|
Bias
Sept 30, 2015 20:08:59 GMT
Yuki likes this
Post by whollygoats on Sept 30, 2015 20:08:59 GMT
This topic arose in a separate thread, but I thought it interesting enough to continue with a new thread. Here's the exchange:
Now, at the moment, I am in the midst of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (Fourth Estate, London, 2009) and just finished his included chapter on bias. It's called "Why Clever People Believe Stupid Things" and includes ramblings on randomness, regression to the mean, bias toward positive evidence, bias by our prior belief, availability, and social influence. In that process he highlights the following;
1. We see patterns where there is only random noise. 2. We see causal relationships where there are none. 3. We overvalue confirmatory evidence for any given hypothesis. 4. We seek out confirmatory evidence for any given hypothesis. 5. Our assessment of the quality of new evidence is biased by our prior belief.
Moreover, Goldacre asserts that we are ALL subject to these biases. According to his assessment, it is important to know that, "it's not safe to let our intuitions and prejudices run unchecked and unexamined: it's in our interest to challenge these flaws in intuitive reasoning wherever we can, and the methods of science and statistics grew up specifically in opposition to these flaws. Their thoughtful application is our best weapons against these pitfalls, and the challenge, perhaps, is to work out which tools to use where. Because to be 'scientific' about your relationship with your partner is as stupid as following your intuitions about causality."
To a certain extent, I agree. However, I would posit that even 'science' can be sullied by bias; usually at the behest of some nefarious vested pecuniary interest. I've seen it, and Goldacre alludes to it in his overview of the international pharmaceutical industry.
It also seems to me that when the issue under consideration is freighted with political or religious meaning, these biases seem to become even more entrenched and resistant to change, even in the face of what I would consider to be overwhelming evidence against them; social influence to conform is quite strong.
|
|
|
Bias
Sept 30, 2015 23:59:57 GMT
Post by tangent on Sept 30, 2015 23:59:57 GMT
Whilst you use offensive language to ridicule my beliefs and throw in assertions about what I am saying that are incorrect, I feel not the slightest intention of engaging in conversation with you. If you want a discussion then it has to be a darn sight more civil than the above.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 0:24:57 GMT
Post by Moose on Oct 1, 2015 0:24:57 GMT
I don't think that WG was trying to be offensive or use offensive language - any more than I used myself, anyway. But you made a claim which, to me, is impossible. I don't know if Christianity is real or true. I do know that empirically, it would not stand up in court. I don't consider that to be an opinion .. I consider it to be fact. Wouldn't you feel a bit miffed if someone asserted that they were absolutely sure that atheism would be 'proven' to be correct in a court of law?
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 0:35:46 GMT
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2015 0:35:46 GMT
Whilst you use offensive language to ridicule my beliefs and throw in assertions about what I am saying that are incorrect, I feel not the slightest intention of engaging in conversation with you. If you want a discussion then it has to be a darn sight more civil than the above. Well...I use 'offensive' language, all right. It's call 'emphatic' language. It has a decent purpose. And, I note that the snippet you posted isn't even particularly 'offensive' with it's language, just with its intimations about your faith. I refuse to submit to your false 'civility' just to read you babble on about your propaganda about impossible events.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 16:41:50 GMT
Post by tangent on Oct 1, 2015 16:41:50 GMT
WG, you are a bully and I'm calling you out. I was bullied at school by name calling, ridicule and snide remarks. I did not know how to deal with it at the time. As an adult, I do. You call out the bully and walk away. And that's what I'm doing.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 16:47:00 GMT
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2015 16:47:00 GMT
I'm a bully because I stand up for my position? Instead of running away when I cannot justify my position, like you do?
That's handy...it's called 'demonization' of one's opponent and is pretty craven.
If you cannot justify nor support your position, just say so. You don't seem to be able to grasp that, so you demonize those who disagree.
So...Piss off.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:00:04 GMT
Post by Moose on Oct 1, 2015 17:00:04 GMT
Okay can we simmer down? I don't want to be seen to be taking sides but I don't think that WG was bullying you (do you think that *I* was bullying you?) .. just feeling a little exasperated that you'd make an outrageous claim and then fail to justify it. That said, there's no need for the piss off either I think. But it IS difficult to deal with if someone makes an outlandish claim and then, if asked, refuses to justify why they said it. Saying 'I believe in JEsus' is one thing. Stating more than once 'the resurrection story would stand up in court' but then not saying why is another.
I am not tying to bully you either Steve .. really I am not. I don't like bullying. But I don't think that WG is bullying you. I think you're reacting badly because of past experiences.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:03:22 GMT
Post by Miisa on Oct 1, 2015 17:03:22 GMT
I think the words and phrasing WG uses prevents people from seeing the possible argument underneath the venom and unnecessarily abrasive ridicule.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:10:39 GMT
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2015 17:10:39 GMT
Bah...This is just more of the preposterous Christian wallowing in self-pity and undeserved self-righteousness. A board authority in a position of cultural dominance makes absurd claims in the process of advancing his religious beliefs on the board where he is an administrator, then refuses to back up those claims when challenged by a cultural minority, is called out on it, and then, when he makes a piss-poor showing in response, attempts to censor the entire discussion. When the challenger refuses to be censored, the administrator resorts to demonizing the challenger.
Now he has the temerity to accuse his challenger of reprehensible behavior.
Who is really the 'bully'?
All that is missing is the whinging from tangent about how he is being 'persecuted'. *rolls eyes*
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:17:11 GMT
Post by Miisa on Oct 1, 2015 17:17:11 GMT
When has he pulled out the admin card in this? Has Moose? Or did I? We are also members, and allowed to respond as members.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:21:19 GMT
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2015 17:21:19 GMT
I think the words and phrasing WG uses prevents people from seeing the possible argument underneath the venom and unnecessarily abrasive ridicule. Well...You know, there is a avenue to continue to allow tangent to proselytize his Christian beliefs here at EF. Ban me. Then everybody can have the joy of hearing about all the shitty crank apologists masquerading as 'Christian scholars' that tangent has been reading and never even have to worry their tiny little intellects with thinking beyond their comfortable little dogmas.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:22:58 GMT
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2015 17:22:58 GMT
When has he pulled out the admin card in this? Has Moose? Or did I? We are also members, and allowed to respond as members. He hasn't. He's merely posturing at this point. My experience with bullies is that they operate from a position of power. I have no power here, tangent does. You have every right to speak your mind. It's what I'd prefer tangent do, rather than engage in this whinging. What I object to is tangent stepping on my ability to respond because he doesn't happen to like what I have to say.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:24:08 GMT
Post by Miisa on Oct 1, 2015 17:24:08 GMT
I have no intention of banning you, nor has anyone else expressed that view. Only that the clouds of spite hovering around means people cannot have a civil conversation with you, seemingly about anything.
Instead I am going back to business as usual, i.e. ignoring you.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:51:50 GMT
Post by moose guest on Oct 1, 2015 17:51:50 GMT
sorry for lack of response was traveling to my mum's. I don't actually think that WG was being uncivil at first. Nonetheless I agree with Miisa that no-one has pulled the admin card and nor will they (I know that Steve def would not and neither Miisa nor I would). I suppose that waving my arms around and saying 'people can we please get along' isn't going to get me very far?
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:52:41 GMT
Post by Moose guest on Oct 1, 2015 17:52:41 GMT
Also in the UK at least Christians are def in a minority
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:54:01 GMT
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2015 17:54:01 GMT
I have no intention of banning you, nor has anyone else expressed that view. Only that the clouds of spite hovering around means people cannot have a civil conversation with you, seemingly about anything. Instead I am going back to business as usual, i.e. ignoring you. Great. That's probably for the best. You can go back to designing how EF is going to install 'trigger warnings' for their overly sensitive posters. 'Civil conversations' are vastly overrated. My experience with that term is that it usually means "don't say or write anything I don't happen to agree with" or "you have to express yourself only in ways of which I approve." In short, censorious. Aside from that, I have civil conversations here, and other locales, all the time. Just because you (and tangent) are incapable does not mean that others are incapable, or that I am.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 17:56:53 GMT
Post by whollygoats on Oct 1, 2015 17:56:53 GMT
Also in the UK at least Christians are def in a minority On EF, in the board culture, atheists are a distinct minority. Mythicists even more so.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 20:59:40 GMT
Post by Moose on Oct 1, 2015 20:59:40 GMT
I don't think that there are .. there are a lot of atheists here. The thing that is bugging me is that both you and Steve are decent people whom I like very much and I don't like to see you not getting along.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 21:47:33 GMT
Post by JoeP on Oct 1, 2015 21:47:33 GMT
Whilst you use offensive language to ridicule my beliefs and throw in assertions about what I am saying that are incorrect, I feel not the slightest intention of engaging in conversation with you. If you want a discussion then it has to be a darn sight more civil than the above. Well...I use 'offensive' language, all right. It's call 'emphatic' language. It has a decent purpose. And, I note that the snippet you posted isn't even particularly 'offensive' with it's language, just with its intimations about your faith. I refuse to submit to your false 'civility' just to read you babble on about your propaganda about impossible events. Kelly, you are offensive and a bully, and you're a fucking hypocrite to challenge it and stand behind your position of being right and to claim you hold the high ground in civility. Jo, I wouldn't believe you could defend him over this except you keep doing it - as with Allan and others. I happen to think Steve is wrong over this question of there being objective evidence for the resurrection of the biblical Jesus. But being 'emphatic' about it is poisonous and ugly. I'm going to take some time away from EF.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 1, 2015 23:09:17 GMT
Post by Moose on Oct 1, 2015 23:09:17 GMT
I am such fucking coward, am I not? I need to get really drunk to say what I actually think and even then I am afraid to say it. And yeah, before anyone says it, I am a drunk anyway Okay, I think, Kelly, that what you said to Steve was really rude and I wish you'd apologise. I know you won't. But Steve was NOT trying to use any sort of admin power against you. He would not and neither would I nor Miisa. It took me a bugger of a lot to be able to say that (yeah it's all me me me eh?). But that is what I think and I should have had the bollocks to say it without putting down most of a bottle of vodka before I dared. Have away.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 8, 2015 10:13:52 GMT
Post by raspberrybullets on Oct 8, 2015 10:13:52 GMT
Haven't read the other thread so I'm not sure if you guys are talking about bullying language there or here...because what I see here is perhaps a bit loaded but I agree with WG. And what he says here: "What I object to is tangent stepping on my ability to respond because he doesn't happen to like what I have to say." is amongst the reasons DG left this forum. He just doesn't trust Steve not to interfere and alter what he writes. I left a forum before for the same reason - because the admin could not understand that censoring (and particuarly, not indicating clearly that a post breached rules and was censored so everybody could see it) was completely wrong. It is passive agressive and therefore goes more unoticed while WG is pointed at as the bully. But the person censoring is the one with the power.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 8, 2015 11:19:07 GMT
Post by tangent on Oct 8, 2015 11:19:07 GMT
Thank you for your comments. I understand you are angry but I would rather not respond to your comments at this point in time in case it develops into yet another shouting match. Haven't read the other thread... You might like to read the other thread from the middle of page 3 onwards to understand this issue. This thread is more or less a continuation of that thread. I will, however, say that Miisa and Jo are quite right in saying I was not pulling the admin card. It never occurred to me that my comments might be construed in that way.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 8, 2015 11:33:44 GMT
Post by raspberrybullets on Oct 8, 2015 11:33:44 GMT
I'm not angry at all, just coming in with my observations based on what I've seen on this thread. I will take a look at the other thread (thanks for posting a link because I had no idea where that might be) but it will need to be later as I've got to get to bed and have a long day tomorrow.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 8, 2015 11:39:07 GMT
Post by Miisa on Oct 8, 2015 11:39:07 GMT
It's not the arguments made, it's the choices of words used to try to convey and emphasise the arguments that caused most of us to get riled up, as well as the rude personal comments. Those things are the norm in an anonymous forum, but we consider ourselves more family than random strangers here, and feel it communally as soon as people use language and forms of speech we would be uncomfortable with if we were all in a room. I think WG crossed that line, and said as much (here). As a poster, never as an admin, that side of my account is completely incidental and only really used these days to get rid of spam.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 8, 2015 14:08:32 GMT
Post by Moose on Oct 8, 2015 14:08:32 GMT
Yeah it did occur to me that one problem we might be having is that people think that we - Miisa, Steve, Col and I - are talking as admins when we're really not. The only thing the admin forum really gets used for these days is as a sort of personal notepad .. I post drafts of stories and things there but we virtually never talk about anything adminny and on the rare occasions that we do it's technical stuff not personal.
I genuinely don't think - at least I hope - that Steve would ever alter anyone's posts. I'd be quite annoyed if he did because I don't want to censor people in that way. I honestly don't think he would though..
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 9, 2015 8:29:46 GMT
Post by Alvamiga on Oct 9, 2015 8:29:46 GMT
I just edited the post above and it shows it has been modified, so the posts can't have been changed without showing. Personally, I don't think I've used my admin privileges on more than a couple of occasions for minor issues anyway. I had even forgotten there even was an admin discussion place, it's used so little!
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 9, 2015 17:35:04 GMT
Post by Moose on Oct 9, 2015 17:35:04 GMT
YOU ADDED A FULL STOP?!?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bias
Oct 9, 2015 19:14:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 19:14:54 GMT
I have been trying to find out what Steve did wrong, but haven't found anything. I don't think any of the admins here uses their power as an admin and Steve's posts have never seemed offending to me.
From other forums I know that how something is said is very important. I'm absolutely fine with people not agreeing with me or claiming what I say is wrong or doesn't me sense if they use civil language and don't attack me as a person. It is important and does not mean you aren't allowed to voice you opinion, you should just try to do that without attacking or offending the person. Generally speakig. And I have been on (and left) a Germany forum where the majority of people were fundamentalist Christians and had the right to be offensive and to attack people because the moderators and admins agreed with them. What has been going on here didn't even come close to what happened there and to what some extreme Christians there said to those who did not believe or who weren't fundamentalist enough as Christians.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 14, 2015 10:31:38 GMT
Post by raspberrybullets on Oct 14, 2015 10:31:38 GMT
Yeah it did occur to me that one problem we might be having is that people think that we - Miisa, Steve, Col and I - are talking as admins when we're really not. The only thing the admin forum really gets used for these days is as a sort of personal notepad .. I post drafts of stories and things there but we virtually never talk about anything adminny and on the rare occasions that we do it's technical stuff not personal. I genuinely don't think - at least I hope - that Steve would ever alter anyone's posts. I'd be quite annoyed if he did because I don't want to censor people in that way. I honestly don't think he would though.. Didn't Bryant leave because Steve deleted his post? Something like that if I recal. Hopefully it's not something he would do any more.
|
|
|
Bias
Oct 14, 2015 10:32:56 GMT
Post by raspberrybullets on Oct 14, 2015 10:32:56 GMT
I just edited the post above and it shows it has been modified, so the posts can't have been changed without showing. Personally, I don't think I've used my admin privileges on more than a couple of occasions for minor issues anyway. I had even forgotten there even was an admin discussion place, it's used so little! I'm not sure if this is in response to my post? But if so, I was referring to another forum where they did that to my post.
|
|