Did James Damore say anything scientifically proven factually incorrect? - Page 15

A lot of people think that "peer-reviewed" is the same as "true," which is obvious nonsense. But it's also not worthless and can be effective at weeding out junk if done right.

The problem is it misses more than enough stuff that makes absolutely no sense- analysis errors, methodology that can't possibly detect what's being looked for, then does anyway, etc. Obviously peer review can't stop authors from cherry picking, lying, and fabricating, unless they're just awful at it, but it doesn't even stop honest idiots all that effectively either, certainly not effectively enough for me to take any random paper at close to face value even conditioned on author honesty.

Quote

09-16-2017 , 12:38 AM

#353

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

It is irrelevant. There is probably a peer-reviewed journal on flat earth.

Quote

09-16-2017 , 03:12 AM

#354

VeeDDzz`

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan valdez

this is a really strange response. of all people, 13balls is the only one capable of doing a poor job of defending your indoctrination?

Maybe. Maybe the only one who C(for can)BF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan valdez

its called social science. nothing about it is scientific. its unscientific ideology. the content is absurd. there is no debate or skepticism in social sciences about papers like this.

Papers like this are rare. By nature, they draw negative attention.
Deservedly.

Over-generalizing about social science based on rare pieces of crap like this is quite common unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan valdez

whats your take on the cited trans athlete situation for example?

My take?

The article is not representative of good social science or social science in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan valdez

why would you ask me what its like to be a contrarian? SJW social "sciences" are the contrarians trying to claim mainstream biology are wrong (among other things). they have even invented their own anthropology. how indoctrinated do you need to be to jump on board the social construct train?

Pretty indoctrinated. About 8 years of education and lots of debt indoctrinated.

What about yourself? How long did you need to be indoctrinated by nitwits on the interwebs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan valdez

is it tough socially? why? how? are you just lashing out because a lack of an argument has made you emotional? this also makes no sense. the archetypal SJW is in a constant state of outrage and bitterness. You live in a massive bubble if you think normal people paying attention to the SJW nonsense aren't subtly rolling their eyes like watching the neighbors brat kid at their super sweet 16

Hardly outraged. Mainly curious. Contrarians tend to have it tough, socially.

Quote

09-16-2017 , 03:42 AM

#355

plaaynde

Poker Historian

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 20,069

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

It is irrelevant. There is probably a peer-reviewed journal on flat earth.

Imagine what rubbish there would be without the peer review. Maybe non-peer review is what we are looking for? But do they know enough for doing a better job?

Quote

09-16-2017 , 08:27 AM

#356

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by juan valdez

this is a really strange response. of all people, 13balls is the only one capable of doing a poor job of defending your indoctrination?

Thanks?

Quote:

its called social science. nothing about it is scientific. its unscientific ideology. the content is absurd. there is no debate or skepticism in social sciences about papers like this. the controversy over a mountain of absolutely fraudulent nonsense is nonexistent. whats your take on the cited trans athlete situation for example?

My main takeaway is boredom, tbh.

Quote:

why would you ask me what its like to be a contrarian? SJW social "sciences" are the contrarians trying to claim mainstream biology are wrong (among other things). they have even invented their own anthropology. how indoctrinated do you need to be to jump on board the social construct train?

This seems pretty wrong. Doesn't everyone agree on the biology? No one is claiming a penis is a vagina or anything. People are claiming that physical sex differences should not be the sole determining factor in many social situations. Arguing that this position denies mainstream biology is a nonsensical counterargument. In the female athlete example no one is saying that there aren't physiological differences, just that those differences shouldn't be seen as overriding.

Quote:

is it tough socially? why? how? are you just lashing out because a lack of an argument has made you emotional?

YOU have no argument.

Quote:

this also makes no sense. the archetypal SJW is in a constant state of outrage and bitterness.

Says the guy who's mad at an article no one has read or will ever read in a philosophical sports journal.

Quote

09-17-2017 , 01:04 AM

#357

Zeno

Le Misanthrope

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,370

Parmenides writings were never peer-reviewed in the modern sense.

I wrote some scientific papers and many science/technical reports that underwent peer-review. All reviews were useful in numerous ways.

Whether the earth is flat or alternately that it is an oblate spheroid is of no consequence to 99% of the people on the planet. Having any paper espousing either view peer-reviewed is thus rather silly.

Genesis was peer-reviewed by God and approved. QED.

Quote

09-17-2017 , 02:55 AM

#358

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by plaaynde

Imagine what rubbish there would be without the peer review. Maybe non-peer review is what we are looking for? But do they know enough for doing a better job?

We should have stopped with the printing press.

Quote

09-18-2017 , 09:59 AM

#359

AnonMicroGrinder

enthusiast

Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 91

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToothSayer

Surely the world would look different if this were the case.

Look at Jews. They run almost anything of note in the US; they are a controlling upper class. Purely from 5-10 IQ points, and probably with a helping hand from their often xenophobic/anti-miseageny culture.

Asians, another minority culture, crush desirable/intellectual professions from maybe an extra 5 points. This despite supposed/claimed racism (Asian names get the same callbacks as black names, for example).

If women had 5 points on men, do you doubt that most desirable or intellectual professions would be women?

IMO both Jews and Asians have a large cultural advantage in success in the areas mentioned. I think that if women had a separate culture that was a bit more intellectual than men's then most desirable intellectual professions would be dominated by women. IQ tells us a lot but in this specific instance I think culture is much more relevant (though higher IQ does of course describe more intellectual culture to a certain extent).