Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
While it's important to figure in all variables, it's also important to be honest about facts that might not favor our own opinions on the way things should be.
Which is exactly the problem. The supporters are not looking at the studies with an open mind to see how horribly flawed they are. The studies agree with their preconceptions and therefore they must be accurate.
Which is exactly the problem. The supporters are not looking at the studies with an open mind to see how horribly flawed they are.
Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Originally posted by Bert Bates:
...
So if all of these individuals and organizations are producing "junk science" on this topic... to what end? Are they all involved in a conspiracy? What would ALL of these institutions have to gain?
Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
I also found material that supports your argument too, whether it be true or not, I am completely amazed that England is comparable with the States. I live in London and the only safety worries I have are aggressive dog in the park maybe all the violent stuff happens after dark when the pubs close.
Originally posted by peter wooster:
So you tell us what you know about the background and credentials of Steve Milloy. Or readers could just look here.
42
Le Cafe Mouse - Helen's musings on the web - Java Skills and Thrills
"God who creates and is nature is very difficult to understand, but he is not arbitrary or malicious." OR "God does not play dice." - Einstein
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
and they could look at http://www.junkscience.com and get the treehuggers' arguments debunked...
Like the man or not, but he is right in stating that there is a LOT of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo being passed off as hard data by lobby groups with a political agenda and that the press if all too eager to lap it all up.
Two things,Originally posted by Bert Bates:
So what I'm to gather fron your argument is that we should believe Fox news, but distrust the following organizations, believing instead that all of their studies are horribly flawed?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Er, I got married in 2000, shortly before the tax law changes, and I do our taxes. I'm pretty sure we saw a change already.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Max Habibi: by and large, I tend to believe public institutions over corporate one.
I think a great deal of the crime in England is in the countryside. Victim disarmament weighs most heavily upon people who cannot depend upon having a policeman always nearby.Gerald Davis: I live in London and the only safety worries I have are aggressive dog in the park maybe all the violent stuff happens after dark when the pubs close.
Joe King: I also live in London, and generally feel fairly safe. As long as you stay fairly sensible then things are ok. I think what skews the crime figures a lot in the UK (especially in cities) is the after pub trouble.
This is because traveling to Greece is now massively affordable to the English working class. ("Common" and "vulgar" are synonyms, you know.)Joe King: Years ago people in other countries had a generally favourable view of the British, but now we're more and more seen as lager-louts and thugs. Whenever I go to Greece to visit the almost-relatives I feel the need to apologise for what happens in Faliraki. That's another thing I don't get - why a large number of people feel the need to travel to such a beautiful country as Greece and then head straight away to an English-style pub and to eat fish and chips.
42
Try actually reading one of these studies with a scientific mindset instead of reading the news summaries. They are junk science.
Second, just because there are a lot of studies means nothing. This is the "if I throw a lot of shit on the wall, no one will notice it stinks" theory. I am sure the psychiatry departments of all these institutions do have an agenda whether it is looking for more funding or just trying to get published so they can get tenure. If you think otherwise then you don;t understand how things work in the soft science deaprtments of our major universities.
Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Originally posted by Bert Bates:
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try however, and although we might not ever be able to conclusively "prove" some things, when we collect a preponderance of data leaning in one direction, and we apply Occam's Razor to a situation, we can often move forward with good confidence.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
�� �� �� �� � � ��
Remember that the brain is totally reliant on outside stimuli.
Really? So there is no such thing as free will since everything comes from outside? So I guess quietly sitting in a room and thinking must be impossible since there is no outside stimuli to get the old brain going.
So your neocortex might be able to determine logically that what you're watching on TV isn't real, but your amygdala doesn't agree... and biochemical tests on adrenaline levels back this up.
Interestingly, scientists haven't even concluded that the amygdala is ionvolved in agression or violence. It is likely that the amygdala is involved in processing violent scenes but it isn't clear that this means anything as far as violent behavior is concerned since it isn't clear that the amygdala is linked to the cortex. In any case, the studies you are referring to involved showing incredibly gruesome violence, much worse than is ever seen on TV. And it certainly doesn't show a link to any non-violent TV fare which you need to show since your proposal would tax all TV not just violent TV.
Also, Americans are not the only people on the planet with TV. If TV universally causes increased violence, then why don't we see increased violence universally? Or are Americans more susceptible to violence from watching TV?
Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Thomas Paul:
Nice study, except that three months ago another study showed exactly the opposite... that women who have more milk decrease their risk of all cancers. Obviously these studies can't both be right so it is likely that one of these studies has missed something else that is affecting their results.
Or they are just seeing statistical variation. When looking at low probability events like cancer, it's pretty easy for the noise to obscure the signal. Twenty years ago we didn't tend to see such studies because anything below a 95% statistical confidence level was considered lack of evidence for a link; nowadays, though, it seems like some of the studies don't even bother to calculate their level of statistical confidence, so some pretty inconclusive results get reported as conclusive.
42
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
You speak of the brain as if it is some foreign occupying power on your body. The brain doesn't trust anything beyond what I want them to trust. When I take off my glasses I don;t go around saying that there must be something with the laws of physics because the world seems to be very blurry. Everything that goes into my brain is filtered by my experience and knowledge. I don't see someone get stabbed on TV and run to the phone to call 911. And anyone who thinks that violence on TV affects people the same way as real violence has never witnessed real violence. Trust me on this one, Bert. Real violence is PROFOUNDLY more affective.
Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere - Voltaire. tiny ad:
a bit of art, as a gift, that will fit in a stocking
https://gardener-gift.com
|