[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 41 KB, 640x480, carl-sagan-quotes-640x480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9846590 No.9846590 [Reply] [Original]

Does /sci/ still like this pseud?

>> No.9846592

he's a meme

>> No.9846593

>>9846590
Sagan accomplished more than you or anyone else on this pitiful board ever will.

>> No.9846597

>>9846593
>Sagan accomplished more than you or anyone else on this pitiful board ever will.
What does that have to do with anything?

>> No.9846603

>>9846597
I was refuting the common argument that popular scientists/advocates of science aren't "accomplished".

Give me a valid reason to hate Carl Sagan.

>> No.9846608

>>9846603
>Give me a valid reason to hate Carl Satan.
Being a white neo-imperialist isn't enough?

>> No.9846610

>>9846608
Source?

>> No.9846626

>>9846603
>Give me a valid reason to hate Carl Sagan.
He weighed in on subjects he was far from an expert in.

>> No.9846637

>>9846590
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>> No.9846639
File: 209 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9846639

>> No.9846658

>>9846626
>projecting

>> No.9846665

>>9846658
>>projecting
You are saying that I'm a public intellectual and weigh in on subject matters i'm not an expert in and thus project that onto another public intellectual?

>> No.9846668

>>9846639
Wrong.

>> No.9846671

>>9846668
>Wrong.
Not an argument.

>> No.9846677

>>9846626
>He weighed in
How much did he weigh? I'm guessing 70kg

>> No.9846678

>>9846590
No. Truth is, he had his flaws, just like anyone,r eally. But he did a lot to motivate millions to science, and that's an incredible thing, even if idiotic snobs on this board disagree

>> No.9846740

>>9846678
exactly, Sagan was based as fuck, seeing him teaching on schools is wonder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1kcLHlG91Y

>> No.9846768

>>9846671
E is evidence of X: P(X|E) > P(X)
Absence of E: ~E
Absence of X: ~X

P(X|E) > P(X)
P(~X|E) < P(~X)
P(E|~X) < P(E)
P(~E|~X) > P(~E)
P(~X|~E) > P(~X)

Absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X. QED.

>> No.9847540

>>9846768
>P(X|E) > P(X)
wrong in the very first line --
congratulations on failing STAT101

>> No.9847547

>>9846590
Is it just me who thought that picture was Jared Taylor in the thumbnail?

>> No.9847552

>>9846590
Yes. Cosmos is nice to watch and a well done show, the greeny rants are a bit annoying. I don't think much of his work in his research field. He was an average researcher. I also don't like that he sued those ibm engineers, but I can understand why he felt he had to.

The only people who dislike him are those that used to revere him. It's the same as people who revere RMS until they grow out of it.

>> No.9847553

>>9846678
>But he did a lot to motivate millions to science, and that's an incredible thing

I dislike arguments like this. Why does science need "motivation"? Both research and industrial development are self-sustaining since the work produces actual tangible value to society. There will always be money available for both pure applied sciences for this reason.

So tell what popularizing science gets us other than an oversaturated job market?

>> No.9847555

>>9846592
>not using Sagan goes in all fields

>> No.9847581

>>9846768
>Absence of E: ~E
Why are you conflating the absence of an event with the presence of its complementary event?

>> No.9847687

>>9846768
>E is evidence of X: P(X|E) > P(X)
>Absence of E: ~E
>Absence of X: ~X
>P(X|E) > P(X)
>P(~X|E) < P(~X)
>P(E|~X) < P(E)
>P(~E|~X) > P(~E)
>P(~X|~E) > P(~X)
>Absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X. QED.
This isn't very well-defined, it would be better to say "E is evidence of X with respect to P", since one can simply define another probability measure P_2 where P_2(X|E) < P_2(X).

>> No.9847730

>>9846768
if i cant see it it doesnt exist

>> No.9847740

>>9847540
he's right
>>9847581
t. never took probability theory

>> No.9847743

>>9847740
>t. never took probability theory
What do you mean?

>> No.9847747

>>9846768
P(X|E) > P(X) is more like "E is positively correlated with X", "E is evidence for X" would be P(X|E)=1. What you did amounts to saying that if the truth of a fact E is positively correlated with that of a fact X then the falsity of fact X is positively r with the falsity of fact E, which is not really spectacular.

>> No.9847751

>>9847743
A doesn't happen <=> cA happens

>> No.9847755

>>9847751
>A doesn't happen <=> cA happens
Not having evidence that A happened does not imply that you have evidence that cA happened. On the other hand, having evidence that A didn't happen does imply that you have evidence that cA happened.

>> No.9847757

>>9847755
maybe but that's not what you said

>> No.9847762

>>9847757
>maybe but that's not what you said
Not maybe, but yes. And that is what I said when I pointed out that the original post conflated the absence of an event with the presence of its complementary event.

>> No.9847765

>>9847762
No, E is an event just like X and your failure to understand that is how I infered you never took probability. Or maybe you're jsut a retard.

>> No.9847766

>>9847765
>E is an event just like X and your failure to understand that is how I infered you never took probability.
When did I suggest E was anything other than an event?

>> No.9847770

>>9847553
Because although everyone works, or should, life doesn't necessarily revolve around work. Understanding science promotes wonder and does away with ignorance.

Not everyone wants to or will work with it.

>> No.9847776

>>9847766
when you invented your own rules about how E != cE. reread what you wrote

>> No.9847779

>>9847776
>when you invented your own rules about how E != cE
But it's true that E != cE. Are you sure you're not the one who hasn't taken probability theory?

>> No.9847782

>>9847779
sorry I meant (not E) != cE which is what you said.

>> No.9847783

>>9847553
Because society increasingly requires people to be literate in the quantitative and scientific fields, but those subjects also have a "it's hard boring nerd shit" stigma attached to them, especially among western schoolchildren.

>> No.9847784

>>9847782
>not E
define 'not E'

>> No.9847793

>>9847770
>Understanding science
This is very different from popularizing science, which usually doesn't explain any real science, but gives an allegorical interpretation in combination with CGI (and usually this in addition to often promoting non-scientific political ideals of the popularizer and his produces).

Popular science is more often a platform for self-promotion and politics than it is about conveying scientific developments to the public.

Notable exceptions to this rule are press releases from research institutions (ie. the simple act of reporting results, for example gravity waves). For this you don't need a popularizer, but a PR department tied to the institution.

>promotes wonder
Yes, but it's usually wonder at CGI, not science.

> and does away with ignorance.
And why is doing away with ignorance preferable over, say, promoting mysticism? Which one has proven historically to generate more order in societies? Think carefully before answering by considering the long term stability of societal orders that lasted millennia compared to mere centuries.

But that's beside the point, the fact is it doesn't do away with ignorance, especially on the most vitally contentious issues (which in turn disrupts the scientific process in those areas due to zealotry), it promotes pseudo-understanding which is arguably more harmful than ignorance.

One of the reasons I like Carl Sagan is because unlike his successors he wasn't a zealot.

>> No.9847794

>>9847784
You're too stupid, I'm done with you.

>> No.9847797

>>9847783
>Because society increasingly requires people to be literate in the quantitative and scientific fields
If this was true then why is the job growth in scientific fields been drastically stunted over the last few decades while graduation rates have increased only to be fed into non-STEM economic sectors?

In fact, according to the LBS, many STEM sectors have even had a decline of job availability.

>> No.9847801

>>9847794
>You're too stupid, I'm done with you.
How would stupidity on my end prevent you from defining 'not E'? You claimed that what I said was "(not E) != cE", but I never used the term 'not E' except when asking you to define it. If anything, you're the one inventing your own (undefined) terms.

>> No.9847805

>>9847801
not is a fundamental logic operation. Especially quantifier logic

not him btw

>> No.9847807

>>9847805
>not is a fundamental logic operation. Especially quantifier logic
I asked him/her to define 'not E', not 'not'.

>> No.9847811

>>9847807
E is well defined.
not is well defined.
A binary logic operation is well defined.

Are you incapable of understanding basic algebraic operations? Then he is correct to stop humouring you.

>> No.9847812

>>9847797
STEM jobs aren't the only jobs where you have to work with math, computers, reading research results, and other activities that requires some STEM literacy. In fact don't a lot of economic sector positions require using economic models that are constructed quantitatively?

>> No.9847813

>>9847811
>Are you incapable of understanding basic algebraic operations?
If the operation is undefined, then yes.

>> No.9847817

>>9847812
>STEM jobs aren't the only jobs where you have to work with math,
>computers,
Computer science and information technologists etc are all STEM fields.
>reading research results,
Do people other than scientists and engineers actually need to do this? Why?
>and other activities that requires some STEM literacy. In fact don't a lot of economic sector positions require using economic models that are constructed quantitatively?
Yes, but the job descriptions for people who do the modelling have technical titles recorded by the BLS. Most people working in the sector have no technical skills and are employed for other reasons.

Science is important to our society, but a marginal understanding of it does not benefit anyone.

A reactor won't stop working because Bob from marketing didn't know what a neutron star is.

>> No.9847821

>>9847813
>If the operation is undefined, then yes.
Do you mean if or if and only if?

>> No.9847823

>>9847821
>Do you mean if or if and only if?
I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

>> No.9848000

>>9846768
>Absence of E: ~E
No. The quote means that having not found evidence of X doesn't mean X is untrue. ~E means that you have found E to be false, rather than having simply not been able to find evidence one way or the other.

>> No.9848064

>>9847687
>If our information is different then our information would be different
So what?

>> No.9848070

>>9847730
>My failing to see it even though there is a chance I could have seen it increases the probability that it doesn't exist

>> No.9848077

>>9847747
>"E is evidence for X" would be P(X|E)=1
No, that would be E is absolute proof of X. If absolute proof falls under the definition of evidence, the absence of absolute proof is evidence of absence.

>> No.9848083

>>9847755
>Not having evidence that A happened does not imply that you have evidence that cA happened.
That's literally what >>9846768 proves. If "having evidence" increases the probability of A, then not having evidence increases the probability that not A happened.

>> No.9848106

>>9848000
>The quote means that having not found evidence of X doesn't mean X is untrue.
Then the quote would be "the absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence." Evidence of absence does not mean absolute proof of absence. Absolute proof is empirically impossible anyway.

>~E means that you have found E to be false, rather than having simply not been able to find evidence one way or the other.
Not finding evidence one way or the other is not possible, since failing to find evidence one way is finding evidence the other way.

If you look at how the phrase is actually applied, you'll see this. Carl Sagan argued that the failure of SETI to find evidence for aliens is not evidence that aliens are absent. This is false. Donald Rumsfeld argued that the failure to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq was not evidence that WMDs are absent. This is false.

>> No.9848122

>>9848077
you are a retard in several very distinct ways

>> No.9848133
File: 90 KB, 785x629, Hitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9848133

>>9848122

>> No.9848150

>>9848133
That's even more retarded... an ad hominem would be calling you fat or something, i just said you were retard because you were spouting retarded shit.

>> No.9848161

>>9848150
An ad hominem is an attack on the person. You didn't attack my positions.

>> No.9848182

>>9848161
saying you're retarded when the one and only thing i know about you is the retarded shit you just wrote is not an ad hominem you retarded piece of shit

>> No.9848187

>>9848182
it's a figure de style

>> No.9848190

>>9848182
Saying you're retarded is by definition an ad hominem.

Instead of spouting this trivial nonsense, try responding to my argument.

>> No.9848198

>>9848190
you're so fucking stupid

>> No.9848226

>>9848198
Low effort bait

>> No.9848798

>>9848064
>>If our information is different then our information would be different
Who are you quoting?

>So what?
So it's not clear why one probability measure is being privileged over others.

>> No.9848806

>>9848083
>If "having evidence" increases the probability of A, then not having evidence increases the probability that not A happened.
No, what >>9846768 proves is that if P(X|E)>P(X) then P(~X|~E) > P(~X).

>> No.9848808

>>9848106
>Not finding evidence one way or the other is not possible
What do you mean? One can compute probabilities without any reference to evidence.

>> No.9848812

>>9846768
point at him and laugh

>> No.9848859

>>9848798
>So it's not clear why one probability measure is being privileged over others.
Because that probability measure represents the state of knowledge of the subject that constructed it.

>> No.9848864

>>9848859
>Because that probability measure represents the state of knowledge of the subject that constructed it.
But one can construct probability measures that don't represent the state of knowledge of the subject that constructed it

>> No.9848911

>>9848859
>>9848864
In fact, probability measures are essentially never used this way in real-life application to talk about evidence. Not in courts of law, nor in scientific papers.

>> No.9848929

>>9846590
/sci/ has never liked this pseud. /sci/ may like this pseud in the future -- or now -- if the typical posters are like you: making dogshit threads and spouting retarded nonsense. Fucking kill yourself.

>> No.9848948

>>9846608
Wtf I love Carl Sagan now

>> No.9849051

>>9848864
That would be hypothetical and not telling the subject about what is actually evidence to the subject. The subject in calculating actual probability and not hypothetical probabilities should consider only the state of knowledge that the subject is in.

>>9848911
>In fact, probability measures are essentially never used this way in real-life application to talk about evidence. Not in courts of law, nor in scientific papers.
Explicitly not, implicitly this concept is clearly used. In the courts, a decision is reached after the evidence is considered. This implies that evidence is not conclusive. If it was, only a single piece of evidence would be required to reach an absolute decision. In reality, evidence only hints to one degree or another at the truth. Similarly, in science evidence supports or counters a hypothesis based on statistical analysis.

>> No.9849052

>>9849051
>That would be hypothetical and not telling the subject about what is actually evidence to the subject.
All probability measures are hypothetical.

>> No.9849053

>>9846593
ok brandon

>> No.9849055

>>9849051
>Explicitly not, implicitly this concept is clearly used.
How does one implicitly use a probability measure?

>> No.9849062

>>9849052
>All probability measures are hypothetical.
Your state of knowledge is not hypothetical.

>>9849055
Probabilistic logic is built into human cognition.

>> No.9849066

>>9849062
>Your state of knowledge is not hypothetical.
My state of knowledge isn't a probability measure.

>> No.9849067

>>9849062
>Probabilistic logic is built into human cognition.
Even if that were true (not true, by the way), how does one implicitly use a probability measure?

>> No.9849080

He fostered my love of astronomy after having read Billions and Billions.

>> No.9849087

>>9849066
>My state of knowledge isn't a probability measure.
Your probability measure represents your state of knowledge.

>>9849067
>Even if that were true (not true, by the way), how does one implicitly use a probability measure?
Of course it's true. Human behavior is not classically logical. Many types of behavior are only justifiable probabilistically. For example, the legal system's conception of evidence discussed above.

>> No.9849090

>>9849087
>Your probability measure represents your state of knowledge.
Which probability measure?

>> No.9849100

>>9849090
The one that represents your state of knowledge.

>> No.9849101

>>9849087
>For example, the legal system's conception of evidence discussed above.
I asked how a probability measure can be used implicitly. If I'm playing a game of blackjack I can explicitly use a probability measure for a deck of cards to calculate certain probabilities. What would it mean for me to instead implicitly use this probability measure?

>> No.9849103

>>9849100
>The one that represents your state of knowledge.
Which is?

>> No.9849105

>>9849087
>Human behavior is not classically logical. Many types of behavior are only justifiable probabilistically. For example, the legal system's conception of evidence discussed above.
Are hammers built into human cognition because humans can use hammers?

>> No.9849110

>>9846603
>"""""refuting"""""

>> No.9849111

>>9849101
>I asked how a probability measure can be used implicitly.
As I already said, it's implicit because humans behave according to probabilistic logic without being aware of it.

>If I'm playing a game of blackjack I can explicitly use a probability measure for a deck of cards to calculate certain probabilities.
People play blackjack well without explicitly using probability measures, how do they do that?

>> No.9849113

>>9849111
>People play blackjack well without explicitly using probability measures
[citation needed]

>> No.9849115

>>9849103
Don't be obtuse.

>>9849105
How does that analogy work?

>> No.9849116

>>9849111
>humans behave according to probabilistic logic
[citation neeed]

>> No.9849118

>>9849115
>Don't be obtuse.
I'm not, if it's too much to ask for you to tell me what probability measure represents my state of knowledge, can you tell me which probability measure represents your state of knowledge?

>> No.9849124

>>9849115
>How does that analogy work?
How doesn't it work?

>> No.9849125

>>9849113
Blackjack was played for hundreds of years before probability theory existed.

>> No.9849126

>>9849111
>As I already said, it's implicit because humans behave according to probabilistic logic without being aware of it.
Which probabilistic logic?

>> No.9849130

>>9849125
>Blackjack was played for hundreds of years before probability theory existed.
I don't think I suggested anything to the contrary.

>> No.9849131

>>9849116
http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/203/oaksford.pdf

>>9849118
Don't be obtuse.

>>9849124
I don't see a similarity between using hammers and acting according to probabilistic logic.

>> No.9849134

>>9849131
>Don't be obtuse.
I don't follow, you claim that there are probability measures that represent people's state of knowledge, which ones are they? If the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (not true, by the way), then this suggests there are no such probability measures.

>> No.9849135

>>9849126
It depends.

>> No.9849137

>>9849135
>It depends.
On?

>> No.9849138

>>9849130
So you agree that people intuitively use probabilistic logic, good.

>> No.9849142

>>9849131
>I don't see a similarity between using hammers and acting according to probabilistic logic.
Hammers and probabilistic logic are both tools invented by humans.

>> No.9849146

>>9849134
>I don't follow, you claim that there are probability measures that represent people's state of knowledge, which ones are they?
Whichever one represents their state of knowledge. Which state of knowledge are you asking about?

>If the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (not true, by the way), then this suggests there are no such probability measures.
How?

>> No.9849147

>>9849138
>So you agree that people intuitively use probabilistic logic, good.
Which probabilistic logic? And how was the notion that people played blackjack before probability theory existed supposed to support the notion that people played blackjack well without explicitly using probability measures?

>> No.9849149

>>9849146
>Which state of knowledge are you asking about?
I asked about mine, and you didn't provide a probability measure, so I asked about yours since that might be easier, but you haven't provided a probability measure representing that state either.

>> No.9849152

>>9849137
On which behavior you're talking about.

>>9849142
Where did I say that any tool is implicit?

>>9849147
>Which probabilistic logic?
For which behavior?

>And how was the notion that people played blackjack before probability theory existed supposed to support the notion that people played blackjack well without explicitly using probability measures?
People played blackjack well before anyone explicitly used probability measures.

>I asked about mine
OK, which state of knowledge is yours?

>> No.9849156

>>9849146
>How?
If the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (not true, by the way), then the absence of evidence for probability measures that represent people's states of knowledge is evidence of absence of probability measures that represent people's states of knowledge.

>> No.9849157

>>9849152
>Where did I say that any tool is implicit?
I don't think I suggested anything to this end.

>> No.9849159

>>9849152
>People played blackjack well before anyone explicitly used probability measures.
[citation needed]

>> No.9849160

>>9849156
>The absence of evidence for probability measures that represent people's states of knowledge
There is plenty of evidence of probability measures that represent people's state of knowledge, in fact there is an entire field of probability theory based on it.

>> No.9849162

>>9849152
>On which behavior you're talking about.
Then what are two different probabilistic logics that get used (you can choose any two behaviors)?

>> No.9849164

>>9849160
>There is plenty of evidence of probability measures that represent people's state of knowledge
[citation needed]

>> No.9849166

>>9849152
>For which behavior?
Whichever you'd like to provide a probabilistic logic for.

>> No.9849168

>>9849152
>OK, which state of knowledge is yours?
The null state.

>> No.9849175

>>9849162
>Then what are two different probabilistic logics that get used (you can choose any two behaviors)?
This paper discusses several examples:
http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/203/oaksford.pdf

>>9849164
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

>>9849168
What does null state mean?

>> No.9849178

>>9849175
>What does null state mean?
No knowledge.

>> No.9849180

>>9849175
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Which part of this provides evidence of probability measures that represent people's state of knowledge?

>> No.9849181

>>9849178
Then how are you talking to me?

>> No.9849182

>>9849181
>Then how are you talking to me?
What does that have to do with my being in the null state?

>> No.9849183

>>9849180
Your obtuse responses are boring. I'm hiding your posts.

>> No.9849184

>>9849175
>This paper discusses several examples:
Which examples? It's not my job to present your argument for you.

>> No.9849187

>>9849183
>Your obtuse responses are boring. I'm hiding your posts.
What's obtuse about me asking for evidence to support the claims you've been making? You have yet to provide a single probability measure. If the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (not true, by the way), then this suggests what you've been claiming is not true. If all you can do is make unsupportable claims then I will hide your posts as well.

>> No.9849964

bump