Print

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

[MrWiggles]

Muzz, unless your hillary clinton or some sorta floridian laywer don't please dont spread the urban myth that violent video game increase violent behavior. There no evidence to support this. In fact video game without violence can have the exact same stimulants.

There is evidence. I was paid for the research I was on the side saying that it's because they got the damn hypothesis wrong though, but as a low ranking research assistant, I had no clout. And the data was collected incorrectly too. That is why I have a grudge against the scientific method. Too many weak links.

The head researcher was a psychologist from Harvard too. But hell, when you have private information being collected like grades and stuff, the data gets messed up in the pipes. From the data, it shown that the most violent kids (the ones who would take a big stick and beat others with it) weren't playing video games, but the "most violent" data was filtered out because of the methods taken.

I'm not sure what the point I was trying to make.. but yeah, scientific method is sometimes wrong, when you try to use it for political purposes. But I won't say that it doesn't work, because it has.

0.o
Do you have know the paper name or what journal it was published in?

Its one of the few political things I'm involved. Keeping video games self regulated industry in the states.

[G-Flex]

The thing about the scientific method failing in such a manner is that proper use of it requires you to look at data collected from multiple sources. A single study by a single group doesn't cut it, nor do multiple studies collected by the same *kind* of group, for instance, especially where vested interests are concerned. And methodology is important.

[Andir]

It's funny you brought that up.  We were talking recently and a friend did a school paper on games and violence a few years back.  He dug up national crime data that he said proves that video games decrease crimes in general.  (Most likely because the kids had something to do.  RE: "idle hands are the devil's tools")  He pointed to a graph of national crime and pointed out places along that line where major video games were released (Doom, etc.) and crime was actually on a decline.

[RAM]

But if people spending more time playing video games has a significant effect on crime, then that indicates that a significant number of people who commit crimes are playing video games...

Sigh, I hate statistics, and the scientific method is boring, can't we stick to reason?

Oh, and the topic, erm... can two theists convince each other that they are not god?

[Chutney]

edit: also lol at the people who think theories start out as false, and then are proven right, when in actuality theories all start off as being true, until they're proven false. If I start with the theory "All smilies are yellow. This theory will be proven false if a smiley that is not yellow is found." That theory is true, until I find a smiley that's not yellow.

I have to wonder exactly how you came to this conclusion, as the scientific process does not work at all how you described.

You do not "start with a theory" in the first place. You can come up with some sort of hypothesis, and only after actual evidence is presented time after time is it ever considered a legitimate theory.

Seriously, if you think you have to consider everything true until it's proven false, then you have to accept an infinite number of (mutually exclusive, sometimes) ideas as false. Go look up burden of proof, or the scientific process. It's really hard to believe you aren't trolling right now.

The general scientific viewpoint is to not accept something as factual until evidence is presented. This is completely reasonable, and it is completely UNreasonable to accept something as fact for what amounts to no reason at all. Unless you literally like having to accept as true every single idea which has not been proven false yet, of which there are an infinite and uncountable number, as I mentioned.

Sure, any not-yet-falsified idea can be taken as a valid possibility, but that's a far cry from assuming it's true.

I just read the wikipedia article on Scientific theory dawgg. Apparently I'm right. You take an assumption, assume it's true, prove it wrong.
Example:

As an example of the use of assumptions to formulate a theory, consider how Albert Einstein put forth his Special Theory of Relativity. He took two phenomena that had been observed — that the "addition of velocities" is valid (Galilean transformation), and that light did not appear to have an "addition of velocities" (Michelson-Morley experiment). He assumed both observations to be correct, and formulated his theory, based on these assumptions, by simply altering the Galilean transformation to accommodate the lack of addition of velocities with regard to the speed of light. The model created in his theory is, therefore, based on the assumption that light maintains a constant velocity (or more commonly: the speed of light is a constant).

That's what Einstein did! He assumed two mutually exclusive theories were both right, then he proved one of them wrong!

You take your assumption, make a theory, then test it a lot. If you test it a lot and it's not wrong, it becomes more valid and more widely accepted until it becomes a Scientific Law (Law of Gravity, etc). When you completely prove it by proving that in every possible case it is not false(you cannot do this) it becomes a ... I don't know what the next step is.

[Awayfarer]

Every time I look at this thread I'm reminded of this comic.

[Il Palazzo]

Chutney, you mixed up hypothesis, theory. You assume hypothesis, test it, if suffciently proven, call it a theory.

[SniHjen]

You take your assumption, make a theory, then test it a lot. If you test it a lot and it's not wrong, it becomes more valid and more widely accepted until it becomes a Scientific Law (Law of Gravity, etc).

Please stop misusing the word theory.

Fact = WHAT is happening. e. g. earth moves around the sun in a elliptic orbit.
Law = the mathematical formular for HOW.
Theory = WHY does this happen?

One does not become the other.

EDIT: oh, you just mixed up hypothesis and theory.
Now I feel like a asshole.
I'm just so used to hearing Young earth creations saying "It's just a theory"
I apologize.

[Chutney]

Chutney, you mixed up hypothesis, theory. You assume hypothesis, test it, if suffciently proven, call it a theory.

Ahhh, I'm dismayed. I agree with you here, but my point still stands. Things begin as assumed true, until they are proven false. If assumed falsed, and then proven true, it becomes a lot harder, if not impossible to test.

EDIT: Here's an example of a hypothesis that starts as assumed false until proven true.
"I believe all humans are male. I will be proven true if I find a male human." Notice how it's completely innacurate. Here's the same theory from a true->false "I believe all humans are male. I will be proven false if I find a non-male human."

Now here's the problem.
"I believe that no god exists. This theory will be proven false if a god are found to exist". This is OK. Find one god, and the theory is wrong.
"I believe that no god exists. This theory will be proven true if a god is found that does not exist". This is not OK. Find one god that doesn't exist (how??) and it you've proven no god exists? Amazing!

EDIT2:

EDIT: oh, you just mixed up hypothesis and theory.
Now I feel like a asshole.
I'm just so used to hearing Young earth creations saying "It's just a theory"
I apologize.

Nah, you didn't sound assholish at all. You were just correcting me, and I appreciate it (had I not been wrong in an entirely different way). And don't worry, I'm VERY far away from a Young Earth Creationist/Creationist in general. Most of the time ( ) I know what a theory is and it aggravates me when people say the Big Bang and evolution are "just theories" too.

[Idiom]

As opposed to God, who doesn't come at all and forgives the sinner. I'll take the cops, if it's all the same to you.

Many people would of course.

What I don't get is why someone, after some kind of big revelation, tries to spread it to everyone else like it's the meaning of life. Or when they try to uproot ancient institutions and methods thinking theirs is superior because the thinking is "fresh" or whatever. But above all:

Why can't anyone leave the opium for the masses alone?

It's a drug. OOOoooooo. It can influence people to do bad things. OOOOooooo. Bah. It has functions. Use them or lose them.

[Sordid]

What I don't get is why someone, after some kind of big revelation, tries to spread it to everyone else like it's the meaning of life.

Generally speaking, because living in error is bad and educating people about (what you think is) the truth is therefore a good thing to do. Most people want to do good things, so...

Or when they try to uproot ancient institutions and methods thinking theirs is superior because the thinking is "fresh" or whatever.

Actually I find that point quite encouraging. See, in the past older was better. That's why religions have these old scriptures and traditions and whatnot. Early Christian communities passed themselves off as a continuation of Jewish traditions, because otherwise they'd be looked down upon. Likewise the Muslims consider Islam to be the original religion, with Judaism and Christianity mere corruptions thereof, and Muhammad's revelation is thought of as a restoration of the pure, ancient form of the faith. Joseph Smith didn't claim to have invented anything new either, he claimed he merely translated the Book of Mormon from its ancient original. There's always this appeal to the supposed wisdom of the past.
That ended with the advent of the scientific method, when it was recognized that if new knowledge contradicted old knowledge, then the new knowlegde superceded to the old because it was gained with tools and methods superior to those available in the past. So yeah, I'm all for pushing new ideas. New isn't necessarily correct, but if it isn't it won't stick. If it does stick, then the old idea was inadequate and good riddance to it.

[Idiom]

What I don't get is why someone, after some kind of big revelation, tries to spread it to everyone else like it's the meaning of life.

... If it does stick, then the old idea was inadequate and good riddance to it.

I see it more like someone coming around with a new way of breathing. It's been around that long. Or trying to get rid of the wheel entirely. We don't need bicycles when we have flying cars! Or legs at all!

It's a fundamental part of many, many, MANY humans. Some people can get by with the new and improved artificial improved noses while the other half are incapable of receiving them for, lets say immunological reasons. Doesn't matter exactly why. The point is while yes, you can do better yourself with an artificial nose, but not everyone can. Many still rely on their original noses, for preference or choice or the lack of options, regardless of how inadequate the original noses are and people are still born that way.

Why does everyone else have to ditch something for a new system, even proven and tested by you personally, when they still grew up and rely and function with the old one? It's not about the superiority of the whatever, it's about you being selfish I don't get. Leave the masses their opium. You don't need opium? Congratulations. Go celebrate with yourself rather than by upsetting the people who do. People wake up one day and finally realize something, then run down the street screaming "Memento Mori! Memento Mori!" and completely ruin previously content people.  Don't be an ass. I don't understand why people can't STFU and keep their personal revelations personal. I've said this like a billion times and no-one remembers.

Join a transhumanist movement or something or quit bitching about human condition.

Edit:
I suppose you are already a transhumanist anyway.

[Sordid]

It's a fundamental part of many, many, MANY humans. Some people can get by with the new and improved artificial improved noses while the other half are incapable of receiving them for, lets say immunological reasons. Doesn't matter exactly why. The point is while yes, you can do better yourself with an artificial nose, but not everyone can. Many still rely on their original noses, for preference or choice or the lack of options, regardless of how inadequate the original noses are and people are still born that way.

Except for the fact that religious faith is something people are not borh with, in fact it's something people are born without. So yeah, your criticism of unwarranted preaching is entirely valid, only aimed at the wrong side of the debate. It should be aimed at the people who push their faith on their kids, making them rely on an obsolete and inferior idea.

Why does everyone else have to ditch something for a new system, even proven and tested by you personally, when they still grew up and rely and function with the old one? It's not about the superiority of the whatever, it's about you being selfish I don't get. Leave the masses their opium. You don't need opium? Congratulations. Go celebrate with yourself rather than by upsetting the people who do. People wake up one day and finally realize something, then run down the street screaming "Memento Mori! Memento Mori!" and completely ruin previously content people.  Don't be an ass. I don't understand why people can't STFU and keep their personal revelations personal. I've said this like a billion times and no-one remembers.

Oh we do remember, we just don't care. Don't want to listen to atheist rambling on about atheism? Then don't read threads on atheism. It's that simple.

Join a transhumanist movement or something or quit bitching about human condition.

Edit:
I suppose you are already a transhumanist anyway.

Of course. I can't wait to stick some cyber implants in my brain.

[RAM]

Of course. I can't wait to stick some cyber implants in my brain.

Why stop there? I want to keep replacing parts of my brain with implants until there is no original brain left. At which point it stops being replacement and becomes upgrading...

[Sordid]

Of course. I can't wait to stick some cyber implants in my brain.

Why stop there? I want to keep replacing parts of my brain with implants until there is no original brain left. At which point it stops being replacement and becomes upgrading...

Yeah, that is my dream too, but I figure that's a long time away yet. But yeah, once you have no organic brain left you pretty much don't need your body either, since the body is little more than a life support system for the brain. At which point you become effectively immortal, or at least have a potentially infinite lifespan.
World domination, here I come!