3 ms·

"... 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' bec

"... 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.

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.