Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

Post by idiot_stick » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 10:34 AM UTC

coding123 wrote: post #63

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off…

Post by Panoramix » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 12:05 PM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #66

coding123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off…

Isn't this more a distinction between science and science reporting. Coffee is complex and interacts in ways that can be described as good and bad. The press reporting blows by the wind of the press release that day. Hence the Daily Mail and others reporting lots of common things both causing and protecting us against cancer.

Post by erelde » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 12:57 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #304

sinxoveretothex wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the problem: we can't even say that. The paper you cite says that most published research is false. You infer from this that published research is no better than no source. But this is wrong! If published research is true 30% of the time, but people's intuitions (on questions research is published on) are so only say 10% of the time, then going with published papers is a better choice. I'd like to know if pe…

> But this is wrong! If published research is true 30% of the time, but people's intuitions (on questions research is published on) are so only say 10% of the time, then going with published papers is a better choice. Only if "people's intuitions" are true on a less than a "published research" percentage.

Post by TuringTest » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 1:11 PM UTC

galdosdi wrote: post #172

conistonwater wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, you'd be surprised how often the fact (pun intended) that it's "impossible to know anything for certain" is lost on people. I think David Hume was quite good on this subject. If chance of being right is all there is to knowledge, then maximizing your chance of being right is what knowledge is. So all the peer review, the numbers and statistics, for example, contribute to knowledge even if it might be wro…

Maybe, but consider adding another constraint to the game of maximizing your chance to being right -- you have a finite amount of resources (eg, time) to spend on examining evidence, so you need to strategize even what evidence is worth considering and to what extent -- looking more carefully at one thing means you now have less time to look carefully at something else, nothing is free Of course, in real life, we do…

Post by marknutter » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 1:16 PM UTC

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #252

coldtea wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain. Yeah, in the sense that all you are saying is its possible to have degrees of trust on difference sources of "facts". That said, you'd be surprised how often the fact (pun intended) that it's "impossible to know anything for certain" is lost on people. > Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer rev…

The article you linked doesn't actually address either of the points you claim it negates. It doesn't look at peer-reviewed status or citation quality (or quantity) as variables. It claims that most published research findings are false, but you're making a misleading interpretation of its findings. > That said, you'd be surprised how often the fact (pun intended) that it's "impossible to know anything for certain" i…