Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

You should probably use something you can thoroughly explain. If you can't explain it, you probably don't understand it, and that makes any conclusion you draw from it invalid.

I generally find that the ease of explanation is negatively correlated with the validity of the conclusions.

well thought out argument to win if you're going to debate on B12.

Probably why I've never won an argument.

[Frumple]

Not so much ease as clarity, methinks? That initial math-segue post could really have used a key labeling the variables, ferex...

[mainiac]

My goal was to write fewer words, not more.

[Loud Whispers]

I generally find that the ease of explanation is negatively correlated with the validity of the conclusions.

Not by Occam's arse razor

If you can't explain it, you probably don't understand it, and that makes any conclusion you draw from it invalid. What you're doing is fitting the data into your answers via obfuscation and the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion. which is highly intellectually dishonest, and not the way data works. We aren't dumb people here, and it takes a very convincing, well thought out argument to win if you're going to debate on B12.

Probably why I've never won an argument.

Who cares about winning it's about trying, actually giving a case for what you believe in

My goal was to write fewer words, not more.

There's being laconic and there's being cryptic

[mainiac]

shrugs

[origamiscienceguy]

I generally find that the ease of explanation is negatively correlated with the validity of the conclusions.

Not by Occam's arse razor

[/quote]
Occam's razor is that the theory with the fewest assumptions is more likely correct. Ease of explanation has nothing to do with it.

For example, "aliens did it" is easier to explain, but has more assumptions that "humans used rope and ramps and pulleys to *yada yada yada*"

[wobbly]

I generally find that the ease of explanation is negatively correlated with the validity of the conclusions.

Not by Occam's arse razor

Occam's razor is that the theory with the fewest assumptions is more likely correct. Ease of explanation has nothing to do with it.

For example, "aliens did it" is easier to explain, but has more assumptions that "humans used rope and ramps and pulleys to *yada yada yada*"
[/quote]

But "aliens did it" has fewer assumptions. Aliens exist. They did it. Only 2. The 2nd has at least 4. It was humans. They had ropes. They had ramps. They had pulleys.

[Loud Whispers]

Occam's razor is that the theory with the fewest assumptions is more likely correct. Ease of explanation has nothing to do with it.
For example, "aliens did it" is easier to explain, but has more assumptions that "humans used rope and ramps and pulleys to *yada yada yada*"

What the bloody hell are you talking about, "aliens did it" is not easy to explain, it's easy to say. You'd have to explain the mechanics of how the aliens did it, who they are, what they were doing here and so on. You'd have to explain the entire existence of an extraterrestial civilization before you even start explaining how they did "it." "Humans did it" is just as easy as saying but far easier to explain, and something only the laziest

shrugs

Laziest would rather not do

[origamiscienceguy]

Occam's razor is that the theory with the fewest assumptions is more likely correct. Ease of explanation has nothing to do with it.
For example, "aliens did it" is easier to explain, but has more assumptions that "humans used rope and ramps and pulleys to *yada yada yada*"

What the bloody hell are you talking about, "aliens did it" is not easy to explain, it's easy to say. You'd have to explain the mechanics of how the aliens did it, who they are, what they were doing here and so on. You'd have to explain the entire existence of an extraterrestial civilization before you even start explaining how they did "it." "Humans did it" is just as easy as saying but far easier to explain, and something only the laziest

shrugs

Laziest would rather not do

nevermind.

[Bauglir]

your ability to explain something, but not the ease of explaining it, correlates strongly with your understanding of it

i believe physicists understand relativity because they are capable of explaining how it applies to various situations (and moreover they can train new physicists), and their explanations seem generally consistent and sound, but i certainly lack the ability to explain it and it's quite difficult to do so by most accounts

the verity of an explanation varies independently with the ease of explaining it, though, in my experience

anyone who tells you differently is a liar, a demagogue, or a salesperson

or some other profession, i guess

[Zangi]

One mass shooting by crazy white people is a preventable tragedy, '100' mass shootings by crazy white people is just another statistic.

[origamiscienceguy]

But "aliens did it" has fewer assumptions. Aliens exist. They did it. Only 2. The 2nd has at least 4. It was humans. They had ropes. They had ramps. They had pulleys.

-Aliens exist
-Aliens had awesome technology to get to earth
-Aliens used all that fantastic technology to build things out of stone
-Aliens decided not to come back since

We already know humans had roped and pulleys and ramps. The only assumption is that they built whatever it is were talking about.

Anyway, let's not derail the thread further.

[mainiac]

i believe physicists understand relativity because they are capable of explaining how it applies to various situations (and moreover they can train new physicists), and their explanations seem generally consistent and sound, but i certainly lack the ability to explain it and it's quite difficult to do so by most accounts

Physics has it easy because their science is advanced enough that outsiders cant even approach the subjects where the top of the field disagrees.  Whereas in economics really basic questions are still open for debate and new basic questions keep emerging.

[Zangi]

Murrica, land of the free, home of Gestapo Jr.  One day, the lad will grow up to be a stellar member of the Secret Police.  Sr would be so proud.

[Reelya]

Generally one responds to a working paper with a meta analysis, not the other way around. 

I was trying to parse what this meant and it didn't make sense to me for a while. But I get it now. That maths mumbo-jumbo you posted is the "meta analysis" which trumps what I posted the (working paper). A meta-analysis needs to be grounded in the actual data however. So in other words, your saying your hypothetical / theoretical symbol manipulation exercise trumps the actual data we're discussing? That's pretty silly, since it's the actual data that we are disagreeing on.

I posted evidence from papers that shows that if you take the Bureau of Labor's own data and separate women with no kids from women with kids, then the gender gap completely goes away for childless women: the gender gap is too small to measure if you only consider people without children. That's pretty good evidence that almost all the measurable gender gap comes from the interplay of family vs work, rather than a direct penalty for being a woman. And it's that "direct penalty" that the Paycheck Fairness Act is entirely focused on. In other words, there's an existing theory as to the main cause of the gender pay gap, but there's very little actual data to support that theory, and a detailed look at the numbers actually disputes that employer discrimination is even a measurable component of the overall "78 cents in the dollar" gender gap.

Another example is that I said that if you look at hourly wages then the wage gap narrows to 86%. You dismissed that as straight up bullshit but failed to engage with the actual BLS data when I presented it. That's the equivalent of going "i'm right! you're wrong! not listening!" with your fingers in your ears. In fact, it should be plain common sense that the rate will be more equal if you exclude confounding factors (differences in weeks worked per year, differences in hour worked per week).

Well, you turn around and say at one point "your missing out all the hidden discrimination variables". Well, how do you know the hidden variables all fall on the "sexist" side? The non-hidden variables we can look at don't really support such a bias, so the existence of a significant trend in that direction in the hidden variables is entirely hypothetical. Maybe those variables skew the other way. For instance, single women with no kids outearn single men with no kids by a full 8%, so it's entirely possible for some hidden variables we haven't yet looked for to be in favor of women some of the time (in that case, driven by the higher college graduation rates for women).