This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't really see the objection to the original study? Sure if they claimed to be testing all homeless then they're lying, and probably some popular media outlets reported on it that way and were lying, but it's pretty normal to restrict your sample in various ways to reduce noise or just study a specific thing in depth. You just have to be upfront with what question you're actually answering, this seems like a good question to answer still.
High subject mortality is definitely a source of potential bias, if you have a reason to think that the dropouts are different from the continuers in an important way; but again, that's a caveat you should be putting in the results section and discussing the implications of, not a failure of the methodology or an invalidation of the findings.
As usual, I find it helpful to refer back to Debunked and Well-refuted. Yes, lots of science is done poorly, but lots of it is done well, or still gather relevant data that you can learn true things from despite the flaws. It's fun and easy to nitpick flaws in any paper because practical restrictions prevent anything from being perfect, and it's hugely useful to do that preferentially to the papers that don't support your positions, but it's a dangerous game to play.
We agree that some science is done well, meaning that it illuminates new technology that actually works.
We agree that some science is done... "poorly", meaning that the technology it purports to reveal does not actually exist.
The current norm is that all claims of new technology propagated through "official" channels are treated as true unless arbitrary standards of proof can be met to discount them. This norm is asinine, and examples overflow of claims of "new" "technology" propagating for decades, perhaps even for centuries without the slightest shred of actual function, even in the teeth of explicit and overwhelming disproof.
This junk science has massively reshaped our entire civilization, and much of it serves as the foundation of our social order. The people who produce it divert vast amounts of resources to themselves from the rest of us, use them to secure completely unjustified amounts of power over the rest of us, and suffer zero accountability for this behavior.
It is imperative that they be stripped of their resources and positions, permanently excluded from all influence over our society, and the changes they made be rolled back.
Sure, but we're not talking about popular media summaries or government agencies or w/e, we're talking about critiquing the original publication directly here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link