Formscapes vs. Professor Dave drama

[yetineti]

To illustrate the concerns with over-reliance on the scientific method and how it can lead to negative outcomes, here are specific examples:

1. **Tuskegee Syphilis Study**: This infamous study extended for 40 years, from 1932 to 1972, under the guise of scientific research, while effective treatment was withheld from African American participants to study the progression of untreated syphilis. This case exemplifies how scientific rigor was misused to justify unethical human experimentation, ignoring the well-being and rights of individuals involved [oai_citation:1,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues).

2. **Radiation Experiments**: From the 1940s to the 1970s, the U.S. government conducted radiation experiments on thousands of unknowing participants, including military personnel and hospital patients, to understand the effects of radiation exposure. These experiments were conducted in the name of scientific progress but lacked ethical oversight and informed consent, causing harm and violating participants' rights [oai_citation:2,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues).

3. **Yoshitaka Fujii's Research Fraud**: Fujii, an anesthesiologist, fabricated data in over 180 scientific papers, demonstrating how the pressure to produce quantifiable results can lead to significant scientific misconduct. This case highlights the dangers of prioritizing quantity and novelty of research findings over integrity and ethical considerations in scientific work [oai_citation:3,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents).

4. **CRISPR Babies Controversy**: Scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR technology to genetically edit human embryos, leading to the birth of the world's first genetically edited babies. This case raised serious ethical questions about the rush to apply powerful scientific technologies without sufficient oversight, public discourse, or consideration of the long-term implications for the individuals involved and humanity at large [oai_citation:4,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents).

These examples underscore the importance of integrating ethical considerations into scientific research, demonstrating that a narrow focus on empirical rigor can lead to ethical breaches, social harm, and a loss of public trust in science.

[yetineti]

The critique that issues like unethical research practices are "people problems" rather than "science problems" overlooks the systemic and cultural aspects of the scientific enterprise that can foster such outcomes. Here's why these are also intrinsic to the structure and culture of science itself:

1. **Incentive Structures**: The scientific community often values high-impact publications, novel findings, and continuous productivity. This creates pressure on researchers to produce significant results at all costs, sometimes encouraging questionable practices like data fabrication or selective reporting of results. The cases of research fraud, such as Yoshitaka Fujii's fabrication of data in over 180 papers, illustrate how the incentive for publishable outcomes can lead to misconduct [oai_citation:1,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents).

2. **Lack of Ethical Training**: The rigorous focus on technical training in the scientific method often comes at the expense of ethical education. Scientists are trained to prioritize empirical evidence and reproducibility but may receive inadequate guidance on ethical considerations, leading to decisions that prioritize scientific advancement over human rights or ethical norms, as seen in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the radiation experiments [oai_citation:2,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues).

3. **Cultural Norms and Hierarchies**: The culture within many scientific fields can discourage questioning established theories or challenging the status quo, which can suppress innovative ideas or ethical concerns from junior researchers or those outside the mainstream. The scientific method's emphasis on empirical evidence can inadvertently foster an environment where data are manipulated to fit prevailing theories or expectations.

4. **Gatekeeping Knowledge**: The scientific method and its institutions have historically acted as gatekeepers, determining what is considered valid knowledge. This can marginalize non-Western or indigenous knowledge systems that do not conform to Western scientific methodologies, leading to a loss of valuable insights and sustainable practices.

5. **Technological Rush**: The race to be the first to achieve scientific breakthroughs, like in the CRISPR babies controversy, can lead to the premature application of technologies without fully understanding their implications or ensuring adequate safeguards. This "technological rush" demonstrates a problem within the scientific culture that prioritizes innovation over precaution, often overlooking potential ethical, social, and environmental consequences [oai_citation:3,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents).

In essence, while individuals are responsible for their actions, the systemic and cultural dimensions of the scientific enterprise play a significant role in shaping those actions. Addressing these issues requires a reevaluation of the values, incentives, and norms that govern scientific research, emphasizing ethical considerations and the social implications of scientific work as much as empirical rigor and discovery.

[Rafael Thundercat]

 

 

[zurew]

25 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Leo was very lenient with you in my opinion- and brave at that. Trying to convince a scientist science is not perfect is like trying to explain to a christian the Bible was just analogous.

You are already hitting and miss - @undeather already made his own criticism of science so your idea that he is incapable to engage with any criticism or that he is completely closed-off from percieving the limitations of science or the scientific method is already demonstrably wrong.

Next time read the thread and just after that go deliver your criticism, because this one didn't land.

Aside from the "criticism" that you delivered, do we need to respond chatgpt-s criticism or should we use hardcore motivated reasoning like yourself and use chatgpt to write a response to chatgpt's criticism?

[yetineti]

@zurew

I think you ought to read past him saying he's open to criticism and through to his lack of understanding of it. I’ve read the whole thread. You’re just missing points. Feel free to use ChatGPT. I only did this because that's what you guys want. You want more science to show you how science is bad. It's like you want your abusive husband to tell you you don't need him anymore.

Edited February 3 by yetineti

[yetineti]

@zurew The main reason I was so harsh is because he flaunted his role as a scientist releasing papers and such, and an argument from authority is just abysmal, and completely undermines anything you're saying I missed on here.

[yetineti]

The irony, if you guys were to use ChatGPT against me here, is that we'll just be throwing into the endless swirl science already has you guys in. The ability to argue and rationalize any point from any side, irregardless of what's actually ethical, productive, or necessary, and above all else, true.

[yetineti]

I've read this whole thread again, and I understand that I am being harsh, but nonetheless, I see a bunch of folly, and a bunch of pointing, without a lot of understanding. The sort of thing you see on cable news networks when they want to talk like it's one way, but then it's the other way, and at the end of the day, it's like I fall somewhere in between. Well, I'm not going to get stuck in between anything. Maybe that's just me.

[undeather]

55 minutes ago, yetineti said:

For all of you glums that will get mad at me for not addressing the specific points:

Overemphasis on rigor and rationality can lead to a narrow worldview, prioritizing empirical evidence and logical reasoning above all else. This approach risks marginalizing subjective experiences, emotions, and intuition, which are central to the human condition. By insisting on objective quantification, the scientific method may inadvertently devalue or ignore aspects of reality that resist such measurement, leading to a fragmented understanding of the world.

Moreover, the belief in rationality as an end in itself can foster an environment where scientific advancements are pursued without adequate consideration of ethical implications, societal impacts, or the welfare of future generations. The history of science is peppered with instances where the pursuit of knowledge was divorced from moral considerations, leading to harm.

Furthermore, the scientific establishment is not immune to biases, conflicts of interest, and the influence of power structures, which can distort research agendas, funding priorities, and the dissemination of findings. The illusion of objectivity can be exploited to justify policies, technologies, and interventions that serve the interests of a powerful few at the expense of the many, under the guise of neutrality and progress.

In its most extreme form, an unwavering faith in science and rationality can contribute to a technocratic ideology that dismisses alternative ways of knowing and being in the world. This can culminate in a form of intellectual imperialism that disregards cultural wisdom, traditional knowledge, and spiritual insights, impoverishing humanity's collective understanding and experience.

In sum, while the scientific method has undeniably contributed to human advancement, an uncritical adherence to its principles can lead to a reductionist view of existence, ethical blind spots, and the perpetuation of social and environmental injustices. It's crucial to balance the pursuit of empirical knowledge with humility, ethical reflection, and an openness to the diverse ways of understanding our world.

 

 

I am starting to lose my mind a bit right now.
Yeti, have you actually read through the previous posts? I agree with almost everything you just said. I have more than once mentioned that this is not about putting science on a pedestal. You are fighting windmills my friend. In fact, I am the first one who stomps on ignorant secularists when they make hyperbolic arguments about the scientific process. All this nonsense is about one specific claim made by 2 members (including Leo), which just doesn't hold any further scrutniy - and the ignorant attempts they used to defend that ridicolous position without showing any substance.

For the last time: The point of contention was that less rigor in the application of the scientific method might ultimately lead to better outcomes in the context of the experiment. Rigor meaning "the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results". Negating the importance of this is absolute horeshit for obvious reasons. You don't get better data output by making the process more prone to known biases. You don't start controlling for less confounding-variables while studying a certain population - you want to increase that number. You want to adapt the complexity of your experiment, so that it mimics reality as close as possible. You don't want less sophisticated experiments - you want more sophisticated experiments. More thought-out, better suited to look the investigated phenomeon. You don't want the shittiest statistical framework for analyzing your data. You want to best available. This is what RIGOR in science is all about. It's about decreasing bad experiments. It's about becoming more sophisticated. This has nothing to do with the materialistic bias that definitely exists in todays scientific enterprise. Do you get that?

Also, stop making assumptions about what I have or have not realized in the spiritual domain. You know nothing about me. 
You didn't even try to understand the argument properly and started your rage-rant regardless. 

49 minutes ago, yetineti said:

To illustrate the concerns with over-reliance on the scientific method and how it can lead to negative outcomes, here are specific examples:

1. **Tuskegee Syphilis Study**: This infamous study extended for 40 years, from 1932 to 1972, under the guise of scientific research, while effective treatment was withheld from African American participants to study the progression of untreated syphilis. This case exemplifies how scientific rigor was misused to justify unethical human experimentation, ignoring the well-being and rights of individuals involved [oai_citation:1,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues).

2. **Radiation Experiments**: From the 1940s to the 1970s, the U.S. government conducted radiation experiments on thousands of unknowing participants, including military personnel and hospital patients, to understand the effects of radiation exposure. These experiments were conducted in the name of scientific progress but lacked ethical oversight and informed consent, causing harm and violating participants' rights [oai_citation:2,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues).

3. **Yoshitaka Fujii's Research Fraud**: Fujii, an anesthesiologist, fabricated data in over 180 scientific papers, demonstrating how the pressure to produce quantifiable results can lead to significant scientific misconduct. This case highlights the dangers of prioritizing quantity and novelty of research findings over integrity and ethical considerations in scientific work [oai_citation:3,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents).

4. **CRISPR Babies Controversy**: Scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR technology to genetically edit human embryos, leading to the birth of the world's first genetically edited babies. This case raised serious ethical questions about the rush to apply powerful scientific technologies without sufficient oversight, public discourse, or consideration of the long-term implications for the individuals involved and humanity at large [oai_citation:4,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents).

These examples underscore the importance of integrating ethical considerations into scientific research, demonstrating that a narrow focus on empirical rigor can lead to ethical breaches, social harm, and a loss of public trust in science.

ALL THOSE experiments are PERFECT examples of LOW rigor in science.
You just proved my point. More rigor means taking the ethical considerations seriously. It means sticking to the method itself - as close as possible. Fabricating data or blatant ignorance towards experimental ethis is what comes from LOW rigor! It's really just another for for integrity if you ask me.

Edited February 3 by undeather

[Scholar]

37 minutes ago, undeather said:

I am starting to lose my mind a bit right now.

You are responding to chatgpt lol.

[yetineti]

@undeather You talk too much. You've completely missed the point. Your argumentation is circular. I am going to tell you what you have and have not realized, and your reaction makes it apparent I am correct. Your words make no sense to your claims, and coming here saying you are awakened and using these authoritative arguments is again abysmal, childish, and not going to help you in any sense of the way, despite me coming across as harsh or not.

[yetineti]

@undeather This isn’t about your point and you have too much attachment and bias to the topic at hand to even be respected here.

Come from a place of wonder. Do not claim to understand and then defend science like your child.

[undeather]

[Rafael Thundercat]

Well, contemplate deep on this episode. What I think is that sometimes people watch the same stuff but due to different factors, for example, is one never had one or maby dozen of psycadelic experiences this episode wil be weird, like many episodes of Actualied made no sense after many psycadelic experiences of myself and more study on different aspects of reality. I think there some notions of reality that need to be understood to be able to see a video and undestand where it want to lead us. Sometimes even after One Year of development I rewatch stuff I previous took as Bullshit and later I realize How out of the Box those ideias were. 

The magic is not in one single Video, is in the Connection of many direct experiences plus study plust direct experiences..

check this:

at least try to open up to other perspectives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDUFKXc8-LQ&t=2698s

 

[Carl-Richard]

On 2.2.2024 at 8:34 AM, undeather said:

50% replication rate is only true for certain study fields like psychology or social sciences.

And medicine. Once you throw humans into the picture, it seems to reliably screw things up.

Edited February 3 by Carl-Richard

[undeather]

24 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And medicine. Once you throw humans into the picture, it seems to reliably screw things up.

I disagree - it's way easier to design studies in medicine than in psychology.
It shows in the respective replication rates. Well designed drug trials show a >95% replication rate.

But I think your general point is taht once you throw humans into the picture things tend to get much more complex regardless - which is of course true if you compare it to extremely hard sciences like particle physics for example. P-values of 5-sigma or higher are unheard of in medicine but basically the standard in hard sciences. 

Edited February 3 by undeather

[yetineti]

@undeather It’s your turn to rebut. You asked for substance and you got it. It doesn’t matter it came from AI; rebut it.

7 hours ago, undeather said:

ALL THOSE experiments are PERFECT examples of LOW rigor in science.
You just proved my point. More rigor means taking the ethical considerations seriously. It means sticking to the method itself - as close as possible. Fabricating data or blatant ignorance towards experimental ethis is what comes from LOW rigor! It's really just another for for integrity if you ask me.

This is not a rebuttal. Nor is a facepalm meme. You don’t get to answer the problem of science with ‘do better science.’ That’s what you did. Also, no one has said Stop! Science. 
 

But if you’re going to come here, with your post signature listing your credentials, your, yes, bias, and ‘evidence based….’- Perhaps you hold a greater responsibility to prove you’ve had these experiences in ‘8+ years.’

But how do you prove yourself without evidence?

This forum shouldn’t have authoritative figures, with credentials like you, swaying people. 
 

I am not saying you should leave- but it’s really not a good look to dismiss my case because- what? ChatGPT? What else?

Again you asked for substance and you got it.

Edited February 4 by yetineti

[yetineti]

Science is a gun.

[yetineti]

6 hours ago, undeather said:

You don't get better data output by making the process more prone to known biases.

Yes you do. That’s what makes ChatGPT ironically so powerful it handles every bias and it doesn’t bitch.

But it takes it rationally.

It is not rational to ignore any bias.

Edited February 3 by yetineti

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, undeather said:

I disagree - it's way easier to design studies in medicine than in psychology.
It shows in the respective replication rates. Well designed drug trials show a >95% replication rate.

When you say "well-designed", then of course we're no longer talking about the 50% statistic, but I think a similar thing could be said for psychology and social science:

Quote

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman argued that, in psychology, the original authors should be involved in the replication effort because the published methods are often too vague. [...] An investigation of replication rates in psychology in 2012 indicated higher success rates of replication in replication studies when there was author overlap with the original authors of a study (91.7% successful replication rates in studies with author overlap compared to 64.6% successful replication rates without author overlap).

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

 

That said, in general, I will agree that psychology is probably more prone to replication issues than medicine. But let's not forget that it can get pretty bad in medicine too :

Quote

In a 2012 paper, C. Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, a medical researcher at the University of Texas, found that only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies. In late 2021, The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology examined 53 top papers about cancer published between 2010 and 2012 and showed that among studies that provided sufficient information to be redone, the effect sizes were 85% smaller on average than the original findings. A survey of cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result. Another report estimated that almost half of randomized controlled trials contained flawed data (based on the analysis of anonymized individual participant data (IPD) from more than 150 trials).

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

Edited February 4 by Carl-Richard