SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Can 'brain games' really help you improve the way your brain functions?
You've probably seen ads for apps promising to make you smarter in just a few minutes a day. Hundreds of so-called "brain training" programs can be purchased for download. These simple games are designed to challenge mental abilities, with the ultimate goal of improving the performance of important everyday tasks.
But can just clicking away at animations of swimming fish or flashed streets signs on your phone really help you improve the way your brain functions?
Two large groups of scientists and mental health practitioners published consensus statements, months apart in 2014, on the effectiveness of these kinds of brain games. Both included people with years of research experience and expertise in cognition, learning, skill acquisition, neuroscience and dementia. Both groups carefully considered the same body of evidence available at the time.
Yet, they issued exactly opposite statements.
One concluded that "there is little evidence that playing brain games improves underlying broad cognitive abilities, or that it enables one to better navigate a complex realm of everyday life."
The other argued that "a substantial and growing body of evidence shows that certain cognitive training regimens can significantly improve cognitive function, including in ways that generalize to everyday life."
[...]The most important lesson from the literature on training is this: If you want to improve your performance on a task that's important to you, practice that task. Playing brain games may only make you better at playing brain games.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by FatPhil on Thursday June 13 2019, @09:30AM (33 children)
Every time I hear that, I know that there'll be another side to the argument, and quite often one with well-trained and educated scientific supporters, often ones who are made underdogs in the field because of their non-mainstream conclusions. Climate skeptics are a classic example.
If it's real science, then the argument should be "The *experiments prove* ..." instead (where "proof" doesn't mean absolute unerring knowledge, merely that that it the most probably correct, and parsimoniously so, interpretation of these results that we have at the time).
Science is not a democracy or a popularity contest, it's about adopting what works best.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @10:16AM (13 children)
By this measure, many sciences do not qualify.
For instance, "the experiment conclusively proves Hawkins radiation is real" has little chances to happen and certify astrophysics' claim as science.
I'm afraid you'll have to lower your expectations to "consistently manages to provide non-contradictory predictions that are validated by observations of the reality" - not "always provide" and not necessary "observations on outcomes of experiments"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday June 13 2019, @11:05AM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @11:18AM
Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world that's fully a scientific environment?
In such a world I wouldn't need to hear clueless journos explaining how science is a matter of opinion, as good as the rednecks'es ignorance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Redundant) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:43PM (1 child)
Nobody created their own sun, then threw a a planet at it, to see if it would orbit. Orbital mechanics are therefore not science!
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday June 14 2019, @04:13AM
Never played Universe Sandbox eh? (:
/s
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:19PM (7 children)
Or, you know, we could just understand GP's statement about "The experiments *prove*..." as the standard, normal use of the word "prove" in English used in >99% of all cases. To "prove" in normal standard English has never meant some sort of formal deductive "proof" as in Euclid. To "prove" is to offer supporting evidence for a claim, sometimes to a particular standard. For example, the phrase "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" makes no sense if "proof" is only an absolute yes or no for all times and places.
Also, historically "proof" had to do with testing the quality of something -- an argument or a substance/thing. It still survives a bit in things like "proofing yeast," where "proof" was basically testing to see whether the yeast was still alive and working and could be used to raise bread.
So, an experiment "proving" something is well in line with the history of the word "prove" (as in testing something, in this case the quality of a theory/model) as well as in modern standard English usage of "prove" to mean to provide evidence in support of.
I haven't researched this in detail, but my sense is that the bizarre attempt to restrict the word "proof" to the mathematical sense when talking about philosophy of science is an artifact of debates in the philosophy of science only in the past century or so. I'm not sure why the heck we'd ever want to use the mathematical sense in relationship to science, since, as you implicitly are arguing, science can't use deductive logic generally to "prove" things in such a way.
Instead, we seem stuck with this totally weird set of arguments that only happen among those who know something about math and science where somebody says, "Science proves..." and then some other guy says, "Well, you know science can't REALLY 'prove'..."
Why the hell do we have this conversation all the time? Why not just accept that "prove" only means "deductive reasoning asserted to be valid for all times and places" when we're talking about formal logic or mathematical "proofs" and in all other places, "prove" just means what it means in English >99% of the time??
Sidenote: I find it exceptionally ironic that these bizarre conversations about "proof" in science seem to have really become common after Gödel basically showed even "proof" in mathematics is always going to have limitations too. So "proof" in the sense that you are assuming NEVER EXISTS -- not in math, not in science... NEVER. Why can't we quit this absurd argument, which most people on this site know very well. The word "prove" in common parlance means to produce a significant piece or amount of supporting evidence. That's ALL it means in normal English.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @05:15PM (2 children)
Alternatively, you could note that my point was directed towards the hard requirement of experimentation for something to qualify as science.
Would have been less effort than mixing that wall of text of etymological dough which will not prove given the context of a non-native English speaker (not that I don't appreciate your considerations, thanks for them)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:05PM (1 child)
Point taken, though my comment was directed less at you alone than at the thread overall and OP's hedging at invoking the word "prove."
I've seen too many comment threads taking the form, "This study proves..." followed by several comments on how "science can never 'prove' anything..." I just get tired of seeing such discussions, which seem rather pointless and more about semantics rather than substance. I assumed you were also invoking that idea, along with the more specific point. Apologies if this was misdirected.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:13PM
No harm caused and otherwise an interesting point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 13 2019, @06:21PM (1 child)
It's a rhetorical technique used to ignore the vast amount of evidence behind certain, very specific, scientific domains.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @07:59AM
It's the group that constantly changes their predictions every time their previous one is demonstrated to be false that you ought to be more critical of.
I trust the Mayans more when it comes to predicting the end of the world.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @07:55AM
As a mathematician, I always get wound up by people who can't tell the difference between mathematics and science, and consequently between mathematical proof (absolute, even if dependent on something unproven, such as GRH), and scientific proof (relative to what else we know at the time, up for changing any time we know differently).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @08:04AM
(Same etymological root as "probe", so hardly surprising.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @08:25PM
You know it! The cancer cluster around her grave [wikipedia.org] is incontrovertible proof!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @10:53AM (12 children)
The scientific consensus is that the principle of minimal action [wikipedia.org] is generally applicable classical, relativistic and quantum mechanics included. Show me the underdogs that contest it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday June 13 2019, @11:00AM (11 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @11:24AM (10 children)
You'll have first to show me a scientific paper in which the author presents a narative.
I have this nagging feeling that narative is a thing that comes from the journos writing about science. And if my feeling is right, the question that raises is "who's at fault when unfairly accusing scientists of narrating and not presenting assumptions, models and results?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday June 13 2019, @11:54AM (9 children)
Part of the problem is the combined dumbing down and mangling of science by intermediaries, journos included. One thing that's essential to teach people is that when you hear a dumbed-down version of science that you understand, and your understanding leads to something contradictory or absurd, then that doesn't mean there's a problem with the science, the problem is probably with the dumbing down. Alas, the dumbing down is necessary in order to get any idea of the science accross. It's a tightrope - how much dumbing down, and inevitable mangling, is acceptable. As long as people are told they're not being told the whole story, damage is minimised. The keen will investigate deeper, going from popular texts to high-school texts to college-level texts
But that's not always true. I've never been happy with the supernova model for the creation of large quantities of transferric elements. There was scientific consensus on that - we are star stuff! I can't say I understand stellar dynamics, but it just didn't seem to pass the sniff test to me - requiring particle capture in an expanding medium. Imagine my happiness when the more recent admission that probably most of the heavier elements come from neutron stars (mergers thereof) was announced. That absolutely passes the sniff test - requiring breakdown of things larger than nuclei.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 13 2019, @05:36PM (8 children)
Hey-ho, no, you surely got it wrong.
How about, before expanding, part of the now ejecta was compressed by the shock-wave to the point of forming heavier-than-iron elements.
Because, you see iron nucleus is the bottom nuclear energy - there's no chance to form a heavier element by "free capture", you'll have to "squeeze" the two fragments together and keep them long enough until they "cool down" (emit the excess of energy as radiation, without fission).
You know? Similar with the making of diamonds using explosives.
(how do you like my dumbing down of science? Large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @07:47AM (7 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @08:00AM (6 children)
(when you ask "Why is..." you implicitly inject the assumption it is)
So, is it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @08:05AM (5 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @08:19AM
"Prove" it! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @08:39AM (3 children)
You know that the guys at Dubna spend their time accelerating lighter elements to energies comparable with the shockwaves in novae and slam them against heavy targets to synthesize transuranic elements, right? That "proves" that energetic-enough collision is a valid mechanism for the creation of transironic elements (grin)
The fact that neutron-star collisions create the same doesn't automatically mean that it is the sole mechanism for creation of transferrics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @10:11AM (2 children)
Take your time, I'm not in a rush.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @10:33AM (1 child)
Confused. Help. How should I interpret this, then?
Is it just that the fact that heavier elements can be produced in a supernova and you accept it in spite of the unhappiness that causes to you? :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 14 2019, @12:57PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:38PM (1 child)
Please stop using that word. A sceptic is someone who doubts. The so-called "climate sceptics" don't doubt, they are absolutely convinced that there is no man-made climate change. That's the opposite of being sceptic.
Note that this is true no matter whether man-made climate change actually is true or not. Someone who is convinced that human activity does not change the climate is no more a sceptic than someone who is convinced that human activity does change the climate.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:32PM
The climate skeptics who have adopted the moniker "Lukewarmers" are undeniably skeptics, and yet they clearly state that not only is there global warming, that a significant component of it is anthropogenic (many are happy with ratios around a half). They just don't believe any of the IPCC models (by which I mean they don't just believe that the predictions made by the simulations of the model are incorrect, but that they actually believe the model itself is incorrect).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:11PM (3 children)
"The scientific consensus is" is shorthand for "We have a mountain of data and experiments that all agree with this conclusion, and since we lack the resources needed to perform a more specific experiment the people who've studied the field are going with what all our agreed-upon knowledge tells us. There are a few contrarians who disagree with this, but so far they haven't produced any data or experimental results that has withstood scrutiny and successfully challenged our conclusions."
For example, if you were to take the Empire State Building, and lift the whole thing 500' upwards and let go, the scientific consensus is that it would fall back to the ground and be really destructive wherever it landed. Do I have the experimental evidence to prove it? No, because you'd never get approval to actually lift the Empire State Building 500' upwards, and getting the equipment together to do it would present a bit of a budgetary problem and engineering challenge. But I can start with principles of Newtonian physics and the limits on materials to flex and compress and shear to reach a reasonable guess about what would happen.
I know you want to be able to conclude that the "scientific consensus" is a giant conspiracy of eggheads trying to mislead the public for some reason, or a bunch of fools deluding themselves via groupthink, because you want to be able to ignore certain scientific findings. But whether you believe in those scientific findings or not has no bearing on whether those findings are true.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday June 13 2019, @01:26PM (2 children)
I have no problem with a concrete scientific concensus. I object to the reliance on references to an abstract scientific consensus as a line of argumentation. It's at least 2 logical fallacies. Do you not see the words "when one side claims" in the subject line. It's the *claiming* that's the warning flag. "Double blinded studies show...", "A metaanalysis of NNN papers publised in XX high impact journals shows..." is how you should be starting your argument, not "The scientific consensus is that...".
Can you think of any issue where the strongest argument put forward by one side begins "The scientific consensus is..." where there isn't a group of scientists who are vehemently on the other side? That's not how you win science arguments, so it isn't how you should be presenting science arguments.
/Logos/ trumps /ethos/ (and /pathos/).
> I know you want to be able to conclude that the "scientific consensus" is a giant conspiracy...
You don't know that, as it's not true. Please retract that assertion.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday June 13 2019, @03:23PM
No, but that's not because the evidence isn't clear. When you have issues with approximately 99.5% of professionals in the field reaching conclusion A, and 0.5% of professionals in the field reaching conclusion not-A, and that hasn't changed in a long time, especially when the evidence for conclusion A continues to pile up over that period, and especially especially when that 0.5% of professionals in the field is getting their salaries paid by people who would benefit from not-A being true, yes, I think it's reasonable to say that that 0.5% of professionals in the field is almost definitely wrong. Particularly if the people arguing for not-A don't have their opinion change when presented with new evidence supporting A.
A real-life example of why this matters: There are a few biologists who are vehemently arguing against evolution, and are trying to look for biological structures that could not have come about naturally. These biologists are getting paid by the Discovery Institute and other creationist outlets to try to push the creationist viewpoint. From that, should we be concluding that the Theory of Evolution is wrong or undecided?
Without a doubt experiment is the strongest possible evidence. What you're trying to oppose is that the next-strongest evidence, when direct experiment is impossible, is widespread agreement of the vast majority of experts backed by past experiments and data. Continuing with the evolution example, we have examples of evolution happening in modern times, boatloads of fossil data consistent with evolution happening, several known mechanisms for evolution to happen (genetic mutation, sexual selection, natural selection), but what we don't have is direct observations of what happened in the Cambrian because we don't have a time machine. And creationists use that little bit of uncertainty to convince people who think like you do that the Theory of Evolution is a tool of Satan to convince you to deny the truth in Genesis.
And this is important because some people have decided that "somebody wrote it on the Internet" is even remotely the same level of certainty as "99.5% of experts agree". It's not.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 13 2019, @08:30PM
The cold fusion / free energy group seem to fit that description, but in that case the consensus is formed around the lack of evidence rather than the abundance of evidence.
The "creation scientists" also fit the description very well. The consensus side has a ton of observations that are largely consistent with the consensus model, and the other side has a slew of ad hoc explanations that are generally not consistent with each other. You can show the evidence, explain the model, show how they hold together, but if the group you're talking to ignore all of that and base their model upon their belief system rather than the observations, you have nowhere else to turn to except "the scientific consensus is . . . "
Somewhere along the way climate science became a political issue (basically when the big fossil fuel industry made it into one). It is now the same as with creation scientists, where you have a mountain of diverse measurements that are consistent with a general model of what is going on, and you have a vocal group nitpicking details with ad hoc and outright wrong counterpoints (like how the sea level is rising due to rocks falling into the ocean [sciencemag.org] (and all the other stuff in that link). And, more importantly, and just like with the creation scientists, there is no alternative model being put forward.
"The scientific consensus", in this case at least, is the scientific consensus model because there isn't another credible alternative to debate against, and the one we have was arrived at by consensus.