Oft times we see accusations of "group think" here on SoylentNews. Now there is some actual science on the formation and function of "echo chambers", as reported by SESYNC:
A new study from researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) demonstrates that the highly contentious debate on climate change is fueled in part by how information flows throughout policy networks.
...
"Our research shows how the echo chamber can block progress toward a political resolution on climate change. Individuals who get their information from the same sources with the same perspective may be under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective, regardless of what the science says," said Dr. Dana R. Fisher, a professor of sociology at UMD and corresponding author who led the research.
I would guess, based on this study abstract (actual paper unfortunately behind paywall), that SoylentNews is in no danger of becoming an echo chamber, but we seem to have some refugees who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:37AM
Boy that last sentence seems like bait.... Think I'll move along here.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:06AM
Its also highly ironic.
All humans, by cognitive necessity, exist in a bubble of some sort. The only variable is how "large" (over n fuzzy dimensions) this bubble is. Self reporting of bubble size is irrelevant and no real work that I know of has been done on developing impartial measures of such has been conclusive. (and is perhaps impossible) So implying explicit knowledge bubble sizes is just ridiculous.
At best and only in certain cases you might be able to make relative measures but anything non-empirical cannot be accepted due to the subject matter.
For example. The poster of the article implies that he believes he could identify those that exist in a bubble and that he is not in one himself. What a laugh.
We live in a world where it is impossible for the human brain to rationally and completely conceptualise in all its nuance. This is not a bad thing. Were it not so we would be rendered incapable of action due to the huge amount of data that would have to be processed to decide to even open our eyes.
So instead we take shortcuts by open our physical eyes and deluding ourselves that our internal eye is fully open and get on with things: happy in ignorance...some more than others....
Such it is to be human...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:27AM
For example. The poster of the article implies that he believes he could identify those that exist in a bubble and that he is not in one himself. What a laugh.
Good point!
However, it deserves a PeeWee Herman response.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:35AM
Yes, very true.
I saw a similar discussion (more of a lecture) some years ago. It started out on a different subject, transmissions, as I recall, but soon it brought forth exactly what you suggested.
I've found a short-ish video of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVtzJZd5VQ [youtube.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:27AM
I have to say, in agreement with poster in a thread a day or two ago, that this tendency to just post a link to a video on youtube without comment is not to be encouraged. A bit more of a description? Some reason to actually spend time looking at it? That said, that video was damn funny, and I say that as someone with more than a casual knowledge of automatic transmissions.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:44AM
I think we've seen a lot of these echo chambers at work, and we informally scream about them often. See FoxNews, Slashdot, tumblr, ad nauseum for real world examples we're all likely too familiar with. The scariest thing to me is the groups that are forming and the continual levels of extremism that they appear to stretch toward. I'm glad someone is looking at it, if even in a very limited scope.
I'd like to believe there's the mental Harrison Bergeron among us who are genuinely capable of truly existing beyond that. I have no evidence of such a thing and I'm not claiming to be any such person; I'm neither that bright nor open minded, but it's a particular form of optimism that I desperately hold on to.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:04AM
That ability can be cultivated. Cultivate it in yourself, then pass it on to others.
Some people ossify when they get old. Others broaden their perspective through experience.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:44PM
You mention those sites and you leave off this one?
NSA is bad! (NSA is bad!. . . NSA is bad!. . nsa is bad!. . .)
Snowden is infallible! (Snowden is infallible! . . . Snowden is infallible! . . . snowden is infallible! . . .)
All police are evil! (All police are evil! . . . All police are evil! . . . all police are evil! . . .)
Some oversimplified "libertarian" rant! (Some oversimplified "libertarian" rant! . . . Some oversimplified "libertarian" rant! . . . some oversimplified "libertarian" rant! . . .)
Assange is not a douche! (Assange is not a douche! . . . Assange is not a douche! . . . assange is not a douche! . . .)
Can't you just hear the echos?? Echo chambers define the sacred cows of a site, and boy is there a lot of mooing here.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:05PM
The comment in the summary covered SN. Didn't think it was necessary to mention, but yes, you're generally right.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:01AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator#Bud_Haggart_video_script
Hilarious. Gonna keep that one. Thank you.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:12PM
Yes, I get it. You failed to understand what I was saying.
Let's assess whether this is appropriate:
a) I did not use a lot of jargon as in the video
b) My intent was not to confuse but to explain in simple terms
c) I stuck to the point
So what we REALLY have here is your simple inability to understand what I was saying.
Sort of like you are restricted in your bubble of ignorance really...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:17PM
More likely I just grew weary of your pompous grandiosity (of which, this was but a mild example).
You really are full of yourself, aren't you!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday May 29 2015, @08:28PM
You should try breathing through your nose then.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:05PM
Wonder if the moneky theory bears any relationship to the size of a person's bubble. A person who is comfortable with a small circle of friends, as opposed to someone who knows EVERYONE would have a smaller bubble?
If that be the case, I guess I'm in a pretty small bubble. I long ago gave up trying to remember the names of all the people at work. I just don't even try. There are to many, and turnover is to rapid - instead of trying to remember names, I just smile and say "Hi".
Or, maybe it has nothing to do with the size of the bubble, maybe it determines what kind of bubble you're in.
Ehhhh - this shit could get to deep for me real quick! Do me a favor, and write a science fiction adventure about it.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:07PM
I would imagine so. But that is only over a set of specific dimensions.
Bubbles are not a single set or even easily definable.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Placenta on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:10AM
It doesn't just seem like bait. It is bait. That part should have been removed by the editor prior to the submission being accepted.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:38AM
But then it would be a troll. wouldn't it?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:38AM
Actually, a snide remark by the editor would have been very much apt.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:59AM
Snide? This is Science, gentlepersons! If you disagree, you must provide evidence! Evidence that is not only accepted in your particular echo chamber. You see, the intent is to provoke rational dialogue on an objective level, to cross the boundaries of the echo chambers. I grow pessimistic of the possibility of such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:55PM
Sorry, you've got it backwards. Extraordinary claims must be supported by exraordinary evidence.
Get back with us after your evidence has been purged of hockey-stick manipulations, "revisionist" adjustments to historical temperature records, and at least one of your predictive models actually shows some track record of success.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:40PM
Allow me to make that remark instead.
I'd like to formally propose that aristarchus is one of those refugees among us who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:58PM
I'd like to formally propose that aristarchus is one of those refugees among us who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
I appreciate the formal proposal, but I fear that it is not the case. If it were, I should be able to find somebody who agrees with me to feed back to me what I want to hear, so that I would think that I am in the majority. Instead, everyone is saying I am wrong, and that the submission is bait. So now I feel un-bubbleified, like I lost my homoies, which is really uncomfortable. Could you just agree with me, just this one time, and just for a little, until I get used to being a voice in the wilderness? Please?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:30PM
Statements like that are how you end up with echo chambers. As people see it and think 'geeze this place is judgmental I didnt come to be judged I came to read a bit of something interesting'. Eventually people stop swinging by.
From Romans 14 is a good way to look at the world. tl;dr Stop judging others and your life will be cool.
(Score: 1) by Placenta on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:39AM
The "study abstract" link in the last paragraph is broken. It currently links to https://soylentnews.org/:http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2666.html.
Fix it, please.
It should obviously link to http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2666.html [nature.com].
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:57AM
And while we're picking on the volunteers who submit and edit these stories, let's also point out that SoylentNews is written together in the page title and in the upper left of every page, but not in the posted submission.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Placenta on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:05AM
It doesn't matter if they're volunteers or not. Being a volunteer isn't an excuse for fucking up.
The broken URL in the submission, and the inconsistent spelling of this site's name, are the kind of sloppiness that helped destroy Slashdot. That kind of sloppiness should not be tolerated here.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday May 31 2015, @01:09PM
/.?
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:22AM
“The model we used gives us a framework for empirically testing the significance of echo chambers,” said Dr. Lorien Jasny, a computational social scientist at SESYNC and lead author of the paper. “We find that the occurrences of echo chambers are indeed statistically significant, meaning our model provides a potential explanation for why climate change denial persists in spite of the consensus reached by the scientific community.”
I see other hints of it such as coyly mentioning a CO2 regulation bill (which I gather failed in the Senate) and talking about how "echo chambers" can "block progress toward a political resolution on climate change" (Dana R. Fisher). That's the bias of these researchers just hanging out there.
If "climate change" (which is really catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is such a settled matter, obstructed in the US only by networks of echo chambers, then why is so much effort devoted to a giant ad hominem fallacy?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:35AM
If "climate change" (which is really catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is such a settled matter
That's it right there. There IS lots of room to debate whether or not it is catastrophic.
But there really isn't much basis to argue that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday May 28 2015, @12:45PM
Publish or perish is part of the problem. Academia has become bloated and sick with gout, and (most of it) doesn't realise that yet.
(Disclaimer, my company actually makes some money from the academia industry, and a small proportion of the papers that have passed through our hands are bad science. However, they are published in perfect English (that's what we do) so they sound quite erudite. It's not our job to review or reject, it's the journal's job. They're endorsing it by publishing it, we are just a pipe it passes through.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:06PM
We should retract all journal articles ever written by anyone who is affiliated with any institution who has done any climate research, proposed to do any climate research, or who looks likely to want to do any kind of climate research. It is corruption all the way down. This should be done retroactively, as it is clear this "green" corruption did not occur overnight, but has been building up as a systemic problem. I have been saying for years there is a problem with the Ether Deniers. Now it is clear to me that that deliberate and methodologically flawed Michelson-Morley experiment is a widely perpetuated fraud, because I can see now that Case Western Reserve University takes money from such places as the EPA.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:37AM
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:18AM
Or rather it is not an ad hominem to not respect a schizophrenic's count of the people in a room, so too is it not a fallacy to disrespect someone that claims global warming is a hoax.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:48AM
(do you automatically disrespect a schizophrenia sufferer because her/his count of the persons in the room is inaccurate?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:10AM
(Psst, khallow! Did you miss the part where it's bait?)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:44AM
Now see, this is exactly where it kicks in:
Funny how suddenly there's all this money for research into public opinion on climate change when someone needs to discredit "climate change denial".
What you fail to understand, coming from an echo chamber, is that there is no need to discredit "climate change denial". It is already quite thoroughly discredited. What needs scientific explanation is how so many fringe elements (and members of congress) could cling to a thoroughly discredited position despite all evidence to the contrary.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:31AM
There are so many things both right and wrong with this.
Politicians aren't scientists and I think most of us, including some of them, would agree they're idiots in general. They have to look at both sides because they don't understand the science and are required to take all arguments into account.
How do YOU know YOU'RE not the one in the echo chamber? I think you're correct, but it's important to keep questioning ourselves. We can't just shut out debate and mock people because we "know" we're right therefore there's no reason to consider other positions. That's how echo chambers are made.
I prefer to work under the assumption that I'm the one in the echo chamber and can be wrong. I stay skeptical of my position and listen to others with opposing view points, never know when someone will have something relevant to say I hadn't consider before that could change everything. We really need to get away from this, "LOL, I'm right and you're wrong and stupid."
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2015, @06:21PM
What you fail to understand, coming from an echo chamber, is that there is no need to discredit "climate change denial". It is already quite thoroughly discredited.
And getting thoroughlier discredited every day. Too bad, thoroughness is not evidence. I've seen very thorough discussions of why the universe is a single plutonium atom.
despite all evidence to the contrary
If someone ever wants to discuss actual evidence, I'm up for it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 05 2015, @08:29AM
khallow, I reply because I sense some sincerity in you. But we cannot debate climate change, because there is no debate. It is obvious to everyone that the denier position is only a facade, dependent on the demand to prove a negative, and committed to preserving the profits of the petrochemical industry. So where would you like to start? The increase in CO2 is really not debatable. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas? Do you want to dispute that? Or just the temperature profiles? Yes, facts, possibly explainable by other theories, but that really is not the issue, is it?
No, mostly we troll deniers here, as you have been trolled. But it is your own fault. Did you expect anyone to believe that you have an objective interest in the truth of the matter? No, we just want to get you on record, so you can be ignored in the future. I am sorry about that, I truly am. But if you want to have a serious discussion, you will need to find an new entry point. Denialism locks you out from the gitgo, and for good reason.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 05 2015, @09:08AM
But we cannot debate climate change, because there is no debate.
Don't be foolish. Of course, we can debate this. After all, there's history of debating far weirder and/or more established things like evidence for evolution or settling the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It is obvious to everyone that the denier position is only a facade, dependent on the demand to prove a negative, and committed to preserving the profits of the petrochemical industry.
There's two things to note here. First, what is "the" denier position? This are a common tendency to lump all disagreement with the current propaganda of catastrophic AGW and a rush to various expensive remedies into the broad category of "denier" and then attribute to it the most extreme position. I don't buy that this research came about just because someone finally wanted to study the social dynamics of scientific disagreement. Rather I see it as part of a larger strategic whole, attempting to discredit any disagreement with various world-wide public policies by implying those who disagree are either mentally ill or merely, as in this case, ignoring scientific evidence, which somehow wasn't persuasive enough in the first place.
So where would you like to start? The increase in CO2 is really not debatable. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas? Do you want to dispute that? Or just the temperature profiles? Yes, facts, possibly explainable by other theories, but that really is not the issue, is it?
Actually, no, I don't wish to dispute CO2 concentration; the observations that Earth's temperature is warming to some degree; or even the claim that humanity is partially responsible for global warming. I believe that there is an human-caused global warming climate effect, but that it has been exaggerated for political, ideological, and financial gain. If you ever want to discuss actual evidence and facts, then yes, I'll be interested in continuing this discussion at that time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:59AM
This idea that you can objectively interpret data is wrong. You need to assess how plausible the the different explanations are given the data. The way to do this has been known for hundreds of years, when will it be time to stop ignoring Bayes' theorem and saying things like 'science says so'?
Any idea on a new word for what science used to refer to? What about Nooscience, meaning 'thinking/intelligent/reason- based science'?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:34AM
Certainly is subjective. Human's are self-rationalising animals, so essentially you have to keep banging on and on at a subject until they realise they are using the "alarmist" part of their brains when they should be using logic with a healthy dose of skepticism. Learn to judge risks and determine when someone is lying for their self-interest.
Just today the Republicans are diverting 7+ billion of research cash away from these airy-fairy "studies" and back into hard sciences.
So good news - we'll soon be reading fewer of these one-sided studies which only seek to boost illogical arguments as fact while "their enemy" is discussing science and cause-and-effect and dressing down 'facts' as logical fallacies which even serve to break Newton's first law of motion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:40AM
What would convince you personally that danger was imminent and the best way to avoid it is drastic reduction in tropospheric co2? They need some kind of feat to be performed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:05AM
And look, you Republican Exxon dupe, there are more of us than there are of you, so our subjective is the new objective! Got that? Do we have to personally beat you upside the head with science courses and math and climate modelling? Once again, your "giant" ad hominem is tiny, miniscule, at best 3%!! So, your echo chamber is wrong. No matter how strong the echoes, still wrong. NO! Wrong. Good day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:27AM
These are some good examples of latroscience.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:14AM
I mean yeah, you may THINK you saw that big concrete block fall on your foot and it may seem that your foot is now pinned to the ground. Sure, you are feeling shocking amounts of pain from your foot, but that's just your view. As the owner of the building that the block allegedly fell from, I assure you it's just your opinion. Surely you can see that there are five lights?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:33AM
People have disagreements over stuff like that all the time. Nearly your exact example is even a well known magic trick: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwn1w7MJvk. [youtube.com]
There is no such thing as objectively interpreting data. All attempts to pretend there is will lead to sloppiness and confusion. The science doesn't say anything, the scientists say things.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:16PM
The rubber hand trick is amusing exactly because the illusion lasts only an instant before the objective observation replaces the brief subjective error.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:43PM
Ok, what precisely is the objective observation being made?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:06PM
That hand is not attached to my arm. I am quite certain that upon even brief observation, all present will agree with that. It is a testable observation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:15PM
Ok, so the data is
1) A hammer hit a hand
2) sjames showed expressions of surprise and pain
3) the hand is no longer attached to his arm
Therefore, what would you like to conclude? Perhaps you would like to add additional data.
I'm not being purposefully dense.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:30PM
Note, the term objective means that independent observers can draw the same conclusion from the same data. It does NOT mean that the village idiot can't get the wrong conclusion.
Subjective observations are things that are not subject to an independent observation. For example, that in spite of the and not being mine, the hit was painful is a subjective observation because only I actually felt the pain (however briefly). The objective interpretation is that I (the subject) reacted in a manner consistent with experiencing pain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:34PM
Perhaps we are talking past each other. I am talking about interpreting the data, what conclusions can be drawn. You are talking about the data itself.
For example, how likely is it that the fake hand was a glove vs totally unattached? Without certain information we would need to guess about that. There are many possibilities like this.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday May 29 2015, @05:19AM
Conclusions can be more of a sliding scale SOMETIMES. In other cases one party is just being disingenuous. In the example I gave, assuming the block matches a hole in the building, there is really only one conclusion for a sane person to draw. Anyone concluding otherwise is a kook, pure and simple.
The hand example is close to that. You see the rubber hand on the table. You see the person who was "hit" realizing to his surprise that he is unharmed after all. There really isn't much room for controversy over what actually happened. Consider, is it really sensible to conclude that the real hand detached from the pain and turned to rubber while the guy was clearly once bitten by a radioactive salamander (or was a Timelord within the first few hours after a regeneration) and so grew a new hand? Surely anyone seriously proposing that would at least be laughed at.
Some cases present more ambiguity but even then there is a boundary of reasonable conclusions. Consider, door broken and expensive TV missing. Most likely cause is a burglary. We must grant that it is not impossible that the owner pawned the set and staged the broken door as an insurance scam, but absent some sort of additional information, it's not the way to bet. Bigfoot wanted to watch the Superbowl is right out of the question absent some REALLY convincing additional evidence. If I reject the latter conclusion, that is not me being "subjective". If we find the pawn ticket in the owner's wallet, there's really not a lot of room for the subjective at all.
In the most classic coin toss (whose team is going to win), I would describe the arguments and conclusions as more emotional than subjective presuming the teams have similar recent records
We may perhaps be talking past each other. I would call the bad conclusions above sloppy reasoning or flat out lies, not subjective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:23PM
If coming to the "right" conclusion depends upon background knowledge in any way then it is subjective. Different "subjects" will have had different past experiences and thus beliefs, although in some cases these differences may be negligible.
Subjective is not a dirty word like you appear to have been trained to think. Denying the use of past experiences while interpreting information can only lead to confusion and error. It is a key part of rational behavior.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 30 2015, @01:01AM
Background knowledge isn't in itself subjective either. A coroner's report on cause of death is rarely subjective but it certainly requires background knowledge. Experience can lead to an appropriate conclusion more quickly through short cuts, but as long as the conclusion can then be shown to properly arise from the facts at hand, it remains (or becomes) objective. I certainly wouldn't advise denying their knowledge and experience.
I see a dog across the street. I called it a dog rather than a giraffe, not because I believe giraffe is a dirty word, but because that's not what I see (for one thing, it's neck is too short :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:45AM
I cannot imagine what leads you to think this other than lack of experience. Do you have a reference for that claim?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:15AM
Ever read a coroner's report? Some are cursory, some are in depth, but none involve the subjective. They describe the condition of the decadent, any remarkable findings, any witness reports and any known conditions surrounding the death. They then describe the death based on those findings. The latter is often identified as opinion since there are often too many unknowns to be more than 90% or so certain.
Where do you find the subjective? Where is the part about what it "feels" like the decedent is trying to tell the examiner? Where do you find the stuff that nobody else could have observed had they sat in on the autopsy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:06AM
Here is my claim "interpreting data is subjective"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:39AM
echo echo
Get the platinum bar.
Get it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:12AM
Lord Dimwit Flathead, I presume.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:17AM
Now I am sure this needs to be explained. Platinum bar? Meters? I don't get it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:37PM
ZORK! You are probably devoid of grey hair.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:37AM
echo echo
Get the platinum bar.
A seedy-looking individual with a large bag just wandered through the room. On the way through, he quietly abstracted all valuables from the room and from your possession, mumbling something about "doing unto others before..."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:12PM
rofl
Had to someone here with that knowledge.
Now give me back my bag!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday May 29 2015, @06:31PM
echo
Get: command not found
Get: command not found
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @02:32PM
Interesting quote from paper:
First, I am more interested in talking about the line of reasoning than any of the conclusions. They do describe the rationale in some detail with the quote above, which is good.
It is good that they recognize there may be other reasons for data consistent with an echo chamber than theirs. Then it goes downhill... the only other explanation considered is "chance". It is implausible there is zero relationship between beliefs and who you talk to, so this is a case where the chance explanation is a strawman.
On the good side, they require further evidence to support the echo chamber idea. Specifically that the presence of these transitive triads (A told B and C, B also told C) is positively correlated with agreement on the various questions they asked. This is slightly better than ruling out the chance explanation, but really can you not think of one other possible explanation for this? The lack of even suggested possibilities brings the "science"-ness of this work into question.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:50PM
but really can you not think of one other possible explanation for this?
Interesting critique. And possibly the elephant in the room. Besides chance and homophily (love that word, I may have to become a homophiliphobe!), the obvious explanation is intentional echo-chambering, based on private economic interest. In other words, shilling and astroturfing. It is so obvious, that the climate deniers turn it right around and accuse those who suggest action to counter global warming of having ulterior economic motivations. But maybe that is not what the study is attempting to understand. Maybe the real question is why such a tactic on the part of petrochemical corporations can actually work, how it is that normal people can be snookered into an echo chamber.
That's enough argumentum ad hominem giganticam for one post. Elephant in the room, get it? Platinum bar!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:05AM
I'm thinking more input required: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj-qBUWOYfE [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @03:54PM
Well the answer to that is pretty obvious and even fairly well researched. A large proportion of the population, those normally self-identifying as conservative, are averse to change. Historically this has been a successful evolutionary strategy because useful change has been sufficiently rare that suggested deviation from tradition was more likely to be self serving or have negative impact. However the accelerating pace of scientific and technologic change has led to so many advantageous disruptions that the conservative, who normally are part of the successful group due to avoiding wasting energy on fads and dangerous trends, have found themselves left behind and disenfranchised instead. Anybody who provides an excuse for their continued resistance to change can find very fertile ground indeed for any meme complex which validates the conservative/change averse approach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @10:22PM
These are all interesting theories, but you have to show how it compares to the data in the paper.