4 ms·

"Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone might be uncomfortable with is bad science. The burden of proof must be equally high for everyone.

"Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone might be uncomfortable with is bad science. The burden of proof must be equally high for everyone." If the burden of proof is set at the level in which a statement can be made such that there is evidence that cannot be explained by other phenomena then both of you can be correct. (TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things. If someone claimed P=NP my expectations are significantly higher than if someone claimed that HN commentors primarily comment in English.)

kbenson 8y ago
I agree that some things would require more evidence, but it's problematic when that is applied simply because they results are inconvenient in one way or another, and when it keeps being applied so the results never have to be acknowledged. Look at climate change. People are far to willing to discount information that is at odds with their preconception of the world. To differing degrees, this is a problem on both sides.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  "... it's problematic when that is applied simply because they results are inconvenient in one way or another..." IMO the problem is that it's not 'simply' because the results are inconvenient in one way or another. That seems like a rather handwavy or dismissing cognitive understanding of what the person is saying. In their perception it is because a given conclusion has a known and studied bias- this isn't particularly simple, nor is it about inconvenience. It is that the evidence provided may have caveats that have also been studied that would skew the evidence to be explained by other factors. This is similar to the claim about the convtroversies behind global warming or antivax, except the amount of evidence is overwhelming such that the scientific consensus of possible skew is extremely low. I don't know (and have not heavily researched) if brain architecture and gender identity and human behavior (as a trifecta) have the same amount of evidence (I was under the impression that the technology to study the brain architecture is new enough that the research hasn't been wholly settled- if this is incorrect let me know).
  - kbenson 8y ago
    The problem with making statements on tangential points on a charged topic is that everyone will reinterpret it to apply specifically towards points it wasn't intended to. :/ I wasn't using "simply" to say that explains all objections, I was saying of the objections we should be wary of ones that might be because of confirmation bias, and how that can sometimes lead to apparent lack of consensus where there is one. That is, if you take the calls for additional scrutiny and filter them to account for confirmation bias, we should consider that outcome as well as how thorough the study was when deciding how much additional confirming reports are required to start considering the results worth mentioning. Surely, if it goes against the common knowledge of a large percentage of the population, that's reason enough to follow up in detail, but we should not shy away from the truth because it is inconvenient, whatever it may be. At to be perfectly clear, this isn't some veiled statement about topics here, it's a general statement about the utility of science and how we can use it effectively to better ourselves.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      Please inform me where I've misinterpreted your phrasing. I am responding to you assuming you intend for best-faith discussion but may be misunderstanding the person you are responding to if you are concluding it is one of "simply" and "inconvenience", the second word you used again to describe the position. I'm not always neurotypical in my understanding so please clarify if I'm misunderstanding you: Is your position not that you believe the poster is creating an unfair framework of skepticism on how convenient evidence is?
      - kbenson 8y ago
        > the second word you used again to describe the position. I didn't describe "the" position, or any single position. That seems to be the crux of misinterpreting my comment. I should have included it in the reply, but I was responding specifically to the idea, in semi-isolation, of "TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things." and how we should be careful that we don't allow it to go to the other extreme, as (it has for some subset of people) in the example I gave. > Is your position not that you believe the poster is creating an unfair framework of skepticism on how convenient evidence is? My point, as it often is, since I find some themes cause me to comment over and over, is that both the extremes of a spectrum are often unappealing but in different ways, and a middle ground is often best. While applying the exact same level of scrutiny to all things isn't useful or efficient, neither is allowing political, economic and cultural narratives to the degree that we never accept results that are "inconvenient" in that they run counter to those narratives. The example given was one where it is inconvenient politically and economically to accept the results of man made climate change. Culturally, that could be results on the effects of marriage, or religion, or lack of religion. My statement should have been interpreted as a refinement on a specific point, not necessarily supporting or refuting anything absolutely.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  I have to ask- who said anything about "inconvenient" results?
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I think you've made the mistake of thinking that since I commented commented downthread from your comment, it necessarily applies directly for or against your comment. I chose the word inconvenient on purpose, to encompass results that are against someone's economic interest as well as those against their specific views on a topic. It's meant as a general statement about the idea of requiring more or less evidence for specific results, and where I think we should be wary of this going awry.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
      But why introduce this term, "inconvenient", when it has nothing to do with the original comment?
      - kbenson 8y ago
        Because I was making a tangential point that had little to do directly with the original comment (if by original you mean your top level one). I was responding specifically to "TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things." as I just wanted to flush out that that concept a bit more. Usually, I quote what I'm responding to, but I was on my phone earlier, and the inconvenience that causes sometimes outweighs my desire to do so for the sake of clarity. You may note that I clearly steered my example away from the topic at hand to avoid getting it tied up in a topic that I think is contentious because it affects people's personal interpretation of themselves. I did so by steering it to another charged topic, but one a little less tied to an individual and one that has numerous examples of very thorough science. I'm not sure why I chose inconvenient specifically, other than it encapsulated colloquially what I was trying to express. It's been used for the same purpose previously, and famously so, in "An inconvenient truth", so perhaps that affected my choice. I get the feeling you really want me to apply the word inconvenient towards the topic at hand and your statement in some way. Honestly, since your comment is mostly about making sure we take it carefully and really understand it, I'm not sure I have a useful way to apply it without being ham-fisted and forcing it, which I would prefer not to do. If I had to apply it towards the topic of cognitive differences between the sexes (or even the races), I would say it applies only inasmuch as if the science disagrees with (or as you state, conveniently agrees with) the popular narratives, we should still look at them closely and follow the science, but we should be careful not to let our preconceptions steer us from changing our view little by little and more evidence comes in. I seriously doubt any neurological differences amount to much in comparison to natural variation and environmental factors, but I also don't think it's fair of me to prevent future people from having a better understanding of how, in general, their neurological processes might differ from other people in positive and negative ways in multiple different aspects, and how to take advantage of or mitigate them as needed. As an example of this, my oldest daughter has ADHD. In her junior year of high school, she's finally learning techniques to mitigate the problems this causes for her (as well as the benefits), Having an explanation and template for her behavior and how we should interpret it was invaluable to us. It's not perfect (what template could be when applied to an individual?), but it did help us all channel our frustrations into useful life strategies, as parents and for her as a child. If an area of research that yields better understanding of our minds overall hampered because of our inability as a society to accept where it conflicts with our ideas of equality (as weirdly disjointed and unevenly applied as those are), then I think we are all worse off for it.

kbenson 8y ago

I agree that some things would require more evidence, but it's problematic when that is applied simply because they results are inconvenient in one way or another, and when it keeps being applied so the results never have to be acknowledged. Look at climate change. People are far to willing to discount information that is at odds with their preconception of the world. To differing degrees, this is a problem on both sides.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
"... it's problematic when that is applied simply because they results are inconvenient in one way or another..." IMO the problem is that it's not 'simply' because the results are inconvenient in one way or another. That seems like a rather handwavy or dismissing cognitive understanding of what the person is saying. In their perception it is because a given conclusion has a known and studied bias- this isn't particularly simple, nor is it about inconvenience. It is that the evidence provided may have caveats that have also been studied that would skew the evidence to be explained by other factors. This is similar to the claim about the convtroversies behind global warming or antivax, except the amount of evidence is overwhelming such that the scientific consensus of possible skew is extremely low. I don't know (and have not heavily researched) if brain architecture and gender identity and human behavior (as a trifecta) have the same amount of evidence (I was under the impression that the technology to study the brain architecture is new enough that the research hasn't been wholly settled- if this is incorrect let me know).
- kbenson 8y ago
  The problem with making statements on tangential points on a charged topic is that everyone will reinterpret it to apply specifically towards points it wasn't intended to. :/ I wasn't using "simply" to say that explains all objections, I was saying of the objections we should be wary of ones that might be because of confirmation bias, and how that can sometimes lead to apparent lack of consensus where there is one. That is, if you take the calls for additional scrutiny and filter them to account for confirmation bias, we should consider that outcome as well as how thorough the study was when deciding how much additional confirming reports are required to start considering the results worth mentioning. Surely, if it goes against the common knowledge of a large percentage of the population, that's reason enough to follow up in detail, but we should not shy away from the truth because it is inconvenient, whatever it may be. At to be perfectly clear, this isn't some veiled statement about topics here, it's a general statement about the utility of science and how we can use it effectively to better ourselves.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    Please inform me where I've misinterpreted your phrasing. I am responding to you assuming you intend for best-faith discussion but may be misunderstanding the person you are responding to if you are concluding it is one of "simply" and "inconvenience", the second word you used again to describe the position. I'm not always neurotypical in my understanding so please clarify if I'm misunderstanding you: Is your position not that you believe the poster is creating an unfair framework of skepticism on how convenient evidence is?
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > the second word you used again to describe the position. I didn't describe "the" position, or any single position. That seems to be the crux of misinterpreting my comment. I should have included it in the reply, but I was responding specifically to the idea, in semi-isolation, of "TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things." and how we should be careful that we don't allow it to go to the other extreme, as (it has for some subset of people) in the example I gave. > Is your position not that you believe the poster is creating an unfair framework of skepticism on how convenient evidence is? My point, as it often is, since I find some themes cause me to comment over and over, is that both the extremes of a spectrum are often unappealing but in different ways, and a middle ground is often best. While applying the exact same level of scrutiny to all things isn't useful or efficient, neither is allowing political, economic and cultural narratives to the degree that we never accept results that are "inconvenient" in that they run counter to those narratives. The example given was one where it is inconvenient politically and economically to accept the results of man made climate change. Culturally, that could be results on the effects of marriage, or religion, or lack of religion. My statement should have been interpreted as a refinement on a specific point, not necessarily supporting or refuting anything absolutely.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
I have to ask- who said anything about "inconvenient" results?
- kbenson 8y ago
  I think you've made the mistake of thinking that since I commented commented downthread from your comment, it necessarily applies directly for or against your comment. I chose the word inconvenient on purpose, to encompass results that are against someone's economic interest as well as those against their specific views on a topic. It's meant as a general statement about the idea of requiring more or less evidence for specific results, and where I think we should be wary of this going awry.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    But why introduce this term, "inconvenient", when it has nothing to do with the original comment?
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Because I was making a tangential point that had little to do directly with the original comment (if by original you mean your top level one). I was responding specifically to "TBH I don't agree that one level of skepticism should be warranted for all things." as I just wanted to flush out that that concept a bit more. Usually, I quote what I'm responding to, but I was on my phone earlier, and the inconvenience that causes sometimes outweighs my desire to do so for the sake of clarity. You may note that I clearly steered my example away from the topic at hand to avoid getting it tied up in a topic that I think is contentious because it affects people's personal interpretation of themselves. I did so by steering it to another charged topic, but one a little less tied to an individual and one that has numerous examples of very thorough science. I'm not sure why I chose inconvenient specifically, other than it encapsulated colloquially what I was trying to express. It's been used for the same purpose previously, and famously so, in "An inconvenient truth", so perhaps that affected my choice. I get the feeling you really want me to apply the word inconvenient towards the topic at hand and your statement in some way. Honestly, since your comment is mostly about making sure we take it carefully and really understand it, I'm not sure I have a useful way to apply it without being ham-fisted and forcing it, which I would prefer not to do. If I had to apply it towards the topic of cognitive differences between the sexes (or even the races), I would say it applies only inasmuch as if the science disagrees with (or as you state, conveniently agrees with) the popular narratives, we should still look at them closely and follow the science, but we should be careful not to let our preconceptions steer us from changing our view little by little and more evidence comes in. I seriously doubt any neurological differences amount to much in comparison to natural variation and environmental factors, but I also don't think it's fair of me to prevent future people from having a better understanding of how, in general, their neurological processes might differ from other people in positive and negative ways in multiple different aspects, and how to take advantage of or mitigate them as needed. As an example of this, my oldest daughter has ADHD. In her junior year of high school, she's finally learning techniques to mitigate the problems this causes for her (as well as the benefits), Having an explanation and template for her behavior and how we should interpret it was invaluable to us. It's not perfect (what template could be when applied to an individual?), but it did help us all channel our frustrations into useful life strategies, as parents and for her as a child. If an area of research that yields better understanding of our minds overall hampered because of our inability as a society to accept where it conflicts with our ideas of equality (as weirdly disjointed and unevenly applied as those are), then I think we are all worse off for it.