SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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"