Print

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

[Neonivek]

Hmmm

Why is the scientific definition of insanity "Doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result" when ALL the scientific method is... is doing it a bazillion times to see if there are different results?

It makes me think that isn't the "scientific definition" but rather some guy, who may or may not have been a scientist, who tried to define it... and people thought he was pretty smart so it caught on... Even though it makes absolutely no sense.

I mean I kind of fell for it at first. After all "emotions" and "motivations" are sort of 'outside of science' so it is basically trying to find a purely mechanical, purely objective, way to define something that is almost entirely subjective and metaphysical. Yet the more I thought about it the less it made sense, the more the definition itself became insane.

Which actually might be the irony. The idea that doing the same thing will 'always' result in the same outcome... Is a crazy notion. It is that disconnect between what you think and the reality of the situation that is insanity itself.

[Rolan7]

Heh yeah I think it's mostly just catchy.  I don't remember "scientific" being in the phrase and, as you point out, it isn't accurate.

Real insanity takes a variety of very distinct forms, as we now know.

[GiglameshDespair]

The scientific defintion of insanity is not repeating the same action and expecting a different result, no matter what a snappy quote from media might say, Neo.

Probably a closer "scientific" definition of insanity is "The state of being seriosuly mentally ill".

[i2amroy]

Why is the scientific definition of insanity "Doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result" when ALL the scientific method is... is doing it a bazillion times to see if there are different results?

I'm going to be honest, but the only time I've ever heard that "definition" is as the lead up or punchline to a joke.

[Bauglir]

Why is the scientific definition of insanity "Doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result" when ALL the scientific method is... is doing it a bazillion times to see if there are different results?

I'm going to be honest, but the only time I've ever heard that "definition" is as the lead up or punchline to a joke.

For example, it is impossible to use Ubuntu reliably on my desktop without being insane, because you have to turn it on and off until it miraculously works.

[TheBiggerFish]

I somehow managed to confuse 6:00 PM and AM.
Yup, much tired.

[hector13]

A double WTF: US police officer fired for throwing a high-school student across the room.

WTF in that it happened, WTF that a/the (I don't know how these things work) sheriff said "I wouldn't describe him as remorseful, but he is sorry it happened." Evidently he needs to look up what "remorseful" actually means...

[Descan]

Neo, this is another great example of something you coulda googled and went "Oh. That's just something some jackass thought up one day. Das coo'."

I say this with all love and affection.

[Flying Dice]

Okay, this is beginning to annoy me. Switched over to Palemoon just to see if it was Firefox being shit, but nope, same problem here. If I open google in a new tab, the search bar doesn't work. I'd try to test it in Microsoft Edge but I uninstalled that shit a while back.

[Neonivek]

Neo, this is another great example of something you coulda googled and went "Oh. That's just something some jackass thought up one day. Das coo'."

I say this with all love and affection.

I checked and the result was "No one really knows where it came from and it has been falsely attributed to a lot of people"

[Descan]

Which means it was some jackass.

[Reelya]

Neo, this is another great example of something you coulda googled and went "Oh. That's just something some jackass thought up one day. Das coo'."

I say this with all love and affection.

Another classic one is "scientists say you only use 10% of your brain". Unnamed "scientists" is usually a red flag. Who said this, and when? And what study or research did they do. There's basically no source for this, scientific or otherwise, and no research behind it, either rigorous or anecdotal.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

That tired Ten-Percent claim pops up all the time. In 1998, national magazine ads for U.S. Satellite Broadcasting showed a drawing of a brain. Under it was the caption, "You only use 11 percent of its potential." Well, they're a little closer than the ten-percent figure, but still off by about 89 percent. In July 1998, ABC television ran promotional spots for The Secret Lives of Men, one of their offerings for the fall season's lineup. The spot featured a full-screen blurb that read, "Men only use ten percent of their brains."

^ this is supposedly sexist against men, but it's actually inadvertently sexist against women. If men only use 10% of their brain, and women use 100%, then why are most top mathematicians and physicists men? Men are only coasting along on 10% after all xD


Another example is the 100 monkeys effect. The theory is that Japanese "scientists" (who? when?) discovered that once 100 monkeys discover something, the concept becomes embedded in the universal unconscious and all monkeys can do it. I've met actual people who believe in this for real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect

[TheBiggerFish]

Thanks for links.
I'll admit that I was part of today's lucky ten thousand.

[hops]

Scientists say you guys should give me all your money.

[Eric Blank]

I'm a scientist* and I say you shouldn't eat turnips because they elevate your risk of inadvertently consuming live bacteria.

You should also give me your money.