reality. I don't believe there are tiny gnomes, but nothing about tiny gnomes causes me to disbelieve in the possibility of them. A hard claim, and a claim of possibility are entirely different.
ncallaway 9y ago
> It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. This is actually two statements. > It is irrational to believe something is true unless you have evidence for it. Sure, I'd agree with that. > It is irrational to believe something is possible unless you have evidence for it. Whoa, there. This seems like it goes...way beyond rationality. I would argue that you would need strong evidence if you were going to claim something was impossible.
- abtinf 9y ago
  A claim of possibility or impossibility are both claims about the nature of the universe and both require evidence. If you have no evidence for a claim, then any statement made regarding that claim, either in support of or opposed to, is arbitrary and lacks any intellectual value. For example, any claim about the (non)existence of god is arbitrary and not worth even a moment of consideration, because there is no evidence whatever in support of the claim either way.
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    I suppose there are two different claims of possibility that are getting confused. There is a hard claim of possibility, that is a claim of the state of nature (e.g. it is possible for a photon to travel at 0.5c). This hard claim is one where we definitively say that it is _certain_ that it's a physical possibility. Then there is a soft claim of possibility, that is a claim of our state of knowledge. (e.g. It's possible that Rob went to the store, but I'm not sure). These are two different claims. One is a hard claim that should only be made with evidence. The other is a statement of our uncertainty and an open mind; that doesn't need any evidence to make. It's a shame that these two different meanings of these words exist, but such is the English language. They are saying that their research does not close the door on that eventuality, and that their state of knowledge on that topic is uncertain.
    - abtinf 9y ago
      If I ask you, "Where did Rob go?" and you, having never even heard of Rob, respond "he might be out cheating on his wife," it would be an arbitrary statement bordering on malice. Qualifying the statement with "but I'm not sure," doesn't help you, because even the suggestion of the initial possibility needs to be based on evidence. If, instead, you know Rob well and you happen to have a general understanding of his schedule and needs, you might respond with "It's possible he went to the store; last night he mentioned he ran out of toilet paper." This is an evidence-backed claim. A claim about the state of nature is the same. Your knowledge leads you toward certain avenues of research, so you might think, "photons have properties x, y, z, so maybe they can travel at .5c, let me look into it." However, it would be improper to base your research on whim, like "I think photons are little gremlins and they run really fast, but can they run slow too?" Such a claim is not a claim about reality, it is arbitrary. Claims about the world must be grounded in knowledge, and knowledge must be based on evidence.

by abtinf 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Given the context of the article, this is an unscientific and immoral statement. It is neither unscientific nor immoral to note a popular belief which the study does not provide a basis for rejecting on which a conclusion might be likely to be improperly formed based on the study. "May" is not a statement of positive belief.

abtinf 9y ago
The popularity of a belief does not grant validity to a claim. "May" is a word that does not belong in scientific language. If there is evidence for a claim, you state it. If there evidence against it, you state it. If there is no evidence either way, you say "I don't know." "May" implies something is possible without the burden of identifying the evidence that suggests that possibility. Consider a different statement: assume there was a study that showed rhino horn is not effective in improving mental performance in young adults, and then you read "Rhino horn may still prove useful for those suffering from cancer, the researchers cautioned." How would you react?

rodiger 9y ago

>It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. If you have no evidence against it, it is not irrational to believe something is possible.

abtinf 9y ago
To believe something is possible, you must have some evidence for it. If you believe something without any evidence, you are dealing with arbitrary whims or claims. If I claim there are tiny, sentient gnomes running around in my garden, I should have some evidence for that claim. If I insist it's possible without identifying any evidence, you would rightly conclude I'm insane. You evaluation of evidence, or your logical process, could both be mistaken and so you might believe things that are not true. But if your belief is based on evidence, you can test it and revise your understanding.
- rodiger 9y ago
  I believe you're incorrectly conflating belief in possibility, and belief in reality. I don't believe there are tiny gnomes, but nothing about tiny gnomes causes me to disbelieve in the possibility of them. A hard claim, and a claim of possibility are entirely different.

ncallaway 9y ago

> It is irrational to believe something is true or possible unless you have evidence for it. This is actually two statements. > It is irrational to believe something is true unless you have evidence for it. Sure, I'd agree with that. > It is irrational to believe something is possible unless you have evidence for it. Whoa, there. This seems like it goes...way beyond rationality. I would argue that you would need strong evidence if you were going to claim something was impossible.

abtinf 9y ago
A claim of possibility or impossibility are both claims about the nature of the universe and both require evidence. If you have no evidence for a claim, then any statement made regarding that claim, either in support of or opposed to, is arbitrary and lacks any intellectual value. For example, any claim about the (non)existence of god is arbitrary and not worth even a moment of consideration, because there is no evidence whatever in support of the claim either way.
- ncallaway 9y ago
  I suppose there are two different claims of possibility that are getting confused. There is a hard claim of possibility, that is a claim of the state of nature (e.g. it is possible for a photon to travel at 0.5c). This hard claim is one where we definitively say that it is _certain_ that it's a physical possibility. Then there is a soft claim of possibility, that is a claim of our state of knowledge. (e.g. It's possible that Rob went to the store, but I'm not sure). These are two different claims. One is a hard claim that should only be made with evidence. The other is a statement of our uncertainty and an open mind; that doesn't need any evidence to make. It's a shame that these two different meanings of these words exist, but such is the English language. They are saying that their research does not close the door on that eventuality, and that their state of knowledge on that topic is uncertain.
  - abtinf 9y ago
    If I ask you, "Where did Rob go?" and you, having never even heard of Rob, respond "he might be out cheating on his wife," it would be an arbitrary statement bordering on malice. Qualifying the statement with "but I'm not sure," doesn't help you, because even the suggestion of the initial possibility needs to be based on evidence. If, instead, you know Rob well and you happen to have a general understanding of his schedule and needs, you might respond with "It's possible he went to the store; last night he mentioned he ran out of toilet paper." This is an evidence-backed claim. A claim about the state of nature is the same. Your knowledge leads you toward certain avenues of research, so you might think, "photons have properties x, y, z, so maybe they can travel at .5c, let me look into it." However, it would be improper to base your research on whim, like "I think photons are little gremlins and they run really fast, but can they run slow too?" Such a claim is not a claim about reality, it is arbitrary. Claims about the world must be grounded in knowledge, and knowledge must be based on evidence.