[onlooker]

Just creating this little topic as I have found while on this site some very interesting dynamics related to the posting styles and preferences of each member/poster. So, the question at hand, is beyond the obvious prohibited postings related to threats and profanity what do other posters feel are do's and do not's of posting. I was stimulated to created this topic based on some back and forth between two posters that are have been around quite some time here and are generally well respected on this site. The point of contention was the assertion by one of them, that his position was the absolute correct one and no other could be held. The other poster retorted that it is not useful or helpful to assert your position as unassailable and unequivocally correct. That we all should always account for uncertainty in any comment or position held especially ones that science deals with and also because for the most part none of us are truly experts in the subject matter we discuss. Views?

[Plantagenet]

The point of contention was the assertion by one of them, that his position was the absolute correct one and no other could be held. The other poster retorted that it is not useful or helpful to assert your position as unassailable and unequivocally correct. That we all should always account for uncertainty in any comment or position held especially ones that science deals with and also because for the most part none of us are truly experts in the subject matter we discuss. Views?

It would help if you'd tell us what the debate was about and/or who the participants were. However, in general I think its always good to admit to some uncertainty on most topics, particularly if it involves science.

In science, just about every theory can at any time can be disproved if another theory is proposed that better describes physical reality. Having said that, if the existing theory is describing reality adequately, then that should also be acknowledged.

Scientific thinking is the opposite of religious thinking. Religions claim to have the absolute truth because they believe they have the "word of god" or the teachings of a "prophet" to tell them what the unassailable facts are. The whole of checking the facts is antithetical to religious thinking. You can point out to a religious person where his religious beliefs don't make any sense, but they'll just ignore you. But of course, since the religions of the world largely disagree with one-another, they can't all be right and quite likely none of them are right.

Cheers!


Each religion thinks it embodies the unassailable truth as based on the word of God and/or his prophets.

[onlooker]

Good reply Plant.

[SeaGypsy]

Pretty ignorant to a Theologian though. The 'God thing' can be summed up as the human response to questions beyond what science has currently explained- hence trying to frame religion as a whole as fundamentally dishonest- is a denial of aspects of consciousness known to exist in the same reality as the nose on your face. How many words can you write about your nose? Noses in general? To some people the answer will be one word, to others, could potentially talk forever about this magnificent organ, which to a pure materialist would only appear a slightly insane thing to do- whereas answering the big existential questions in similar ways draws howls of derision from the neo religion of no religion.

(It is BTW a grave offense in Vedic culture to determine another's religion, or even lack of religion- as in any way determining character- which must be assessed by behaviour, not belief. So I must respect your opinion, although I find it misinformed. The answer- in good conversation always leads to another question.

[Cog]

Data can be unassailable if it can be shown that the data was derived using standard and accurate methods of obtaining it and such data is subject to be reproduced by others.

When we get into predictions using models or theories, then a lot of subjectivity creeps in and the unassailability of those models or theories, can usually only be seen in hindsight.

For example assume #1 and #2 are true.

1) The sales of guns have increased dramatically in the last seven years
2) Homicides rates have fallen over the last seven years

If I make the statement that a dramatic increase in gun sales has not led to increased homicide rates that would be a logical and unassailable point which follows from the two factual data bits above.

If I were to state that the dramatic increase in gun sales has caused the homicide rate to drop that statement might be valid or it might not be. There are many other factors which could cause the homicide rate to drop.

Causation is where a lot of people get into trouble claiming unassailability. X and Y might indeed by unassailable but X and Y will cause Z is not.

[Tanada]

Data can be unassailable if it can be shown that the data was derived using standard and accurate methods of obtaining it and such data is subject to be reproduced by others.

When we get into predictions using models or theories, then a lot of subjectivity creeps in and the unassailability of those models or theories, can usually only be seen in hindsight.

For example assume #1 and #2 are true.

1) The sales of guns have increased dramatically in the last seven years
2) Homicides rates have fallen over the last seven years

If I make the statement that a dramatic increase in gun sales has not led to increased homicide rates that would be a logical and unassailable point which follows from the two factual data bits above.

If I were to state that the dramatic increase in gun sales has caused the homicide rate to drop that statement might be valid or it might not be. There are many other factors which could cause the homicide rate to drop.

Causation is where a lot of people get into trouble claiming unassailability. X and Y might indeed by unassailable but X and Y will cause Z is not.

Well said, I can give you another example but first I will point out that as a general rule all "observational" studies start with known facts like your example above and attempt to determine the cause and effect relationship between the known facts.

A favorite example from observational studies of children. Children who grow up in homes where the caregivers read books to them do better on standardized tests. This fact has been confirmed several times and lead to a crazy study encouraging people to read to their children a couple decades ago. The result was very little change in the children in the study's test scores. Why? Well parents who read themselves have children who ask to be read to, the natural imitative behavior of children. People who read for pleasure, rather than watch TV or play sports have a brain structure that just does better on standardized tests. That does not make them smarter, it is just one way they are different than people who are athletic, or people who are amused by visual art instead of written art.

[onlooker]

Yes, I think that making absolutist statements that can be construed to involve a matter which cannot be objectively confirmed or proven are not good debating or dialoging etiquette. We should all concede that most assertions are open to lines of questioning and are not or cannot be empirically ascertained as to their factual accuracy. For example if I was to say that the Illuminati/Cabal exist because of wealth of information points to that conclusion, I still must concede that my assertion is not fact but a educated conjecture or opinion. That is why in a Court of Law they speak of beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that maybe not 100% resounding proof but sufficient to leave little doubt.

[DesuMaiden]

Each site has its own rules and posting guide lines, so it is important to read them before you start posting on the site.