BioWare - Christina Norman Leaves Bioware

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Please keep in mind that it is common practise in "science" that studies are often putting emphasis o the results if they are in favour of the company (or other organisattions) which has supported iit (financially, that is), and that study outcomes which are not in favour of them are suppressed.

I'm mostly meaning clinical studies on drugs and medicine in general.

I have learned that it is common practise in drug companies to suppress results they don't want to be going into the public.

The result is Agnotology : the "science" of suppressing knowledge and spreading "non-knowledge" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

 

[crpgnut]

I didn't know JemyM thought of himself as some type of psychology expert! Interesting, oops nope, not really interesting. I generally avoid off-topic and politics and religion because of the pseudo-intellectuals who reside there. I didn't expect to read such drivel in news comments….

As far as their being more logical females than illogical? Not happening. They're geared differently than we are.

As far as the original topic? Ah, what was it?…….

 

[lostforever]

from what I understand, science is not perfect but its still better than other alternatives....

 

[JDR13]

I didn't know JemyM thought of himself as some type of psychology expert!

Where have you been for the last five years?

 

[pibbur]

@crpgnut

Thanks for the reminder.

Says pibbur who admits he may bee to hasty in derailing/contribute to derailing of threads.

 

[JemyM]

I didn't know JemyM thought of himself as some type of psychology expert! Interesting, oops nope, not really interesting. I generally avoid off-topic and politics and religion because of the pseudo-intellectuals who reside there. I didn't expect to read such drivel in news comments….

As far as their being more logical females than illogical? Not happening. They're geared differently than we are.

As far as the original topic? Ah, what was it?…….

This is an example of what I talked with DArtagnan above, in which the word "expert" (or "scientist", or "educated", or "intellectuals", or "pseudo-intellectuals") is used in a derogative sense in order to not have to meet someones statements and still feel like one did.

Note how crpgnut uses this way of thinking to;
a) Preserve his already had position
b) Disregard the need to support his position

Anti-intellectual groups tend to promote a line of reasoning that can then be used in rhetoric. The following is a popular way of rejecting facts and reason without the need to support ones own position.

The technique requires two components;
1. (The strawman) Any attempt to present facts, evidence, logical argument or science in a debate means that the presenter believes himself/herself to be an expert.
2. Belief that oneself is an expert is wrong/immoral.

Note that I haven't self identified as an expert in the subject. All I have introduced in this thread are facts (open for rebuttal) and counterarguments (again open for rebuttal). The claim that I claim to be an expert is introduced only to avoid the need to also present facts and arguments for ones position.

As far as I concern, when an individual does this he or she do so in order to preserve their identity. Some people associate insight and status; if they don't know something they feel in-superior. In order to preserve their self-esteem they create techniques to not end up in a such situation, including the line of reasoning above. This is, however, a self destructive behavior. If one continuously rejects people who might know something they do not, one gives up an excellent source of insight. By continuously rejecting sources of insight, one preserve oneself in an ignorant state and will repeatedly end up in the situation where one feel in-superior.

 

[holeraw]

This is, however, a self destructive behavior. If one continuously rejects people who might know something they do not, one gives up an excellent source of insight. By continuously rejecting sources of insight, one preserve oneself in an ignorant state and will repeatedly end up in the situation where one feel in-superior.

I find myself surprised and confused all too often by how people are constantly dismissing such a simple and rational concept. It is of course the norm on the web but I wish it was limited there. I also really wish it was merely self-destructive. It really gets me because such behavior actually has a very damaging effect on my job.

 

[JemyM]

Yeah, but why would you think I consider being critical of science to be moral?

You said;
"He suffers from trusting the scientific process and its community blindly".

Lets say "trusting the scientific process" is negative, positive or neutral. Your word of "suffer" in this statement means you consider this an unwanted quality (immoral).

Also, this is a strawman. I do no such thing. By introducing this strawman you give hints to how you perceive the world.

Interesting, but what's your point? Are you trying to claim I have no education or that I'm protecting myself? Have you considered thinking outside that little box of yours?

I believe you pose your "criticism" as a positive quality in yourself in order to boost your self esteem. Calling someone else uncritical is a way for you to feel superior.

However, you aren't thinking outside the box, you just reject the need to gather information and sort that information.

I don't doubt it. But must I be you?

Having the same line of reasoning isn't the same as being the same person. The idea should be separated from the individual who holds it.

You don't think I believe what I believe for the same reasons you used to believe in christianity, do you?

What I believe is that you have the same relationship with "experts" as I had when I was younger. Many things you say about "thinking outside the box" and the value of being critical are the same strawmen I applied to those with more education than me. I kept on reasoning that way until philosophy.

I was raised by my parents to think for myself - particularly by my father in this way - and he never gave me any direction to follow as to what was right. We were extremely free and independent as children, and he managed to instill a great confidence in me. Obviously, as a son who loved his father very much - I picked up on some of his beliefs - but let's just say I differ in some pretty vital ways

Basically this means your philosophy reached Socrates, but not the 2500 years of western intellectual history that came after him.

That's why I've come to rely on myself and my ability to perceive like I have.
I've never really believed anything people told me on faith, essentially. I like to understand something before I believe in it - and I rarely understand anything enough to REALLY believe in it.

You should not assume that someone who quotes scientific research and present scientific theories cannot in the meantime be critical to the same.

There is a difference between evidence and theory that survived critical thinking. They might still be wrong, but their ability to survive makes such ideas stronger than those who didn't. One who engages in the will to know, may actually have to resort to multiple possible explanations at the same time, without holding either one as absolutely true.

 

[SAGO]

You said;
"He suffers from trusting the scientific process and its community blindly".

Lets say "trusting the scientific process" is negative, positive or neutral. Your word of "suffer" in this statement means you consider this an unwanted quality (immoral).

Also, this is a strawman. I do no such thing. By introducing this strawman you give hints to how you perceive the world.



I believe you pose your "criticism" as a positive quality in yourself in order to boost your self esteem. Calling someone else uncritical is a way for you to feel superior.

However, you aren't thinking outside the box, you just reject the need to gather information and sort that information.



Having the same line of reasoning isn't the same as being the same person. The idea should be separated from the individual who holds it.



What I believe is that you have the same relationship with "experts" as I had when I was younger. Many things you say about "thinking outside the box" and the value of being critical are the same strawmen I applied to those with more education than me. I kept on reasoning that way until philosophy.



Basically this means your philosophy reached Socrates, but not the 2500 years of western intellectual history that came after him.



You should not assume that someone who quotes scientific research and present scientific theories cannot in the meantime be critical to the same.

There is a difference between evidence and theory that survived critical thinking. They might still be wrong, but their ability to survive makes such ideas stronger than those who didn't. One who engages in the will to know, may actually have to resort to multiple possible explanations at the same time, without holding either one as absolutely true.

keep preaching the TRUTH brother, this was all predetermined to happen

including this

 

[hishadow]

Allow me to derail this thread further. From all of us male gamers: Let's hope future female game designers will follow the trail of past ones!

 

[ManWhoJaped]

Or… let's not.

First, the sentence "Experts have discovered" gives me a headache.

Second, let me explain why "2" is flawed to the core with an example.

Imagine you are someone who are not so good at statistics, nor interpreting science. You pick up from somewhere that there is a Group A that are on-average or generally more competent than Group B. You are put in a spot in which you have to hire competent people. Based on what you learned, you hire Group B.

Now, what you did not know, is that the average was 4/6 and you hired 1 million people out of Group B. This means you hired 400.000 incompetent people. One out of three in your organization is incompetent for their job. Not only that, you also failed to realize that 40% (almost half) of Group A were perfectly competent at handling what you wanted and superior to the 400.000 incompetent people you now have on your staff.

This is why discussing average or general differences between huge populations is misleading in everyday practice.

So next time someone near you suggest you should do something differently, let's not ponder whether or not the difference in opinion is in their brains. It might be in yours.


That said, many of those points are simply wrong. For instance, poor math scores among boys is an epidemic in Sweden. There is a book that analyze the science behind several of the statements done in the article called; Delusions of Gender.

What you have actually said is this.

1. Data can be misinterpreted.
2. Therefore your data is meaningless and should be discounted.

Then you go on to say, but your data is proved wrong anyway. Because I have some colloquial evidence to the contrary.

1. Girls get better math scores.
1a Which is completely invalid if we consider girls are more often to take idiot level math classes.
1b and is also invalid if the female dominated school system is biased towards girls (which since bias of this kind is the basis of almost all feminist manifestos, we should assume it's incredibly biased if we subscribe to this kind of thinking).
1c And of course assumes grades have anything to do with, well, anything. Do grades even say what one's knowledge level is let alone their innate talent? I can present a lot of colloquial evidence to the contrary.

but all that is immaterial because if we compare the best girl mathematician in the world to the best boy one we all know who the winner is. We can also fill that in backwards for every single science, going back all the way to the start of recorded history.

Of course this is not to say all women are illogical but really the things previously presented are facts. They are not open to discussion much, except to go to look at studies and maybe find fault.

Of course there is a great great bias against these particular facts, and any facts that in any way show one race has any edge over another, no matter how insignificant.

So Einstein is smarter than Gertrude Stein. So what? Doesn't mean I am smarter than my sister, for example. I like to think I am but I'd have to do a lot to really prove it as she is exceptionally intelligent person.

But here is what is reprehensible, it's when people like you discount data entirely because it doesn't fit with your ideology.

You come right out and say that 'people' create straw men and discredit experts to keep their world view. Well, experts in what? Sociology? Womens studies? Funny how experts in hard scientists (such as ME) always find this people are incredibly full of crap. As full of crap as when you 'disprove' the better at math part by pointing to a ridiculous piece of information with no meaning in any real context.

You immediately switch to 'these people', using weasel words and painting the opposition as what? Rush Limbaugh fans? Well I think the guy's an idiot too, or would be if he believed anything he actually says, which is doubtful. So who is making a straw man here?

Who is discrediting experts?

Sorry man, but you are doing both, and you have no idea how to be logical if this is really your considered opinion.

It's like people who say there's no such thing as PMS? Oh no? Well, I suffer through it second hand quite enough to know how real it is.

Anyone who says there's no biological difference between men or women or thinks hormones have no effect on how people think is completely out of their mind.

 

[JemyM]

What you have actually said is this.

1. Data can be misinterpreted.
2. Therefore your data is meaningless and should be discounted.

No. I said that base rate is meaningless if it's done on a large population and the differences are small. A pretty simple thing to grasp. Building a response with a strawman isn't a good premise and unfortunally make the rest of your rant kinda meaningless.

 

[SAGO]

No. I said that base rate is meaningless if it's done on a large population and the differences are small. A pretty simple thing to grasp. Building a response with a strawman isn't a good premise and unfortunally make the rest of your rant kinda meaningless.

but isnt small a matter of opinmnionm? you are very arrogant to just say ''ur argument is dumb because it is starwman and is meangingless''

''but what makes the argument a strawman!''

''fuck off fagget''

it was destined

 

[DArtagnan]

You said;
"He suffers from trusting the scientific process and its community blindly".

Lets say "trusting the scientific process" is negative, positive or neutral. Your word of "suffer" in this statement means you consider this an unwanted quality (immoral).

You're missing the vital bit, aren't you?

The word "blindly" is what you're looking for

Oh, and I don't go mixing morals with what's useful.

Also, this is a strawman. I do no such thing. By introducing this strawman you give hints to how you perceive the world.

It's not a strawman that I perceive you as one who has a tendency to trust in science blindly after a certain point. It's just what I see before me, but it doesn't have to be accurate.

I don't mind giving hints to how I perceive the world. In fact, I try to go out of my way to make that very clear.

I believe you pose your "criticism" as a positive quality in yourself in order to boost your self esteem. Calling someone else uncritical is a way for you to feel superior.

I suppose you would see things that way. After all, I think it's been your theory about me since forever. I wonder if you can even conceive of a person without the need to feel superior on a daily basis.

However, you aren't thinking outside the box, you just reject the need to gather information and sort that information.

No, I don't reject that. I simply point out that gathering information is always a process where information may be missed.

Having the same line of reasoning isn't the same as being the same person. The idea should be separated from the individual who holds it.

You're being willfully obtuse, as you very well know I didn't mean literally the same person.

What I believe is that you have the same relationship with "experts" as I had when I was younger. Many things you say about "thinking outside the box" and the value of being critical are the same strawmen I applied to those with more education than me. I kept on reasoning that way until philosophy.

I have no doubt that is what you believe. In fact, every single thing you believe about me, is based on what you once were - but now you're "past" that point.

This is incredibly revealing of excessive arrogance.

Basically this means your philosophy reached Socrates, but not the 2500 years of western intellectual history that came after him.

I think I'll take Socrates over "western intellectual history" in many cases, thank you.

You should not assume that someone who quotes scientific research and present scientific theories cannot in the meantime be critical to the same.

My assumption is not based on your quotes, but your approach to science and your way of appearing 100% certain every day with some new bit of research you may have read about. No one who takes truth seriously, can be that confident about that many things. It's impossible to take you seriously with the frequency with which you claim to hold the key to so many vital questions.

Haven't you noticed how (more or less) every day you post some kind of "revelation" with the relevant quotes to support it?

I tend to "test" people who make this kind of claim sufficiently often, and I observe how smart they are - and whether they falter when confronted. You're a smart young man, no doubt, but you're very far from being smart enough to know and understand these things you pretend to know and understand as "truth".

There is a difference between evidence and theory that survived critical thinking. They might still be wrong, but their ability to survive makes such ideas stronger than those who didn't. One who engages in the will to know, may actually have to resort to multiple possible explanations at the same time, without holding either one as absolutely true.

Ideas can survive indefinitely in the mind that refuses to acknowledge their death.

 

[DArtagnan]

I find myself surprised and confused all too often by how people are constantly dismissing such a simple and rational concept. It is of course the norm on the web but I wish it was limited there. I also really wish it was merely self-destructive. It really gets me because such behavior actually has a very damaging effect on my job.

Sometimes, you can dismiss the approach of a person, without dismissing the "concept" that he might know something you don't.

In fact, I believe everyone in the world knows something useful that others don't.

It's more about how you go about presenting what you know, and how open you are to the fact that you MAY not understand that which you know.

I find it equally disturbing that people trust so willingly in books and what they see on TV - rather than their own ability to think and perceive.

That's exactly how we get so many "ants" like Jemy refers to. So, it's not really consistent with his desire for less of us to behave like ants.

 

[holeraw]

Sometimes, you can dismiss the approach of a person, without dismissing the "concept" that he might know something you don't.

In fact, I believe everyone in the world knows something useful that others don't.

It's more about how you go about presenting what you know, and how open you are to the fact that you MAY not understand that which you know.

Are you telling me that it's not what I said, it's the way I said it?
Don't bite man… (I've had this discussion so many times…)

I find it equally disturbing that people trust so willingly in books and what they see on TV - rather than their own ability to think and perceive.

That's exactly how we get so many "ants" like Jemy refers to. So, it's not really consistent with his desire for less of us to behave like ants.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't "trust so willingly" in books and tv and whatever else but I don't dismiss them by default and that's simply because I am convinced that I can't possibly acquire any substantial amount of knowledge by thinking really really hard. I also don't have the time or the will to personally observe and document everything there is to know. The knowledge of others is simply something I can take advantage of and a critical approach doesn't simply consist of rejecting everything that doesn't fit my preconceptions.

 

[DArtagnan]

Are you telling me that it's not what I said, it's the way I said it?
Don't bite man… (I've had this discussion so many times…)

No, I'm telling you it's not what was said.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't "trust so willingly" in books and tv and whatever else but I don't dismiss them by default and that's simply because I am convinced that I can't possibly acquire any substantial amount of knowledge by thinking really really hard. I also don't have the time or the will to personally observe and document everything there is to know. The knowledge of others is simply something I can take advantage of and a critical approach doesn't simply consist of rejecting everything that doesn't fit my preconceptions.

You don't give me much credit, do you?

Do you really think I just sit in a box thinking without any outside input? Hehe, well - I guess such an idea would make my approach less convincing.

In any case, who cares.

I'm not really out to get people away from their way of doing things, as much as I like to preserve the right to be critical of things, even when others are not.

You should obviously trust what makes sense to you, and it's no secret that most people I encounter seem to be full of shit, which makes me the odd one out. Fortunately for myself, I feel reasonably comfortable not fitting in with the popular ways of thinking and approaching knowledge.

Let's say I don't feel like I'm missing out

 

[JemyM]

You're missing the vital bit, aren't you?
The word "blindly" is what you're looking for
Oh, and I don't go mixing morals with what's useful.

It's not a strawman that I perceive you as one who has a tendency to trust in science blindly after a certain point. It's just what I see before me, but it doesn't have to be accurate.

No I didn't. Trusting the "scientific process" and the "scientific community" are two extremely different things and you clearly mentioned both in the same sentence. Tge second is a strawman. I do not care the slightest whether or not something comes from the "scientific community". I care about observations and the process of generating observations.

The latter is true in part. I believe the scientific process is the best way to collect data, but part of science us improving the tool. However, I have spent alot of time on metatheory where problems with the process is in focus. For example, "you get what you ask for" is a common issue with any science dealing with asking people something. Operationalization is the part of the process where many problems creep in.

The prejudice is that being in a field makes you less critical to that field. It's the opposite. Spend time in a field and you learn the problems in it's methods. Sometimes you have to juggle different perspectives at the same time, which is why a scientist is the last you wish to ask if you want straight answers.

I don't mind giving hints to how I perceive the world. In fact, I try to go out of my way to make that very clear.

Thats good. A discussion in which people discuss in order to come closer to the truth also demand of each debater to present a logically coherent perspective, but also adjust their perspective if rebutted.

I suppose you would see things that way. After all, I think it's been your theory about me since forever. I wonder if you can even conceive of a person without the need to feel superior on a daily basis.

We are nords. Heard about Jantes law?

No, I don't reject that. I simply point out that gathering information is always a process where information may be missed.

Saying the obvious is a rhetoric. It suggests that the other part wasn't aware of the obvious. The truth may be that even when something is approached critically the evidence may stand strong. The best theories we habe are strong simply because they work even when you are very critical.

I have no doubt that is what you believe. In fact, every single thing you believe about me, is based on what you once were - but now you're "past" that point.

This is incredibly revealing of excessive arrogance.

No it isn't. It might even be the perfect truth. Ot all boils down to whether or not you can support your position rather than making statements.

Calling someone "arrogant", "offensive", "evil" etc when they put forth a theory is a red herring. It's meant to derail the discussion in order to dodge the need of meeting the theory with counterarguments..

I think I'll take Socrates over "western intellectual history" in many cases, thank you.

I noted. Then you should also be aware of dialectics as a tool.

My assumption is not based on your quotes, but your approach to science and your way of appearing 100% certain every day with some new bit of research you may have read about. No one who takes truth seriously, can be that confident about that many things. It's impossible to take you seriously with the frequency with which you claim to hold the key to so many vital questions.

This have alot to do with how I talk. I make statements and expect them to be refuted.

Haven't you noticed how (more or less) every day you post some kind of "revelation" with the relevant quotes to support it?

I have studied nonstop for 4 and a half year now. It would be sad if I had nothing new to say. Posting it in debates is a part of learning for me. I state something, expect refutation and see if I can support the statement. If fail I drop the position. Happens all the time.

I tend to "test" people who make this kind of claim sufficiently often, and I observe how smart they are - and whether they falter when confronted. You're a smart young man, no doubt, but you're very far from being smart enough to know and understand these things you pretend to know and understand as "truth".

Let me point out your strawman again and clarify my position;
I do not believe we can know the truth. We can only establish well supported theories and less supported theories. Sometimes we have to use multiple contradicting ones in our head. Truth is a theory itself, we can only try to get closer but not fully know we are there.

Here is the krux. Examining evidence is neccessary to approach the truth at all. Rejecting all evidence without even looking at it isn't a valid strategy. The rationalist-empirical approach collect and sort, collect and sort. When I study I collect. When I discuss (or think) I sort.

Ideas can survive indefinitely in the mind that refuses to acknowledge their death.

Which is the problem with pure rationalists like Descartes. An analogy is silver. If not exposed frequently it gets dirty. Exposing and challenging an idea is neccessary to polish that idea. Untrue ideas tend to die if you do that however.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Thank you for answering to my post from above.

 

[DArtagnan]

*EDIT*

Deleted the whole mess

Serves no purpose anyway.

Carry on...