From a previous discussion it seems to be that the only relevant evidence has to be a scientific study (peer reviewed?) (that study doesn't even need to be replicated or involve many participants — Andrew4Handel

Not sure what this means. For a study to be scientific, it would need to follow accepted scientific methodology which would include peer review and duplication. To the extent it didn't follow established methodology, it would be less reliable.

Anecdotes are not generalisable but can be qualitatively powerful. Trends on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc are a source of data most people can access. — Andrew4Handel

Isolated anecdotes are distinguished from trends in that the latter are associated with higher frequency of occurrence and predictability. . A study of trends is scientific if it follows established statistical methodology.

Quantative research can be of value, but unless you quantify the responses by categorization, it's going to be impossible to statistically present your findings in a meaningfully scientific way.

. For a study to be scientific, it would need to follow accepted scientific methodology which would include peer review and duplication — Hanover

The study cited in the aforementioned thread had not been replicated but was published academically . I also mentioned the replication crisis in science in that thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Isolated anecdotes are distinguished from trends in that the latter are associated with higher frequency of occurrence and predictability. . A study of trends is scientific if it follows established statistical methodology. — Hanover

I am not claiming that either anecdotes or data on Reddit are scientific but that they are valid and in some cases dispute the science or present valid untapped data sources.

I am just attacking the notion that only science is a reliable source of evidence or that evidence has to be couched in scientific jargon citing p-values etc.

The value of personal accounts sometimes deemed anecdotes and their use in qualitative studies is that they go into more depth and context than stats. None of this is infallible however.

The study cited in the aforementioned thread had not been replicated but was published academically . I also mentioned the replication crisis in science in that thread. — Andrew4Handel

I did qualify my comment by saying that studies that don't strictly follow accepted methodology are less reliable, but I wouldn't say worthless. For that reason the replication crisis is significant because ideally there would be duplication of results, but realistically that can't be done given the resources, so we go with what we have.

am just attacking the notion that only science is a reliable source of evidence or that evidence has to be couched in scientific jargon citing p-values etc. — Andrew4Handel

I take as "evidence" anything tending to prove something occurred, not just the broad based claims of science. The generalizations we draw from repeated observations are not scientific until validated, but I agree we live our lives making best guesses and responding through trial and error.

I am just attacking the notion that only science is a reliable source of evidence or that evidence has to be couched in scientific jargon citing p-values etc. — Andrew4Handel

It's a reliable strategy. It cuts down on people having their humors adjusted by leeches.

In published mathematics research papers estimates of serious mistakes run from ten to thirty percent.

(of course, my papers were error-free. :cool: )

(I've read somewhere that the percentage might possibly be highest in foundations. I'll see if I can find the comment.)

From a previous discussion it seems to be that the only relevant evidence has to be a scientific study (peer reviewed?) (that study doesn't even need to be replicated or involve many participants).

This appears to me to be a patently false assertion not backed up by logic either.

Especially in the era of the internet where most internet users have access to an enormous pile of data. For example as in a my previous thread when I cited Reddit.

I think scientists and social scientists et al could benefit from going on major platforms like these to see what is happening in the real world outside of ideology and academic cloisters.

Anecdotes are not generalisable but can be qualitatively powerful. Trends on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc are a source of data most people can access. — Andrew4Handel

Where's the time? What are the pay-offs? As long as reputed journals are willing to publish your results and the accompanying hypothesis or whatever, you've made it big insofar as a scientist's purpose is at stake.

Nevertheless, the internet is a goldmine of information but the catch/drawback is extremely low signal-to-noise ratio i.e. getting one's hands on a valuable piece of data would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Your options: a painful prick or nothing at all! Not much of choice there.

It's a reliable strategy. It cuts down on people having their humors adjusted by leeches. — Cheshire

That type of things was the foundation of science.

Scientists came up with crazy theories, tried crazy things and some of them worked.

But I am not talking about theories but about evidence. We negotiate reality using the evidence of your senses.

For example if you drop a glass and it breaks you don't need to know any physics to assume dropping the glass caused it to break and that there were no occult forces at work. From these generalisations we can seek theories which may succeed or may be open ended.

Another important thing which I have probably mentioned elsewhere in the past is that you cannot always prove personal experience this is endemic in sexual assault/consent cases. It is considered that most sexual assaults do not lead to criminal convictions because it is one persons word against another.

One of them is telling the truth and one is lying.

Nevertheless, the internet is a goldmine of information but the catch/drawback is extremely low signal-to-noise ratio i.e. getting one's hands on a valuable piece of data would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. — TheMadFool

It isn't that complex in my opinion.
In my previous thread I noted that more people to Trans porn threads than Trans issue threads.
I don't know why but it is a noticeable easily discovered stat.
Porn is alleged to dominate the internet. I don't why but it is an easily explored phenomena.
I think a lot of the jargon in studies is formal and covers a lack of substance and clarity.


I think that Anything is evidence. Something is evidence of something. This is like the question "Why is there something rather than nothing"

I think only nothing would be a lack of evidence.

porn — Andrew4Handel

Father I have sinned. I like porn (a lot).

You might find this interesting. :point: Does Nature Have Value?

An excerpt:

Let's begin small and a few billion years ago, shall we? In the primordial oceans when life first took hold on earth, the flagellum corkscrews its way through the water, taking this single motile bacterium to places so to speak. Why? I bet only so that it can get to fresh sources of food and away from dangers. Then it feeds, hopefully in peace. It feeds, feeds, and feeds. Why? So that it becomes "mature" enough to divide/multiply (I can never seem to tell the difference). — TheMadFool

The purpose of an individual's life is to, well, FUCK which is just another way of saying life's purpose is to keep the flame of life burning (for as long as possible). The "extremely" high website traffic in re porn sites is conclusive evidence that all of us, deep down in our hearts, know the answer to the existential question, "why am/are I/we here?" To fuck!!!

:chin:

Another important thing which I have probably mentioned elsewhere in the past is that you cannot always prove personal experience this is endemic in sexual assault/consent cases. It is considered that most sexual assaults do not lead to criminal convictions because it is one persons word against another. — Andrew4Handel

Precisely why scientific evidence needs to be reproducible: if no one knows how to verify your results, it's not science.

On this, instead of inventing stuff, has it ever occurred to you to ask scientists how they actually do things?