Paducah Home Theater Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/acceptance-profound-sounding-bs-linked-lower-intelligence http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf "The Bullshit Receptivity (BSR) scale" LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2015 http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/acceptance-profound-sounding-bs-linked-lower-intelligence http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf "The Bullshit Receptivity (BSR) scale" LOL The article reviewing the study was excellent. "Those who are more receptive to what the authors term as “bullshit” tend to be both less reflective and less intelligent than their peers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2015 Just started reading the actual journal article. Funding by a Canadian Government science council, now that is pretty funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted December 7, 2015 Moderators Share Posted December 7, 2015 Had no idea it was all defined and the sunject of philosophers. "In On Bullshit, the philosopher Frankfurt (2005) defines bullshit as something that is designed to impress but that was constructed absent direct concern for the truth. This distinguishes bullshit from lying, which entails a deliberate manipulation and subversion of truth (as understood by the liar)." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet_Hollow Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) "As Marcello Truzzi, a renowned skeptic and professor of sociology in the United States, once said: 'An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.' ” Although I'm not surprised by the conclusions of the study, and I feel sad for people who are harmed by quackery and the like, I take issue with Truzzi's use of the word "proof." Those of us who think reality is complex, and think there are some things and relationships that may exist that we don't understand, or even know about, are far more likely to speak of a claim gaining "support" than having been proven. "Extraordinary proof" is hard or impossible to come by, and the word "proof" is rarely, if ever, used by scientists. Professional scientific journals are full of "may indicate," "tends to support," "significant beyond the .05 level" (e.g., p < .0480, i.e., the probability of having made a Type I error), etc. Bold theories (like String Theory) contain much that has not yet been highly supported, let alone "proven," like there being 10 or more dimensions. There are even potential conflicts between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (see NOVA's The Elegant Universe, or the book by Greene, page 1). One doesn't "prove" either hypotheses or theories. One either rejects or accepts the null hypothesis, and there is a probability value attached. Everything is Truth + Error, with either Truth or Error able to vary from 0 to 100% in any give instance. "Proof" is for a simpler world. Edited December 9, 2015 by garyrc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 "As Marcello Truzzi, a renowned skeptic and professor of sociology in the United States, once said: 'An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.' ” Although I'm not surprised by the conclusions of the study, and I feel sad for people who are harmed by quackery and the like, I take issue with Truzzi's use of the word "proof." Those of us who think reality is complex, and think there are some things and relationships that may exist that we don't understand, or even know about, are far more likely to speak of a claim gaining "support" than having been proven. "Extraordinary proof" is hard or impossible to come by, and the word "proof" is rarely, if ever, used by scientists. Professional scientific journals are full of "may indicate," "tends to support," "significant beyond the .05 level" (e.g., p < .0480, i.e., the probability of having made a Type I error), etc. Bold theories (like String Theory) contain much that has not yet been highly supported, let alone "proven," like there being 10 or more dimensions. There are even potential conflicts between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (see NOVA's The Elegant Universe, or the book by Greene, page 1). One doesn't "prove" either hypotheses or theories. One either rejects or accepts the null hypothesis, and there is a probability value attached. Everything is Truth + Error, with either Truth or Error able to vary from 0 to 100% in any give instance. "Proof" is for a simpler world. You forgot the new theory of the Universe being a 3D holographic projection being supported by Quantum Physics black hole mathematics. JJK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.