/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12229255
>>extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
>tips fedora

>belief in intuition parallels truth

>>12229255
>if the Bible says so, then it is true

>>12229255
proof?

>>12229255
Well...yeah.

>>12229255
yes

>>12229454
>brings up the Bible specifically despite nobody mentioning Christianity
every time

>>12229454
>rent free
kek

>>12229255
this shitty thread gets answers but my serious question gets ignored, this board is made up of dunning-krugers subhumans

>>12229255
>extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims

>>12229255

not really.

>>12229255
Why would a claim that is “extraordinary” require “extraordinary” evidence? How does something that seems “extraordinary” to human beings require anything but regular evidence. Plenty of things are “extraordinary” but we believe in them for the same reasons we believe in anything else. If we find multiple intact skeletons of a dinosaur with two heads, why wouldn’t we believe in it for the same reason we believe in an extinct species of ice age squirrel? Just because something is “extraordinary” to our frame of reference shouldn’t mean we need to find millions of pieces of evidence or invent time travel to believe in it. Essentially what this quote means is “opinions I am biased against require more evidence to convince me of their veracity than opinions I am in favor of”. This quote is pure midwit, which should have been obvious from the kind of fedora hermits who spout it.

>>12229255
i always found that quote dumb because it would require the inquirer to define whatever that is inconvenient to him or his observations as an extraordinary claim. it's reinforcing mainstream ideas while pushing away anything dangerous to them

>>12229255
I agree with this phrase.

In the context of my laboratory, people often make big claims with 0 evidence and need to be reminded regularly that their beliefs are baseless and therefore not grounded in reality.

It's a real problem in science and society as a whole when people jump to conclusions without evidence, especially if those false assumptions are damaging to other people.

A major part of science is that claims need to have evidence and experiments reproducible. You can't just go around saying things without any way to back it up, which people often do.

>>12229654
>>12229671
seething christcuck

>>12229704
Nobody mentioned time travel, you schizo retard.

>>12229754
i think >>12229704 is right despite that dumb conspiracy theory, what that quote is essentially conveying is that the people in authority of science can define whatever that's inconvenient to them as an extraordinary claim thus needing more evidence than usual needed. it creates a huge bias in science and only reinforces mainstream ideas

>>12229255
It is absolutely correct as a casual summary of Bayesian inference.

Bayes Theorem states that P(H|E) = P(E|H) * P(H)/P(E)

"Extraordinary claims" means P(H) is low -- i.e., the prior probability of the hypothesis is small.
"Extraordinary evidence" means P(E) is low -- i.e., the model evidence must be small enough to compensate for the smallness of the numerator.

>>12229775
>people in authority of science can define whatever that's inconvenient to them as an extraordinary claim
No they can't. The whole post is complete and utter horseshit.

>>12229750
>>12229454
rent free

>>12229754
You are literally incapable of reading, aren't you? My example was a prehistoric fossil. You are literally so handicapped by adhd that you can’t even think process basic information. Jesus Christ why don’t you kill yourself. I’m surprised you managed to take the time to type out a reply without getting distracted by one of the open pornhub tabs on your web browser. Please go to the random board where you belong

>>12229781
You don't think people in authority over any field want to maintain the status quo and reinforce their ideas? How naive are you? Shows you lack experience

>>12229783
Your entire post was a pile of dogshit. You clearly have zero understanding of statistical reasoning or the physical sciences.

>>12229790
>You don't think people in authority over any field want to maintain the status quo and reinforce their ideas?
Nice strawman, simpleton. Has absolutely nothing to do with statistical inference.

>>12229775
I didn’t say I believed in time travel goddammit. My point was that you would use a prehistoric fossil to prove an extraordinary organism the same way you would prove an expected one, rather than something ludicrous like a time machine to go back and verify an extinct organism actually existed which you wouldn’t demand for something innocuous like a squirrel. Yes I know time travel is impossible which is why someone demanding extraordinary evidence in the form of time travel to capture and verify the existence of an extinct species. Sometimes you /sci people scare me, you really do

>>12229795
>My point was that you would use a prehistoric fossil to prove an extraordinary organism the same way you would prove an expected one
You wouldn't, though. That's the fucking point.

>>12229794
>statistical inference
That's an oxymoron.

>>12229794
Anon, that is the most retarded shit i've heard this week on /sci/ congrats

>>12229791
My point was you would use the same scientific method to prove the existence of any scientific claim regardless of how culturally biased the person your trying to prove it to. How is that so fucking hard for /sci brainlet undergraduates to understand. I’m sorry if my comment about either trump or Kamala offended you, which is probably the real reason why you’re mad at my post. Suck dicks

>>12229798
OK, that's enough /sci/ for you, kiddo. You can go back to /b/ now.

>>12229797
That was the entire point of my post. Good lord

>>12229803
Your point is that you suck at scientific inference? OK.

>>12229797
Extraordinary as in unexpected to our biases, not that the fossil was made of styrofoam or is a Triassic Roman gladiator. Extraordinary claims are extraordinary to us.

>>12229801
>My point was you would use the same scientific method to prove the existence of any scientific claim
And that method amounts to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

>regardless of how culturally biased the person your trying to prove it to. How is that so fucking hard for /sci brainlet undergraduates to understand. I’m sorry if my comment about either trump or Kamala offended you, which is probably the real reason why you’re mad at my post.
Are you drunk? What on earth are you blathering about now?

>>12229791
>>12229803
>>12229781
anon, please take a rest it's quite late and i suppose it's what's affecting you

>>12229805
>you suck at scientific inference
Stop larping as a scientist as though you do real scientific research. Your probably a janitor with a lunch break long enough to let you post

>>12229806
>Extraordinary as in unexpected to our biases
False. Extraordinary means extraordinarily different from the observed base rate.

>>12229808
>late
Not where I am. You know about time zones do you?

>>12229814
God, you're so fucking retarded. Were you born yesterday and think people are made full of good will that will accept whatever idea that's dangerous to their position?

>>12229811
It's not restricted to scientists. It's just rational inference. Whether you are a janitor or a physicist, your inferences must comply with Bayes Theorem.

>>12229819
I never made a single empirical claim about "people", you mouthbreathing dumbfuck. This is elementary mathematics. You should have learned it in high school.

>>12229827
>never made a single empirical claim
You just added the word “empirical” to make your reply sound smarter and “heftier” didn’t you?

>>12229833
False. Empirical statements about people describe how they actually think and behave. Normative statements are how we *ought* to think and behave. Statements about the correct forms of deductive and inductive reasoning (including all of logic, mathematics, statistics, etc) are normative statements. The statement in the OP is a normative statement.

>>12229255
Yes, if your belief rests on many assumptions, then you will need more evidence to support your belief. No brainer.

>>12229814
When I said extraordinary I didn’t mean statistically unlikely to be physically possible. I meant extraordinary in the sense that it is unusual to us as humans due to how we are cultured and biased. My point was that claims we find extraordinary solely due to our biases should be held to the same standards of verification we would use for a claim we are comfortable with due to our biases. I was talking about biases and what we perceive as extraordinary solely due to our culture and background.

>>12229681
How long did it take you to realize that?

>>12230057
i'm new on this board and so far it has been a huge disappointment.

Ironically I think that /sci/ has the posters with the lowest IQ

>>12229255
>correlation does not imply causation (except when it does)
>"anecdotal evidence"
>"you're not qualified to criticism"
>survivorship bias

>>12230138
>correlation does not imply causation (except when it does)
>"anecdotal evidence"
>"you're not qualified to criticism"
>survivorship bias

>>12230118
Think about the kind of person who would come to 4chan and want to “hang out” on the slug slow /sci board. Other boards get anons of all iq’s and all backgrounds, but /sci is attractive to a caustic, toxic kind of a hole who NEEDS to prove he is smarter than everyone else because he has a preexisting NEED to feel superior to everyone else and has no other more concrete and less abstract options for doing that. Mencius moldbug types basically. I only come here for the schizo science threads that migrate over from /x because they’re fun

>>12230148
No, the opposite. Schizoid shitposters like yourself with zero scientific background, interest, or understanding come here because it's easier to cause disruption on slow boards.

>>12230118
If you lurk for longer you'll see there are also some rare gems among the daily shit here, but you're still right about the majority of people being DK-victims.

>>12229822
>your inferences must comply with Bayes Theorem.
Wrong. No serious statistician cares about Bayes "theorem".

>>12230325
It is mathematically true, retard.

>>12230338
Wrong.
A single counter example is enough to completely falsify an entire theory and denying this is midwit dunning kruger cope.

>>12230362
Where's the counterexample?

Okay but regarding Christianity, you guys really think 1 guy in the middle east, a long time ago, performed miracles and rose from the dead? Even though there were many other prophets doing the same thing? Even though he claimed the world would end and nothing happened? Even though we know humans lie about everything and are stupid as fuck? In a time where they couldn't even read? And only few saw his resurrection? Told fom a collection of mish-mashed stories from various poorfags from Israel, who were most likely on drugs and coping hard? I'm sorry, but faith can only take me so far. At a certain point, you just have to see how unbelievable that is.

>>12230325
Bayes'd frequentist.

>>12230439
If Sherlock Holmes could pull it off in the second season finale, so could JC himself.

>>12230468
you know what those two have in common? they aren't real

>>12230526
seethe harder. can you prove sherlock isn't real? huh?

>>12230200
I don’t post the schizo, just enjoy reading it. My description of the “underachieving genius” type (swears he has a high iq and knows everything but works at subway) is a cancer plaguing the fuck out of this board with arrogant jargon dropping and pedantic “its your not you’re” style debate skillz.

>>12230526
You aren't real in the platonic sense either, it makes no difference.

>>12229255