Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2018-08-28, 8:39 AM #10881
Originally posted by Reid:

Bismarck, being the man most responsible for unifying Germany, obviously upheld the tradition of Prussian militarism. The Prussian education system (in its iconic form a result of Napoleon smashing the Prussians) led to scientific advancement. And for a variety of economic reasons, Germany also became an industrial powerhouse.


He did to an extent, but he was a whole lot more restrained about it than people give him credit for. He was probably the most capable politician of his era, and while he was willing to fight when necessary to achieve his goals, he also understood that war had dangerous long term consequences. He was careful to avoid pressing his victories so far that they would cause long term resentment. Instead he tended to try to end wars early and graciously to prevent long term resentment toward Germany. Most of what he did was to keep Germany from ever having to fight a war on two fronts, because he was pretty sure they wouldn't be able to win it. Unfortunately, most of the rest of Germany didn't seem to grasp these concepts, and they lost two consecutive world wars.
2018-08-28, 2:38 PM #10882
Ok, I've said before I dip into here on occasion just to see how much of a trainwreck the thread is but at no point in time did I ever expect to find people debating Bismarck.
nope.
2018-08-28, 4:40 PM #10883
Originally posted by Reid:
The French Revolution created the bright Napoleon, who crushed the Prussians, which led to the post Napoleonic order in Germany. It's hard to overestimate how pivotal the French Revolution was in ****ing up everything in Europe.

Given that it literally took a coalition of all of Europe to stop France, everybody saw the power of nationalism under a liberal state and structure. The era after Napoleon is a series of unifications of the duchies and smaller countries in Europe to borders we'd roughly recognize today. Unification of many countries, that is, except for German territories. Germany was basically kept down as disunited duchies while everybody in Europe partied under the new political and social orders.

Bismarck, being the man most responsible for unifying Germany, obviously upheld the tradition of Prussian militarism. The Prussian education system (in its iconic form a result of Napoleon smashing the Prussians) led to scientific advancement. And for a variety of economic reasons, Germany also became an industrial powerhouse.

The impression German nationalists had was that Germany was being "restored" to where it should have rightly been. Their view was that the rest of the European powers, particularly France, were kicking Germany while it was down on purpose. They were also blocked out of the colonizing game, scoring only minor colonies compared to France and England, and lost out on the massive profits due to that.

Combine this extreme resentfulness with a stalwart militarism, and you have a recipe for disaster. Nietzsche saw this current in German society and basically said "y'all should invade Germany right now and stop this early because it's going to lead to the worst wars of history". Yeah I'm going to say he nailed that one smack dab on the head. How the **** Nietzsche predicted it all I will never know.

And I think that's the important thing to recognize about resentful politics. During this period, you have a strong sense of "German superiority" tied with "German inferiority". The mental contradiction is strong. How could the best country also be so behind her neighbors? Well, many believed it's because Germany was maybe a little too nice to the "parasites" it harbored. Die Meistersingers by Wagner is a mid 19th century testament to everything toxic Germans felt about themselves and their situation.

It sucks, too, that WW2 and the Wehrmacht overshadow WW1. WW1 Germany had one of the best armies in history. And nobody remembers just how amazing their war effort was. It's far too buried under their colossal temper tantrum.


Seeing as what you wrote was a response to something I wrote about the ancien regime, I'm not going to let it pass without saying that that Napolean was not ancien regime. He was actually the opposite: a force that disrupted the ancien regime in Germany, and instituted a more liberal regime and equality to German lands as he conquered them.

There may have been some amount of resentiment in Germany after Napoleon, but there also arose a Romantic nationalism that flourished during the period, a nationalism not of political revolution but of cultural production, in which Germans could take pride in their cultivation and their literary and artistic achievements. I think a lot of the resentfulness became much more prominent in the second half of the 19th century.
former entrepreneur
2018-08-28, 5:36 PM #10884
I wasn't sure whether you were referring to "the" Ancien regime, as in King Louis the XVI and France's nobility structure, or ancien regime to refer to Germant prior to unification.
2018-08-28, 6:59 PM #10885
I was using it in the generic sense to refer to the pre-modern "feudal" order that existed in Germany before modernization.
former entrepreneur
2018-08-29, 1:22 PM #10886
Yeah, Napoleon was not about to restore the king of France. He had a liberalizing effect on society, but instituted it through an illiberal order. It's part of what makes his legacy interesting.

What's interesting about Napoleon and Prussian militarism is how Hitler never seemed to grasp what made Napoleon a great commander. Other than Napoleon actually being book studied and just knowing tons and tons of military history. Hitler knew very little. It's kind of a misconception that Napoleon's success was primarily in tactical innovation with artillery. He was a great innovator, yes. What's downplayed though is that he just understood more about combat from history than pretty much every other commander at the time. His usage of artillery was, in many cases, fairly textbook. What was different was the zeal his soldiers felt and how he trained his artillery crews.

But beyond that, Napoleon was good at politics. I think he really did believe in the revolutionary ideal of equality. He really let his military be meritocratic and made men feel like equals (even if that wasn't the reality). Hitler and the Nazi regime took the 100% opposite stance, a radical illiberalism based on racial supremacy. And that seriously held back the Nazi war effort. Goering is the prominent example of how the Nazi lack of meritocracy held back their armed fighting force. I won't go into detail, but there's a reason the Luftwaffe sucked, and it's because of the pathetic morphine addict.

As regards German nationalism, I seem to recall Goethe having strong negative opinions about German nationalism. These gave me the impression that German nationalism extended pretty far back. You seem to know German history better than me though.
2018-08-29, 1:29 PM #10887
Speaking of which, contextualizing politics in history has helped me understand so much more about why people are attracted to certain philosophers.

I now see Ayn Rand as a radical reactionary figure. Reactionary against what, you might ask? Well, economic liberalism, the "free market" kind. Which sounds odd, because most see her as a proponent of that. But I don't think she really felt that. I mean, what is Atlas Shrugged really about? It's really advocating we hold a perspective that some individuals are our natural superiors, and most are natural inferiors, and implies a perspective that this is right, is good, and we basically ought to see these people as "Atlases" holding up the world.

What it does is it takes the meritocracy of liberal economics and replaces it with an ideology of individual superiority. Instead of equality, it advocates hierarchy. It takes everything possibly good about right-wing economics and turns it into anti-liberal, hierarchical trash.
2018-08-29, 1:33 PM #10888
Which is really why she's so popular among some sectors of the right. Because actual free markets suck, you have to, like, compete, which means you have to put in effort to earn money, and no matter what your profits will dwindle.

(This is a key fact economists aren't honest about. We're all taught about making profits, but in the most efficient market profits would not exist. If profits are increasing, markets are usually getting worse.)

Ayn Randian hierarchical beliefs are pretty similar in jamming up and ****ing up institutions like Nazi racial beliefs were to their military efficiency. It encourages people who believe themselves natural superiors to engage in rent seeking, since they feel entitled to it. Which in turn trickles down into society (more accurately, pisses on the head of functioning states).
2018-08-29, 1:37 PM #10889
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
He did to an extent, but he was a whole lot more restrained about it than people give him credit for. He was probably the most capable politician of his era, and while he was willing to fight when necessary to achieve his goals, he also understood that war had dangerous long term consequences. He was careful to avoid pressing his victories so far that they would cause long term resentment. Instead he tended to try to end wars early and graciously to prevent long term resentment toward Germany. Most of what he did was to keep Germany from ever having to fight a war on two fronts, because he was pretty sure they wouldn't be able to win it. Unfortunately, most of the rest of Germany didn't seem to grasp these concepts, and they lost two consecutive world wars.


I agree. I have respect for Bismarck as a politician. Unfortunately, I think the most striking feature of Bismarck is he's the exception to the rule of Germany having awful political leaders for the most part. Earlier someone called Kaiser Wilhelm an *******, the term I thought of was "nincompoop". The WW1 German army fought an outset two front war against the strongest nations in Europe, toppling one front completely and almost winning on the other. Kaiser Wilhelm's bad decisions possibly were the tipping point for Germany losing WW1.
2018-08-29, 1:39 PM #10890
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
The problem is that this discussion is hampered by a lack of intellectual integrity, so it's hard to get a clear picture of what's going on.


If you want someone to take you seriously, it's best to leave comments like this off the table.
2018-08-29, 1:41 PM #10891
Originally posted by Reid:
If you want someone to take you seriously, it's best to leave comments like this off the table.


:P
2018-08-29, 2:28 PM #10892
Yikes
former entrepreneur
2018-08-29, 3:45 PM #10893
You're not going to get anywhere by basically giving conspiracy theories about how science works. Claiming there might be a slight bias in which studies get funding and published is one thing. But to imply scientists don't have intellectual integrity? That's taking it too far.
2018-08-29, 3:48 PM #10894
If I'm going to actually reply to that post, it's that 1. none of those arguments come even close to speaking against the claim, 2. apply skepticism so generally that they exclude basic scientific fact.

Come up with an argument that can't be filled in by flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and actually try to demonstrate the opposite conclusion. If you think a majority of scientific evidence supporting one conclusion can only mean there's collective intellectual dishonesty towards a specific conclusion, and not that it's just a true conclusion, then you just don't believe in science at all. Might as well not vaccinate your kids.
2018-08-29, 5:01 PM #10895
Originally posted by Reid:
You're not going to get anywhere by basically giving conspiracy theories about how science works. Claiming there might be a slight bias in which studies get funding and published is one thing. But to imply scientists don't have intellectual integrity? That's taking it too far.


https://thehardestscience.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-f@@@@cked-the-syllabus/
2018-08-29, 5:03 PM #10896
holy ****, I had no idea that there were web servers that ignored the @ symbol (which I had added in order to evade the swear filter, but much to my surprise, the link still works). Maybe some kind of url pattern in the REST framework they are using, lol
2018-08-29, 8:50 PM #10897
Originally posted by Reid:
If I'm going to actually reply to that post, it's that 1. none of those arguments come even close to speaking against the claim, 2. apply skepticism so generally that they exclude basic scientific fact.

Come up with an argument that can't be filled in by flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and actually try to demonstrate the opposite conclusion. If you think a majority of scientific evidence supporting one conclusion can only mean there's collective intellectual dishonesty towards a specific conclusion, and not that it's just a true conclusion, then you just don't believe in science at all. Might as well not vaccinate your kids.


I don't want to speak for Obi, but I don't think it necessarily follows from what he's saying that "intellectual dishonesty" is the issue here. There was a good episode recently of Vox's The Weeds about how the incentives of science publishing elevates studies with certain conclusions over others, largely based on prejudices that exist within scientific disciplines. It's harder to publish papers with unpopular conclusions, and there isn't much incentive to do it. It's not really about "intellectual dishonesty". It's about doing what's necessary to have a career and survive as a scientist.
former entrepreneur
2018-08-29, 9:00 PM #10898
It's weak saddling someone with an hour worth of podcast to listen to, but...

https://art19.com/shows/the-weeds/episodes/19474240-83bd-4998-96e1-d20201eaede0
former entrepreneur
2018-08-29, 9:26 PM #10899
The existence of various issues in science doesn't give you blanket cause to dismiss any particular finding. If you believe there is no correlation, it's not enough to not like the studies which show a correlation, scientifically valid evidence must be presented which shows no correlation. These are different things, despite how the rhetoric can make you think they aren't.

Obi's arguments so far have been 1) reciting someone else's complaints about a study and 2) referring to real issues that exist in science, but doing so without any actual reason to believe that's occurring in this particular case. Neither of these support the conclusion that opioid prescription doesn't drive the increase in addiction.

You also misunderstand my point. Saying the people involved lack intellectual integrity is to say they would reject opposing evidence if it was scientifically solid, or that they're purposefully dishonest in their research methods, or that they falsify data. It's an accusation against the moral character of scientists generally.
2018-08-29, 9:36 PM #10900
Originally posted by Reid:
Saying the people involved lack intellectual integrity is to say they would reject opposing evidence if it was scientifically solid, or that they're purposefully dishonest in their research methods, or that they falsify data. It's an accusation against the moral character of scientists generally.


How can you reconcile your supposition that scientists have moral integrity with all the fraudulent climate science out there, which doesn't even run the study of Earth multiple times by replicating them on a second, independent planet Earth?
2018-08-29, 9:42 PM #10901
That said, you might be able to squeeze at least three extra experiments that are completely independent, all on the original planet Earth:

[http://timecube.2enp.com/timecubeflierimg.gif]
2018-08-29, 9:46 PM #10902
I hope you're joking?
2018-08-29, 9:52 PM #10903
That the Earth has 4 simultaneous days in 1 rotation?
2018-08-29, 9:52 PM #10904
Originally posted by Reid:
You also misunderstand my point. Saying the people involved lack intellectual integrity is to say they would reject opposing evidence if it was scientifically solid, or that they're purposefully dishonest in their research methods, or that they falsify data. It's an accusation against the moral character of scientists generally.


No, I know that's exactly what you're saying. It's similar to arguments that you've made about journalists in the past. I disagree that someone can be rightfully accused of a moral failing because they're unwilling to throw themselves on their sword and refuse to do the things a person has to do in order to sustain a career rather than play the game how its usually played.
former entrepreneur
2018-08-29, 9:52 PM #10905
Originally posted by Reid:
I hope you're joking?


The earth is flat. Deal with it.
former entrepreneur
2018-08-29, 9:53 PM #10906
Originally posted by Eversor:
It's weak saddling someone with an hour worth of podcast to listen to, but...

https://art19.com/shows/the-weeds/episodes/19474240-83bd-4998-96e1-d20201eaede0


This has been interesting enough to listen to the first 25 minutes of (so far), but I have to admit I was incredibly bored at the time I decided to press play. :D
2018-08-29, 10:03 PM #10907
I'm not sure why the "replication crisis" is a thing. We should expect many studis to be contradicted in replication. It's not a flaw in science that this happens, it's the very reason it works.

I mean, really, what would the alternative be? 100% of findings are always right? Do we really expect that? I doubt it.

The reason scientists publish information about their research methods is exactly so anyone can attempt the same experiment and verify the results.

This is often not done, granted. But why? It's because of how scientific funding works. Original studies get more funding than replications. So many poor studies stand for longer.

The problem is thus, in my view, more political than an issue with the academics themselves. I'm of the opinion that we should hang administrators and fund with far less proviso and politicking. Then I'd like to see far more replication studies so we can really cull the ****ing herd and rip out the bull****.

But hey, that involves taking out useless rent seekers having power over resources, so expect a massive fight.
2018-08-29, 10:08 PM #10908
so, tl;dr, scientists have no agency

Edit: In case it hasn't been obvious already, I've been putting very little effort into these posts... move along,
2018-08-30, 5:24 AM #10909
Originally posted by Reid:
I'm not sure why the "replication crisis" is a thing. We should expect many studis to be contradicted in replication. It's not a flaw in science that this happens, it's the very reason it works.

I mean, really, what would the alternative be? 100% of findings are always right? Do we really expect that? I doubt it.


That isn’t the replication crisis. The replication crisis is that very nearly 100% of findings in many fields are always wrong.

This is happening for a bunch of different reasons. Deliberate fraud, p-hacking, and accepting insufficiently strong p-values.

This also isn’t how science is supposed to work. Science existed before statistics. The replication crisis is a pure consequence of switching the mode of science to statistics, which allows you to claim bizarre things if used inexpertly.
2018-08-30, 8:02 AM #10910
Originally posted by Jon`C:
That isn’t the replication crisis. The replication crisis is that very nearly 100% of findings in many fields are always wrong.

This is happening for a bunch of different reasons. Deliberate fraud, p-hacking, and accepting insufficiently strong p-values.

This also isn’t how science is supposed to work. Science existed before statistics. The replication crisis is a pure consequence of switching the mode of science to statistics, which allows you to claim bizarre things if used inexpertly.


Where do you get that nearly 100% of results are wrong anywhere? I find that initially implausible.

I'm all for dropping the arbitrary and useless restrictions on p values. Anything which encourages conscious or subconscious manipulation has to be eradicated.
2018-08-30, 8:16 AM #10911
I'm not buying that nearly 100% of findings anywhere are wrong. I'm rereading the Wikipedia article on the crisis, and nothing there suggests the problem is that bad.

Quote:
An analysis of the publication history in the top 100 psychology journals between 1900 and 2012 indicated that approximately 1.6% of all psychology publications were replication attempts. Articles were considered a replication attempt if the term "replication" appeared in the text. A subset of those studies (500 studies) was randomly selected for further examination and yielded a lower replication rate of 1.07% (342 of the 500 studies [68.4%] were actually replications). In the subset of 500 studies, analysis indicated that 78.9% of published replication attempts were successful. The rate of successful replication was significantly higher when at least one author of the original study was part of the replication attempt (91.7% relative to 64.6%).


A 65% successful replication rate from a completely different research group is still maybe too low, but it's a far cry from nearly 100% failure rate.

I still see the primary issue being the lack of replication studies in general, not the rate at which replications succeed.
2018-08-30, 8:44 AM #10912
Originally posted by Reid:
Where do you get that nearly 100% of results are wrong anywhere? I find that initially implausible.


You could have listened to the first 3 minutes and 38 seconds of Eversor's Vox podcast, where you would have been informed of the 2005 paper of John Ioannidis, who the Weeds podcast neatly summarizes as the "rockstar" of replication, and goes on to explain how this 2005 paper has been the seminal paper in the ongoing "replication crisis".
2018-08-30, 8:53 AM #10913
Also, I think you have a very strange idea about what the "replication crisis" is:

Originally posted by Reid:
We should expect many studis to be contradicted in replication. It's not a flaw in science that this happens, it's the very reason it works.


The replication crisis is not so much about failure to replicate scientific findings being commonplace (Edit: well, the reasons for this being the case (see Jon`C's post) actually are the essential part of the replication crisis at a basic level, but what's much worse is that it means for science) as it is the realization that far too many widely cited, bedrock results of entire scientific fields of study are failing to be replicated, after they have been bandied about in the literature for years and years.

It wouldn't necessarily be a crisis if a large number of papers were failing to be replicated. What is a crisis is entire fields losing their credibility because the results they systematically rely on are probably not even true after all.
2018-08-30, 9:00 AM #10914
Also, the two problems are clearly related. The more bold claim (explained by Jon`C and which is the topic of Ioannidis' seminal 2005 paper) that most published scientific research findings are false certainly provides an explanation for the failure of cornerstone findings in psychology (such as the marshmallow test or ego depletion, mentioned in the Weeds podcast), and, frankly, seems to be troublesome in and of itself (particularly in the "softer" sciences like psychology and economics).
2018-08-30, 9:21 AM #10915
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
You could have listened to the first 3 minutes and 38 seconds of Eversor's Vox podcast, where you would have been informed of the 2005 paper of John Ioannidis, who the Weeds podcast neatly summarizes as the "rockstar" of replication, and goes on to explain how this 2005 paper has been the seminal paper in the ongoing "replication crisis".


The primary argument he seems to have here is to factor in the pre-study probability of a claim when determining the likelihood that a study's results are true. That seems entirely reasonable. You'll also notice, if you read the abstract, that he mentions:

Quote:
Second, most research questions are addressed by many teams, and it is misleading to emphasize the statistically significant findings of any single team. What matters is the totality of the evidence. Diminishing bias through enhanced research standards and curtailing of prejudices may also help. However, this may require a change in scientific mentality that might be difficult to achieve.


What matters is the totality of the evidence, indeed. Which means, ideally, we would have more independent research regarding each claim. This is well-described here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

This just screams that the issue is a lack of replications. The more people who replicate a finding, the stronger the claim that this finding is true.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Also, I think you have a very strange idea about what the "replication crisis" is:

The replication crisis is not so much about failure to replicate scientific findings being commonplace (Edit: well, the reasons for this being the case (see Jon`C's post) actually are the essential part of the replication crisis at a basic level, but what's much worse is that it means for science) as it is the realization that far too many widely cited, bedrock results of entire scientific fields of study are failing to be replicated, after they have been bandied about in the literature for years and years.

It wouldn't necessarily be a crisis if a large number of papers were failing to be replicated. What is a crisis is entire fields losing their credibility because the results they systematically rely on are probably not even true after all.


These studies make it so long because nobody tries to independently replicate them.

What we ought to do is simply make sure more research funding exists for replication-only research groups. I fail to see how any of the aforementioned issues would not be solved by this alone. More replications means better evidence of the truth and falsity of any given claim. It means bad studies will be detected more quickly. It also means researchers will be more strongly incentivized to publish honestly, knowing their claims are more likely to come under scrutiny.

It's just not sexy, so the people who are in control of funding are unlikely to do it. More equitable funding, and funding which encourages replication, are the solutions, and I don't think they'd be in principle hard to implement.
2018-08-30, 9:25 AM #10916
Originally posted by Reid:
If you want someone to take you seriously, it's best to leave comments like this off the table.


I was referring to the state of the question in academia and in the media, not this discussion in particular.
2018-08-30, 9:26 AM #10917
Reid: so, in summary, we shouldn't reprimand scientists for abusing statistics in the first place as much as we ought to fund the verification or rejection of potentially shoddy work through more replication studies (rather than allocating the grant money toward entirely new research)?
2018-08-30, 9:29 AM #10918
Conversely, what many people seem to imply is that there's an issue with original research, that initial research is being done incorrectly because it's often false. People seem to believe there is an increasing amount of academic dishonesty that causes this. That may or may not be true, and dishonesty is a factor in the amount of false claims, but I'd argue that the most substantial reason original research is often false is precisely because it is original research. It's new ground! Of course it's going to be wrong much of the time. It's not proving much to say people's initial attempts are often failures or mistaken.

What's lacking though is the apparatus of other people who should be there to verify original research. Peer review is not enough. So this simply should be funded more directly. Problem solved.
2018-08-30, 9:30 AM #10919
Using alpha=0.05 means 1 in 20 of all correctly executed false studies are guaranteed to get published, dudeskies. I don’t care how you realign the academic incentives behind shooting down the bull****. The replication crisis is because people are badly abusing tools they don’t understand and science is broken until they do.
2018-08-30, 9:31 AM #10920
ITT: we argue whether or not scientific studies should fund r or K -selected strategies to scientific accuracy.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!