8 ms·

For a while now, there has been complete suppression/derision of people who use their own life anecdotes to come to conclusions about society. The church of onl

For a while now, there has been complete suppression/derision of people who use their own life anecdotes to come to conclusions about society. The church of only using rigorous statistics to draw conclusions is a method of thought control.

bavent 3y ago
You mean backing things up with facts instead of anecdotes is thought control? What?
- greatpostman 3y ago
  [flagged]
- DanTheManPR 3y ago
  Here's an anecdote: I haven't been the victim of any type of crime for the last 15 years, whereas I had multiple break-ins and near violent encounters in the 00s and 90s. My neighborhood and city (I live in Northeast Minneapolis) feels dramatically safer than it did when I was younger. My relatives in the burbs think it's some sort of crime infested hellhole. I'm inclined to think that a actually, crime IS dropping and that people who think that it isn't watching and reading a lot of media that is filling their heads with nonsense.
- matrix87 3y ago
  No, I'm pretty sure gp means drawing conclusions based off of lived experience instead of more general statistics. Or at least, not putting so much faith in statistics to allow them to cancel personal experiences which are opposed to them Maybe an argument for that could be that statistics are normally framed in a certain way, or may obscure certain things, or may be inconclusive. Statistics can be gamed, sometimes common sense is more trustworthy And I don't think flagging is an appropriate response to gp either, there's definitely room to discuss that type of perspective
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pintxo 3y ago
    No one is going to argue against using common sense to validate statistics and their underlying assumptions. But replacing statistics with “common sense” is just nonsense. Humanity has come to the point it is now, not by following “common sense” but by following science. And that’s more often than not basically statistics.
    - matrix87 3y ago
      > Humanity has come to the point it is now, not by following “common sense” but by following science What do you mean by "following science" here? As in, making your own observations, testing your own hypotheses? I'm not arguing against that, if anything I'm arguing for making that the norm If you're saying "give other people's statistics prevalence over my own recorded ones", why call that science if it isn't anywhere in the scientific method? Why hijack the phrase? Why not call it "trust in authority" or something less dishonest?
      - pintxo 3y ago
        Not sure what we are arguing here. As far as I am concerned, "give other people's statistics prevalence over my own recorded ones" is not science, and I never said this. Science is following a process, sharing your results, and then to let others confirm or falsify your results.
Hawkenfall 3y ago
I spy a paradoxical comment
- greatpostman 3y ago
  The human brain can understand the world without collecting statistically significant samples
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    Cleverness does not equate to wisdom.
caditinpiscinam 3y ago
Asking this not because I disagree with you, but because I want to know more about your perspective: what is your opinion of people who are skeptical of/hesitant towards vaccines?
- junofan 3y ago
  Having no opinion is a lost art. I’m also not sure what you mean by “skeptical of vaccines.” Skepticism means doubting knowledge claims, so you’ll need to put forth some claims to have a real discussion here.
  - caditinpiscinam 3y ago
    True, my question was vague. I know people who believe various things related to their health that the medical system says aren't real, empirically, like autoimmune issues triggered by mrna vaccines, long-term effects of lyme disease, and severe reactions to birth control. I've found that I react really differently to generic versions of the same medicine produced by different manufacturers, which many pharmacists say isn't possible. I'm curious whether you'd say that the "church of only using rigorous statistics" is a problem in scientific contexts as well as social issues.

bavent 3y ago

You mean backing things up with facts instead of anecdotes is thought control? What?

greatpostman 3y ago
[flagged]
DanTheManPR 3y ago
Here's an anecdote: I haven't been the victim of any type of crime for the last 15 years, whereas I had multiple break-ins and near violent encounters in the 00s and 90s. My neighborhood and city (I live in Northeast Minneapolis) feels dramatically safer than it did when I was younger. My relatives in the burbs think it's some sort of crime infested hellhole. I'm inclined to think that a actually, crime IS dropping and that people who think that it isn't watching and reading a lot of media that is filling their heads with nonsense.
matrix87 3y ago
No, I'm pretty sure gp means drawing conclusions based off of lived experience instead of more general statistics. Or at least, not putting so much faith in statistics to allow them to cancel personal experiences which are opposed to them Maybe an argument for that could be that statistics are normally framed in a certain way, or may obscure certain things, or may be inconclusive. Statistics can be gamed, sometimes common sense is more trustworthy And I don't think flagging is an appropriate response to gp either, there's definitely room to discuss that type of perspective
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pintxo 3y ago
  No one is going to argue against using common sense to validate statistics and their underlying assumptions. But replacing statistics with “common sense” is just nonsense. Humanity has come to the point it is now, not by following “common sense” but by following science. And that’s more often than not basically statistics.
  - matrix87 3y ago
    > Humanity has come to the point it is now, not by following “common sense” but by following science What do you mean by "following science" here? As in, making your own observations, testing your own hypotheses? I'm not arguing against that, if anything I'm arguing for making that the norm If you're saying "give other people's statistics prevalence over my own recorded ones", why call that science if it isn't anywhere in the scientific method? Why hijack the phrase? Why not call it "trust in authority" or something less dishonest?
    - pintxo 3y ago
      Not sure what we are arguing here. As far as I am concerned, "give other people's statistics prevalence over my own recorded ones" is not science, and I never said this. Science is following a process, sharing your results, and then to let others confirm or falsify your results.

Hawkenfall 3y ago

I spy a paradoxical comment

greatpostman 3y ago
The human brain can understand the world without collecting statistically significant samples
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Cleverness does not equate to wisdom.

caditinpiscinam 3y ago

Asking this not because I disagree with you, but because I want to know more about your perspective: what is your opinion of people who are skeptical of/hesitant towards vaccines?

junofan 3y ago
Having no opinion is a lost art. I’m also not sure what you mean by “skeptical of vaccines.” Skepticism means doubting knowledge claims, so you’ll need to put forth some claims to have a real discussion here.
- caditinpiscinam 3y ago
  True, my question was vague. I know people who believe various things related to their health that the medical system says aren't real, empirically, like autoimmune issues triggered by mrna vaccines, long-term effects of lyme disease, and severe reactions to birth control. I've found that I react really differently to generic versions of the same medicine produced by different manufacturers, which many pharmacists say isn't possible. I'm curious whether you'd say that the "church of only using rigorous statistics" is a problem in scientific contexts as well as social issues.