3 ms·

> How exactly do you think that scientific grants are evaluated right now? I have some bad news for you A problem of authorization can be solved with delegated

by nilirl 4mo ago

> How exactly do you think that scientific grants are evaluated right now? I have some bad news for you A problem of authorization can be solved with delegated authority. I'm saying your use of it is as evidence for your reasoning is weak. Those are two different problems. > your point was that there's no normative standard for evaluating science. You said it like, three times. Yes, but you equated me saying "no normative standard" to "no standards at all." You setup a false dichotomy. My larger point was that what's normative is political. And you saying your standard should be the norm is also political. > You like the research, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about, and who am I for having an opinion anyway. And then I tell you that I actually do have some relevant knowledge, and you dismiss the knowledge as "normative". Convenient! You're placing words in my mouth. I didn't say I like the research, I'm saying I don't like your grounds for dismissing it. I don't dismiss your expertise but I reject it as sufficient evidence for your argument. > Doing the 150,000th derivative observational study finding that poor people are sicker than rich people is not an example. Poor people are sicker than rich people. Let's move on. If you cannot see the hubris here, if you cannot see how unscientific it is to conclude (reductively) the results of an experiment before the experiment, then we are at an end. Let's move on.

timr 4mo ago
> Yes, but you equated me saying "no normative standard" to "no standards at all." No, I concluded that from a process of deduction, but fair enough. You're arguing that nobody can be qualified to critique the thing you support. > You setup a false dichotomy. My larger point was that what's normative is political. And you saying your standard should be the norm is also political. Yes yes. What's "normative" is now "political" (for some reason), and my standard is also "political" and therefore is not relevant. It's just another way to try to arrive at the same place through the back door: my standard is wrong, because it's "normative" (or "political", or whatever other word you use in the next post), but your standard is (again, for some reason) not those things. You don't like what I'm saying, so you reject my ability to say it. And when I catch you in this fallacy, you'll slip back to arguing that all research might be relevant to someone somewhere, and who are we to judge anyway, man, and blah blah blah. You're obviously just being big-brained and magnanimous.
- nilirl 4mo ago
  Well, your deduction was unsound. And continues to be unsound. You can critique anything as long as you know you can be wrong too. > Yes yes. What's "normative" is now "political" (for some reason), and my standard is also "political" and therefore is not relevant. You're hand-waving. Your stance is political but not irrelevant. Your stance is philosophical (resting on chosen assumptions) and not empirically irrefutable. Not acknowledging that is why you fail to convince. You've made this argument about you and your ability to "catch" people. You have no argument that stands on its own construction.
  - try_the_bass 4mo ago
    Having read through this whole discussion, and as an outsider: they're approaching this from a much stronger and consistent position than you. This is most obvious given how far you've moved the goalposts along the way.
    - nilirl 4mo ago
      Maybe they've been more consistent but the strength of their position is not measured by my inconsistency. Look at how much "trust me, I've got training, I know what's good, I know what's already right" is in their argument. What is their actual point? That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty? Good research is field dependent; some fields are younger than others, some fields have an easier time controlling experiments than others. I'm saying what matters is what people care about. My point about stances being political is because what gets funded is what people care about, not what can guarantee the highest confidence using research design. My point is that their stance is political too, because it says 'I don't care about this like how they care about this, so I think it should get cut'. Their position is not some innocent defense of empiricism, it's a political stance that says "these questions don't matter, I already know how the world works."
      - timr 4mo ago
        > That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty? That is not my point, but it is a true statement, yes [1]. Science without controls is not science. Science without novelty is called an undergraduate lab exercise. > Good research is field dependent Controls and novelty and rigor are not field-dependent. If you want that, go do English Literature or Philosophy or something. They love to entertain unresolvable debates about post-modernism. [1] Modulo the "easy" part. I feel like you put this in as some kind of emergency exit slide from the debate, so I'll just say up front that good science doesn't have to have "easy" controls. It must have controls.

by nilirl 4mo ago

timr 4mo ago

> Yes, but you equated me saying "no normative standard" to "no standards at all." No, I concluded that from a process of deduction, but fair enough. You're arguing that nobody can be qualified to critique the thing you support. > You setup a false dichotomy. My larger point was that what's normative is political. And you saying your standard should be the norm is also political. Yes yes. What's "normative" is now "political" (for some reason), and my standard is also "political" and therefore is not relevant. It's just another way to try to arrive at the same place through the back door: my standard is wrong, because it's "normative" (or "political", or whatever other word you use in the next post), but your standard is (again, for some reason) not those things. You don't like what I'm saying, so you reject my ability to say it. And when I catch you in this fallacy, you'll slip back to arguing that all research might be relevant to someone somewhere, and who are we to judge anyway, man, and blah blah blah. You're obviously just being big-brained and magnanimous.

nilirl 4mo ago
Well, your deduction was unsound. And continues to be unsound. You can critique anything as long as you know you can be wrong too. > Yes yes. What's "normative" is now "political" (for some reason), and my standard is also "political" and therefore is not relevant. You're hand-waving. Your stance is political but not irrelevant. Your stance is philosophical (resting on chosen assumptions) and not empirically irrefutable. Not acknowledging that is why you fail to convince. You've made this argument about you and your ability to "catch" people. You have no argument that stands on its own construction.
- try_the_bass 4mo ago
  Having read through this whole discussion, and as an outsider: they're approaching this from a much stronger and consistent position than you. This is most obvious given how far you've moved the goalposts along the way.
  - nilirl 4mo ago
    Maybe they've been more consistent but the strength of their position is not measured by my inconsistency. Look at how much "trust me, I've got training, I know what's good, I know what's already right" is in their argument. What is their actual point? That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty? Good research is field dependent; some fields are younger than others, some fields have an easier time controlling experiments than others. I'm saying what matters is what people care about. My point about stances being political is because what gets funded is what people care about, not what can guarantee the highest confidence using research design. My point is that their stance is political too, because it says 'I don't care about this like how they care about this, so I think it should get cut'. Their position is not some innocent defense of empiricism, it's a political stance that says "these questions don't matter, I already know how the world works."
    - timr 4mo ago
      > That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty? That is not my point, but it is a true statement, yes [1]. Science without controls is not science. Science without novelty is called an undergraduate lab exercise. > Good research is field dependent Controls and novelty and rigor are not field-dependent. If you want that, go do English Literature or Philosophy or something. They love to entertain unresolvable debates about post-modernism. [1] Modulo the "easy" part. I feel like you put this in as some kind of emergency exit slide from the debate, so I'll just say up front that good science doesn't have to have "easy" controls. It must have controls.