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!
2018-08-30, 9:31 AM #10921
Statistics is better than nothing but at least before statistics your pseudoscience was laid bare on the page.

Now it’s p<0.05, brain off, cite cite cite
2018-08-30, 9:33 AM #10922
(good luck fending off that zergling rush, Reid)
2018-08-30, 9:33 AM #10923
Left handed people prefer Chicago style deep dish to New York thin crust! n=12 white middle class undergraduates, p<0.05. Change your marketing plans NOW.
2018-08-30, 9:33 AM #10924
p-ling rush
2018-08-30, 9:34 AM #10925
rushing pee pee <-- most scientific studies
2018-08-30, 9:38 AM #10926
Originally posted by Reid:
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.


I'd say most scientific research is wrong for the same reason that most politicians lie about what they can accomplish: so long as they can ram their suppositions through their respective black box (be it statistical hackery or the voting booth), you're going to see heavy bias toward promising the impossible, simply because there are so many impossible things for which it would be oh-so-convenient for them to be in fact true.

(That is what one might reasonably cite as a lack of integrity.)
2018-08-30, 10:07 AM #10927
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
(good luck fending off that zergling rush, Reid)


Lol we should 'craft sometime
former entrepreneur
2018-08-30, 10:53 AM #10928
Originally posted by Jon`C:
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.


You think science is broken because p-values exist?
2018-08-30, 10:58 AM #10929
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.


I would say that, and the insane "publish or perish" grind in academia is also a major problem, even when there isn't ideological bias involved. My brother is at NASA and just finished his PHD in icing. He was extremely frustrated by the state of literature in his field, because their conclusions were not reproducible. It turns out that they were ignoring some fairly basic issues with stress concentration, which made him pretty angry. When he actually got around to meeting some of the authors, it turned out that they weren't bad people, they just had no real time to properly scrutinize their own work. They spent all their time trying to shove out paper and get grants, that their graduate students were doing all the work. Researchers who don't have time to review their own work certainly don't have time to do proper peer review, which makes it very easy for dishonest actors to sneak falsified results past peer review, and that unfortunately happens as well.

Scientists aren't special. They aren't an elite class of ubermensch. They are just normal people who have a lot of expertise in one very specific area. It doesn't make any sense to talk about "scientists" as a homogeneous group. Some have have ideological axes to grind, others don't care. Some are dishonest, some are honest. Some fields or subjects inherently attract people with an axe to grind, others don't. It can be difficult for an outside to tell when that happens, but it's a lot easier for that to happen in some fields that it is in others.

Originally posted by Reid:
You think science is broken because p-values exist?


A lot of problems are the result of people getting excited about finding a good p-value, but not having enough background in statistics to understand what a p-value actually means. Or maybe not caring, depending on the circumstance.
2018-08-30, 11:05 AM #10930
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
A lot of problems are the result of people getting excited about finding a good p-value, but not having enough background in statistics to understand what a p-value actually means. Or maybe not caring, depending on the circumstance.


The incentives to get a good p-value are not what he was referring to, though. He was referring to correctly executed studies.
2018-08-30, 11:17 AM #10931
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Left handed people prefer Chicago style deep dish to New York thin crust! n=12 white middle class undergraduates, p<0.05. Change your marketing plans NOW.


If someone read that study and derived that conclusion, seems to me more that it's their own ignorance than the fault of the scientist's.

Do you think something should only be published if it's a very thorough study, with good sampling and a massive sample size?
2018-08-30, 11:59 AM #10932
For starters, it'd be nice if people only published studies with samples which are distributed vaguely similarly to the way the study assumes they are distributed.
2018-08-30, 1:03 PM #10933
Originally posted by Reid:
You think science is broken because p-values exist?
No. For one, it’s broken because the socially acceptable alpha is too low given the volume of studies. More importantly,...

Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
For starters, it'd be nice if people only published studies with samples which are distributed vaguely similarly to the way the study assumes they are distributed.


It would also be nice if people started with a plausible hypothesis and used statistical analysis in order to test that hypothesis, instead of testing random **** for correlations. Or even worse, hoovering up a pile of data and hunting for correlations in it.

You know, the way statistics actually works, and the way science is supposed to.
2018-08-30, 1:12 PM #10934
scientists can never be wrong, because the language in which they write their papers is sufficiently lofty so as to induct them into the philosophical elite of infallible navel gazing academics
2018-08-30, 8:05 PM #10935
Originally posted by Jon`C:
It would also be nice if people started with a plausible hypothesis and used statistical analysis in order to test that hypothesis, instead of testing random **** for correlations. Or even worse, hoovering up a pile of data and hunting for correlations in it.

You know, the way statistics actually works, and the way science is supposed to.


That sounds suspiciously like actual work. And then, you have no idea what the actual result will be, so what if you go to all that extra effort just to find you wasted your time with results that don't support your position?
2018-08-30, 8:24 PM #10936
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
That sounds suspiciously like actual work. And then, you have no idea what the actual result will be, so what if you go to all that extra effort just to find you wasted your time with results that don't support your position?


The gateway lie: using a one tailed test even though you have no a priori reason to believe one value is higher than the other.
2018-08-31, 2:34 PM #10937
I don't mean to set Jon`C off in an epic rant about trade negotiations, but man this guy is such an embarrassment

[quote=The Toronto Star]
WASHINGTON—High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning by inflammatory secret remarks from President Donald Trump, after the remarks were obtained by the Toronto Star.

In remarks Trump wanted to be “off the record,” Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday, according to a source, that he is not making any compromises at all in the talks with Canada — but that he cannot say this publicly because “it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”

“Here’s the problem. If I say no — the answer’s no. If I say no, then you’re going to put that, and it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal ... I can’t kill these people,” he said of the Canadian government.

In another remark he did not want published, Trump said, according to the source, that the possible deal with Canada would be “totally on our terms.” He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs.

“Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to the source. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario.

Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with Bloomberg. He deemed them off the record, and Bloomberg accepted his request not to reveal them.

But the Star is not bound by any promises Bloomberg made to Trump. And the remarks immediately became a factor in the negotiations: Trudeau’s officials, who saw them as evidence for their previous suspicions that Trump’s team had not been bargaining in good faith, raised them at the beginning of a meeting with their U.S. counterparts on Friday morning, a U.S. source confirmed.

The Star was not able to independently confirm the remarks with 100 per cent certainty, but the Canadian government is confident they are accurate.

Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait, who was one of the journalists in the room, did not dispute their authenticity. Nor did the White House.

“If this was said, it was said in an off the record capacity. I understand you guys have obtained it; I’m not sure where you’ve obtained it from,” said White House deputy press secretary Lindsay Walters.

Walters later provided a more formal comment to the Star and U.S. outlets.

“The Canadian and American negotiators continue to work on reaching a win-win deal that benefits both countries,” she said.

The unusual series of events began on Friday morning, when the Star asked Trudeau’s team, which was heading into a critical top-level 9 a.m. meeting with Trump’s team, for comment on the remarks.

Trudeau’s team believed the remarks to be accurate, and it saw them as confirmation of its suspicions that Trump’s team has not been truly planning to compromise. Earlier on Friday morning, before becoming aware of the remarks, a Canadian official told the Star the U.S. side was not offering “any movement” on the issues most important to Canada.

So at the outset of the Friday meeting — which was expected to involve Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and senior Trudeau adviser Gerald Butts among others on the Canadian side and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and senior Trump aide Jared Kushner among others on the U.S. side — Trudeau’s officials unveiled the quotes to their U.S. counterparts.

The Canadian government declined to comment on what transpired in the meeting. The two countries plan to meet at some point later in the day.

"We're looking for a good deal, not just any deal. And we will only agree to a deal that is a good deal for Canada. We're not there yet,” Freeland said.

Trudeau, who happened to be in Oshawa as the drama unfolded, said: “We will only sign a deal if it is a good deal for Canada.”

“Again, no deal is better than a bad deal for Canada and for Canadians, and that’s exactly what we are remaining firm on. However, we know that it is possible to get a deal that works in everyone’s interests,” he said.

“Over the past year and a half, there’s a lot of things that have been said from time to time. I think people have noticed that our government’s appproach is always to stay constructive, positive, to engage on the substance of issues, and to demonstrate that we understand that the path forward is one of making sure that there’s a win-win-win on all sides.:

On the record, Trump told Bloomberg that a deal was “close,” that it could happen by Friday but might take longer, and that Canada ultimately has “no choice” but to make a deal. Bloomberg quoted these remarks.

But then he said, “Off the record: totally on our terms. Totally.”

“Again off the record, they came knocking on our doors last night. ‘Let’s make a deal. Please,’” he said.

Bloomberg’s Micklethwait declined to comment.

“‘Off the record’ means ‘off the record’ — and we should respect that,” Micklethwait said in an email.

Trump’s remarks came at a particularly delicate time in the negotiations. Negotiators have been trying for three days to meet a Trump-imposed Friday deadline for making a deal.

The deadline is not firm. Even if the U.S. formally notifies Congress on Friday that it has made a preliminary deal with Mexico alone, as Trump officials have threatened to do, Canada can almost certainly be added to the arrangement at any time in the next month.

Trump, of course, is known for both dishonesty and for bragging about his own greatness, and he regularly makes dubious claims about how he is supposedly dominating the begging people on the other side of the bargaining table from him. When he claimed to have made no compromises, it is distinctly possible he was making a false claim to impress the Bloomberg journalists.

Regardless of their truthfulness, the president’s comments are significant for more than one reason.

As Trump said, his claim that he has not compromised at all could make it harder for Trudeau to sell the deal to Canadians as a win for both countries. But the disclosure of the claim could also make it harder for Trump to convince Americans that Canada is at fault for any impasse.

It is noteworthy that Trump, who has claimed to be indifferent about whether Canada signs a deal, is interested enough in securing Canada’s participation that he went off the record to avoid an optics problem for Trudeau.

And the comments are a rare example of Trump self-censoring his public remarks out of concern for diplomatic sensitivities. The president is proud of his fondness for insults — Trudeau has been one of his favourite recent foreign targets — and of his disregard for conventions of politeness.

The public will not know precisely what concessions were made by each side until experts are able to read a text of the deal. Any agreement would cover hundreds of products and numerous complicated subject areas.

Trump’s team, meanwhile, publicly blamed Canada for the deadlock on Friday morning.

“There have been no concessions by Canada on agriculture,” a spokesperson for the Lighthizer told the Washington Post.

There is a precedent for Trump’s off the record remarks to one media outlet being revealed to another. In 2017, after the Wall Street Journal declined to release a full transcript of its own interview with Trump, Politico published the full text.
[/quote]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html
2018-08-31, 3:54 PM #10938
It’s nice this President is so respectful and forthright about the way the US has always treated Canada.
2018-08-31, 8:21 PM #10939
Not that I understand why any president would give off the record remarks to any news agency but clearly somebody in the room didn't honor that idea. I wonder what their agenda was.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2018-08-31, 8:28 PM #10940
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Not that I understand why any president would give off the record remarks to any news agency but clearly somebody in the room didn't honor that idea. I wonder what their agenda was.


Putin wants to drive a wedge between the US and Canada so he can claim the Canadian Arctic and Finlandize us. Who in that room would be doing Putin’s bidding? Who???
2018-08-31, 9:35 PM #10941
Well, I don't know who all was in the room but I'm sure Trump will get to the bottom of it.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2018-08-31, 9:40 PM #10942
he's the god emperor
2018-08-31, 10:38 PM #10943
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Well, I don't know who all was in the room but I'm sure Trump will get to the bottom of it.


I find it odd that you care about this
2018-09-01, 12:35 AM #10944
I find it odd that you seem to think I care about this too.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2018-09-01, 7:20 AM #10945
My favourite thing is deranged Democrats reading “I can’t kill these people” =~ “I want to polonium them but LAWS”. Is this business slang that most Americans actually don’t know, or something? I’ve used it repeatedly in this thread, even about US Canada trade.
2018-09-01, 9:40 AM #10946
it's probably trade federation slang for dioxis gas
2018-09-01, 11:58 AM #10947
Americans who claim to not care about Canada being in NAFTA would be wise to educate themselves about the energy proportionality clause.
2018-09-02, 12:16 PM #10948
>Using racial epithets is a kind of violence

Right wingers: wow, how about you stop using violence in such a loose and useless way? Violence only refers to the physical act of harming someone.

>We should tax billionaires more

Right wingers: you're literally advocating for violence right now
2018-09-02, 12:34 PM #10949
Originally posted by Reid:
>We should tax billionaires more

Right wingers: you're literally advocating for violence right now


Uh... has anyone ever said this?
former entrepreneur
2018-09-02, 12:39 PM #10950
Originally posted by Eversor:
Uh... has anyone ever said this?


yes
2018-09-02, 12:41 PM #10951
Originally posted by Reid:
yes


who?
former entrepreneur
2018-09-02, 12:45 PM #10952
Originally posted by Eversor:
who?


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Taxation+violence
2018-09-02, 1:03 PM #10953
Originally posted by Reid:


**** you for making me click this
2018-09-02, 1:05 PM #10954
Originally posted by Eversor:
who?


Originally posted by Reid:


So, to sum up, your answer to my question is... Quora users.
former entrepreneur
2018-09-02, 1:07 PM #10955
Well, to be more precise, a Quora user asked "is taxation violence?" and then a bunch of people said, "no, no it's not".
former entrepreneur
2018-09-02, 1:27 PM #10956
quora is complete and utter trash
2018-09-02, 2:38 PM #10957
It's a good for anxiety reading if you ever have to worry about admissions or switching careers
former entrepreneur
2018-09-02, 2:45 PM #10958
For those of us who are less lazy than obnoxiously telling others to go find a citation themselves, one can check the wikis maintained by the usual ideological suspects for citations.

Citation for "taxation is theft" according to the loony left (the URL literally has the words SJW in it, lmao): http://www.sjwiki.org/wiki/Libertarianism#cite_ref-5

Citation for "taxation is theft" according to the reactionary right (slightly less fascist than metapedia): https://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Survivalism#Tax_is_theft
2018-09-02, 2:47 PM #10959
Amusingly, though RationalWiki mentions the libertarian view that taxation is theft on its page about libertarianism, it actually doesn't provide a citation for this. "Rational" indeed.
2018-09-02, 2:54 PM #10960


FTFY
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!