Logic vs. emotion

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
abraxalito

abraxalito

Member
Joined 2007
Yep - people make decisions based on emotion then dream up all kinds of 'logical' stories for why they've made those decisions. No amount of argument can possibly dislodge those stories. They might, in extremis get subject to modification but because the reason for their existence is the original emotion, they can't be totally eradicated.
 
C

CopperTop

Member
Joined 2009
Here's an example of when the normal level of 'scientific method' was shown to fall short of true objectivity:
Water memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In summary, a researcher's experiments showed that homeopathic 'water memory' was real - an extraordinary claim. The journal Nature could find no error in the experimental method and so reluctantly published the paper, but appointed its own team of sceptical scientists to repeat the experiments. They too, got the same positive result!

In the first series of supervised experiments, the original experimental procedure was followed as it had been when the paper was first submitted for publication. The experiments were successful, matching the published data quite closely. However, Maddox noted that during the procedure the experimenters were aware of which test tubes originally contained the antibodies and which did not. A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in tinfoil, seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. No memory effect was observed in the blinded experiments.
Click to expand...

From this, I draw quite an important conclusion: that what often passes for science, isn't. Nature could find no problem with the experimental method, and went ahead and published the paper. If the claims had not been so extraordinary, it looks as though no one would have even thought about the experimenters' bias, and certainly would not have gone to the huge trouble of repeating the experiments double blind.

As far as I can tell, nothing in the whole 'science' of climatology (mentioned as an example of a science often denied by "hierarchical individualists" in PeteMcK's link), is done double blind, from the collecting of the data by amateurs, to the correcting for urban heat island effect, to the creation of the software models. I wouldn't blame anyone for failing to accept the results, even if, like Nature, they couldn't immediately spot any experimental errors in it. But the author of Pete McK's article would brand such people as 'deniers' with a high probability of being right wing nutjobs.
 
sofaspud

sofaspud

Member
Joined 2005
Really.
Maybe a $10000 check in his pocket?
I'm honestly not familiar with "water memory" or this particular instance. Houdini, Gardner, Randi, Penn & Teller... there's a history of magicians who are superbly qualified to investigate the extraordinary. Because the extraordinary is their livelihood. They are expert professionals at it, if not "scientists".

The thread title caught my eye; logic is not the opposite of emotion. Maybe if you live on Vulcan it is. Also, this devolves very quickly into philosophy, politics, and religion. I find it inappropriate for the fun-loving diyAudio forums. :)
 
abraxalito

abraxalito

Member
Joined 2007
sofaspud said:
I'm honestly not familiar with "water memory" or this particular instance. Houdini, Gardner, Randi, Penn & Teller... there's a history of magicians who are superbly qualified to investigate the extraordinary.
Click to expand...

So they're the best people here to investigate your extraordinary claim then - that's the one which says scientists aren't the best ones to investigate this kind of thing. I'm gonna get my hat.... :p
 
c2cthomas

c2cthomas

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Aw – what the heck – let’s toss in some discussion on using statistics to support the discussion (I know statistics – well about 98% of the time +/- 3%) and for the stuff we can’t prove we can use some propositional calculus to predict juz about anything. I promise you that by the time you get finished explaining how you came to your conclusions that most people will either be asleep – at the bar – or jumping off of the roof.

Or we can us our own practical experiments with discussions about tube amps vs. SS – any number of speaker cables vs. other types of speaker cables – interconnections – 44.1 Khz @ 16 bits vs. 192 @ 24 bits – and soooooo it goes.

Me – I’m gonna go listen to some music – and I’m not even gonna give you a clue about the sample rate and bit depth. :D:D:D
 
sofaspud

sofaspud

Member
Joined 2005
So they're the best people here to investigate your extraordinary claim then - that's the one which says scientists aren't the best ones to investigate this kind of thing. I'm gonna get my hat....
Click to expand...
There's nothing outlandish about my statements. Nor is it much of a secret.

Don't know much about statistics. I know what Disraeli said of them.
I'm gonna turn it up and think of something else. :)
 
c2cthomas

c2cthomas

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Pop a Fosters Mate - NO Worries!!!! Damn - I juz luv the kids from Oz and the Brits! I'm not being funny either - I've worked and lived with many - goooooood folks! Annnnd a good argument (or should I say a subject that is being thoroughly discussed) is considered "good form" and expected to be returned in kind. Very much like bartering for goods is expected in many parts of the world - it's just the way it is.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom