Scientific method (thinking) and the 4th estate.

[clive milne]

Now imagine if the rules of the game were exactly the same
But this time I stood to benefit from leading you to believe that 'the law'
was any set of sequential integers.

Without telling a single lie, I could mislead you easily by simply providing you with numbers that fit your preconceptions (and my agenda) whilst staying silent when they don't.

Cui bono

[Shiraz (Ray)]

ahh. I wondered where the fourth estate came in. Makes a mockery of the idea that we live in a democracy of informed individuals.

Assume that you are well aware of the concepts outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
great thread - thanks.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

ahh. I wondered where the fourth estate came in. Makes a mockery of the idea that we live in a democracy of informed individuals.

Assume that you are well aware of the concepts outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

great thread - thanks.

Yes, exactly...

[multiweb (Marc)]

Framing and Wikipedia in the same sentence. Astroturf comes to mind.

[Steffen]

In cargo cult science everybody is in love with his or her own theory and tries to amass evidence supporting it, like a lawyer. In real science you make an observation, form a theory to explain it and then proceed to look for evidence falsifying your theory (by means of experimentation or further observation).

[clive milne]

Now for a question.... (or two)

Which of the following statements are false?



Rupert Murdoch is not capable of manipulating public opinion to the extent required to influence global politics.


Rupert Murdoch is not likely to manipulate public opinion for personal gain, if given the opportunity.


Rupert Murdoch is not part owner of the New York-listed company Genie Energy.


A local subsidiary of Genie Energy was not given exclusive drilling rights to a large area in the Golan heights (by Israel)


Rupert Murdoch does not stand to profit from destabilising the Syrian government.


Not being manipulated by the Murdoch press is not in the interests of the general public.

[LewisM]

So, this test I assume was either an example of Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference.

Here's one for Clive: all these obey a rule. Obey the rule:

π, e, π^e, e^π...

It's simple, and relatively limited too

[andyc (Andy)]

Thanks for the thread Clive, a very nice demonstration of the scientific method.

For difficult problems, it is easy to provide a small data subset that does not in reality conflict with the actual underlying law - but (especially with a little suggestion) might also not conflict with an ultimately incorrect alternative hypothesis. Particularly if the alternative is more palatable to the reader, they can happily believe the alternative but only if they are not in possession of the full body of scientific evidence.

A prevailing theory is always provisional until conflicting evidence arises; but some theories are considerably closer to the underlying law than others, particularly once a larger body of evidence has been gathered. The example was set nicely to draw people into thinking about geometric or exponential sequences and so on, yet the fuller body of evidence showed this straightforward hypothesis to be erroneous, pointing much more strongly to other conclusions, while not "proving" those conclusions. The US National Research Council put it this way:

"From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything—in the manner that mathematics or other formal logical systems prove things—because science is fundamentally based on observations. Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations. In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts."

I think some may understand why I might appreciate fairly acutely the links between the fourth estate and science...

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Framing and Wikipedia in the same sentence. Astroturf comes to mind.

Hi Marc. I assume this applies to my post, but sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by LewisM

So, this test I assume was either an example of Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference.

Here's one for Clive: all these obey a rule. Obey the rule:

π, e, π^e, e^π...

It's simple, and relatively limited too

Well, the law I was using was arbitrary... even the use of numbers was arbitrary. The same basic principle could have employed subsets of fruits or vegetables or even used cars. The purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate the principle of confirmation bias and how the media uses it as a tool to steer public opinion. The media does not just report on current affairs, it also creates them.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

Hi Marc. I assume this applies to my post, but sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

I think Marc was pointing out the irony of an entry on framing being found on a web-service that is arguably guilty of the practice itself.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

Hi Marc. I assume this applies to my post, but sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Hi Ray, not related to your post, no. Just pointing out that it is increasingly difficult to find the correct information online.

Originally Posted by clive milne

I think Marc was pointing out the irony of an entry on framing being found on a web-service that is arguably guilty of the practice itself.

Spot on Clive. Money talks.

[clive milne]

I think some may understand why I might appreciate fairly acutely the links between the fourth estate and science...

Oh yes...

fwiw) Here is the article that inspired me to start this thread:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1227393869591

Tapeworm journalism at its worst.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Oh yes...

fwiw) Here is the article that inspired me to start this thread:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1227393869591

Tapeworm journalism at its worst.

"experts say", "simon says"... potato, patata. it must be true, it's even in there: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Simon_Says

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Hi Ray, not related to your post, no. Just pointing out that it is increasingly difficult to find the correct information online.

thanks Marc - yes, reliable information seems to be difficult to find (or recognise) anywhere, as Clive's exercise clearly demonstrated.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

thanks Marc - yes, reliable information seems to be difficult to find (or recognise) anywhere, as Clive's exercise clearly demonstrated.

Click here to load the video

Loading...

[Shiraz (Ray)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

wow, that was worth watching. thanks Marc

[DarkKnight (Kev)]

OK, I'll be a dill.

The only definitives I see are prime numbers and a progressive doubling sequence.

The only other numbers that fit these parameters are 1,2 & 4

Or did I miss the trees for the forest. ?

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

wow, that was worth watching. thanks Marc

Yep, scary hey? Disease of the 21st century. Google it and whatever comes first (most popular) must be true. Even spelling and vocabulary. The Oxford Dictionary is wrong in so many cases.

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by DarkKnight

OK, I'll be a dill.

The only definitives I see are prime numbers and a progressive doubling sequence.

The only other numbers that fit these parameters are 1,2 & 4

Or did I miss the trees for the forest. ?

Pretty sure 4 isn't a prime number matey. It is the number of letters in 'dill' though - lol. Sorry, couldn't resist - no offence