Scientific method (thinking) and the 4th estate.

[clive milne]

If you were asked whether you employ the practice of critical thinking in formulating your world view, how many of you would answer; 'yes'?

Do you think you would be correct?

Here is a small thought experiment that I found very informative and interesting, and incidentally, when I tried it I failed (but learned something valuable)

(if you have seen this before, please don't spill the beans)

The nature of the situation is this:
You are tasked with trying to determine or uncover 'the law' or 'the rule' I have in mind.
You start with 1 free observation, that being: I provide a sequence of numbers. They are 2, 4 and 8
These three numbers obey the law.
In order to test your theory (of what this law might be) you can if you wish, experiment by submitting three numbers.
My response will be to either acknowledge that they are consistent with my law, or not.

So here we go...
2,4 & 8 obey the law.

when you think you understand it,
what is 'the law'.... ?

[iborg]

A couple of possiblities

16 32 64 etc

or

32 256 8192 etc

Mind you, I also wouldn't be surprised that I have missed something!

Have fun

[clive milne]

Those numbers are consistent with the law.

[clive milne]

Those numbers are consistent with the law.

[clive milne]

There is a twist to it. ;)


Are you inclined to state what the law is?

[Shiraz]

Hi Clive. I suspect that the only "law" that could reasonably be derived by the rest of us might be that there are three numbers - with only one observation, pretty much everything else is up for grabs.

So my submission is -14, 1.74e17 and 0

Then again, I might be misreading the question...

[iborg]

With a twist, any set of three!

[clive milne]

Excellent Ray, I was hoping you would have a crack at this.

To answer your question
You have as many observations as you wish, and 'the law' is consistent



In the interests of others, I'll pm you as to whether these 3 numbers are consistent with the law (or not)




That is getting to the crux of it.

[thunderchildobs]

It doesn't say 2 4 8 is a sequence but they obey a law.
The law could be list 3 even numbers.
So 10, 12, 14

[clive milne]

My guess when presented with the 3 original numbers was that the law was the exponential function.
I failed...
The theory that the law can be described by the statement:
any set of three!

also fails.


Keep at it,
it's worth it.

best
c

[clive milne]

Those numbers obey the law.

(and you were perilously close to a fail)

[xelasnave]

How can numbers obey a law. They can only be a result.
The only law must apply to the person writing down the numbers.
If it is indeed the author who is obeying the law the law can only be...you are commanded to write down three numbers.

[LewisM]

Composite numbers only (i.e, no prime numbers)

Or ordinal?

[Eratosthenes]

8, 4, 2

the order - ie numbers are merely increasing in magnitude???

or perhaps something to do with the commas that separate the numbers (you had only one comma and an "&" sign between the 4 and 8??

[julianh72]

367, 367367, 36736

[clive milne]

Both intelligent guesses, both subsets of the law, but neither define it.

Also a fail.... sorry Lewis, but an excellent try.

[clive milne]

These numbers are consistent with the law.

[clive milne]

These numbers are consistent with the law....

[julianh72]

2^1/2, e, pi

[clive milne]

No...

[clive milne]

Not consistent with the law.

[Eratosthenes]

so its not the numbers increasing in magnitude that is the law?

the order doesn't matter?

what the hell is the law then - must be random numbers

[julianh72]

2, 4, 7.999999999999...

[clive milne]

Not consistent with the rule....

[clive milne]

No....

[Eratosthenes]

can only be the order of the numbers then - any three numbers that increase in magnitude is the law

but you said 8,4,2 obeys the law?

Is this a semantic trick?

[clive milne]

No,
yes
and no.

[Eratosthenes]

what about 1,2,3

and -3,-2,-1

obey the law?

[clive milne]

Both sequences obey the law.

[Eratosthenes]

what about 3, 2, 1 and 3, 2, 0.9?

[clive milne]

Incidentally... Julian has got to the nub of it,
and despite what you might be thinking, it isn't a mathematical problem in essence.

[clive milne]

Again,
both sequences obey the law.

[clive milne]

Ok.... here it is...

The purpose of the exercise is to demonstrate the scientific method.
The law is not discovered by proposing numbers that are consistent with your expectations, but by proposing experimental conditions that give you a negative.
It is a process of exclusion.

[Eratosthenes]

no irrational numbers like Julian's 7.999999 recurring

[Eratosthenes]

i'll have another go next financial year - sleep time

[clive milne]

Exactly... the law is: the subset of numbers that do not include irrational numbers...

It is arbitrary.

The point of the exercise is to show the technique most appropriate or effective in defining 'the law'

Or... you might say, the underlining truth of any given situation.

[clive milne]

And the point of this thread is to invite you to apply this principle to every bit of information that might conceivably influence your world view.

Test it..

is it indefeasible?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indefeasible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeasible_reasoning)

[ZeroID]

Experiment or fail ...

[BilliGoatsGruff]

I think it's just a way to get us non-sciencey folk scratching our heads! I know mathematics, but nothing about these "laws" :lol:

[julianh72]

Aaahhh... But 0.999999 recurring is EXACTLY equal to 1, so 7.99999 recurring is rational!
http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Proof:The_Decimal_0.999..._is_Equiv alent_to_1

[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]

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]

Yes, exactly...

[multiweb]

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 :P

[andyc]

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]

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

[clive milne]

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]

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]

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



Spot on Clive. Money talks.

[clive milne]

Oh yes...

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

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/jobs-blown-away-as-turbines-kill-coal/story-e6frg9df-1227393869591

Tapeworm journalism at its worst.

[multiweb]

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

[Shiraz]

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

[multiweb]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

[Shiraz]

wow, that was worth watching. thanks Marc

[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. ?

[multiweb]

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. :lol:

[PCH]

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 :)

[Paul Haese]

Whilst an aging publication now, try reading Keith Windshuttles "The Media". Worth a read on how media organisation influence public perception and in particular Rupert Murdocks influence of all things. In particular the ability to influence the outcome of elections.

I would suggest all are false statements, it would from a syllogistic logic point of view seem to follow the correct analysis. Though it would depend your individual point of view I suppose; I don't know if a couple of statements are false, however logic says they would be (ownership and award of contracts). Murdoch does nothing in the public interest and only in his own interests. We are merely pawns in the game in which he is playing. It's all about the biggest pile of money and power it attains and who he can elect to power to attain those ends. He is well documented as being a king maker not only here but in other parts of the world.

Interesting idea to demonstrate a mode of thinking. Are you aware you have been using a syllogism to make your point Clive? Us lawyers equate it to pure logic or if you like Vulcan logic. ;)

[clive milne]

No, it isn't prime numbers...

fwiw) 16, 32 & 64 also fit the rule.

128, 256 & 512 do as well.

[Eratosthenes]

In late 2013, after the Abbott government was voted in, the ATO refunded Murdoch's Newscorp business in Australia a healthy 882 million dollars. This amount was refunded despite the healthy profits posted by Newscorp.

When Joe Hockey was cornered in a door stop interview after the 882 million dollar refund decision was made, he said he had no comment on the matter, and the government will not be appealing the ATO decision to the Federal Court....

I dont think there were too many questions on this matter in the Australian parliament and the Herald Sun in Melbourne didnt run many front page articles or get the honourable Andrew Bolt to do relentless unbiased editorial articles week after week after week.
;)

[AndrewJ]

In the spirit of this thread, the following

could also be represented as
"after the other mob got chucked out, and we were left with...."
We describe the same end result, but via totally different ways of looking at the process to get there.

Andrew

[clive milne]

Hi Paul,
I'm not sure I agree with the syllogism statement.

Incidentally, Keith Windshuttle is a fascinating choice.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/windschuttle-caught-in-quadrant-hoax/story-e6frg996-1111118495607

[clive milne]

With respect to Keith Windshuttle

Here are the articles on the front page of Quadrant online which are relevant to the environment:

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/06/punishing-frugal-https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/06/pontiff-buys-bridge/
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/12/climate-refugee-left-high-dry/
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/12/26217/
And...
Without getting in to a debate with respect to the accuracy of these articles, I think it a fair statement to say that they represent a fairly specific ideology. Being that Windschuttle was lecturer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecturer) in Australian history and in journalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism) at the New South Wales Institute of Technology (now the University of Technology, Sydney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Technology,_Sydney)) it is also probably a reasonable statement that this is neither arbitrary nor accidental.

ie) He knows exactly what he is doing.

[Paul Haese]

Keith's book to which I refer postulates that Murdoch has manipulated Australian political paradigms for many years.

I am not advocating this other odd commentary. Just his observations on Murdoch only. The other comments are highly hilarious. :) Keith's book was required reading in 93 at Uni in Politics 1 for me. Schuttle demonstrated that media outlet often set agenda as you said via confirmation bias.

Anyway like I said an interesting idea, to use scientific method as a means to demonstrate that something that is said in the media often enough must become fact. The sheep might well read that as truth. The critical thinkers might reserve their judgement. How much of the reported truth is in fact the truth? Hence my statement about syllogisms. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that was the thrust of your argument.

[Paul Haese]

Certainly quite right wing. He should have stuck to political theory and lecturing on Journalism. ;)

[nebulosity.]

Could the law be that the numbers must be even?

Thought I'd just give it a try.

Cheers
Jo

EDIT, after reading the rest of the thread that doesn't seem like and answer anymore.

[rustigsmed]

Hi Clive,

While not pertinent to the actual point of the thought experiment.
I like to pick on things so I've decided to add a few points.

The three numbers given do not obey or make up a part of the law at all (sorry more of a language issue).

Giving one option in conjunction with opting for affirmation or exclusion are still equally incomplete / inadequate.

In the end you received a number of responses that obeyed and didn't obey the law which means that the law is not really a law at all at best a guide :)

Cheers

Russ

[RB]

17,990 (for a very brief time) is now part of this mathematical discussion!

;)

[clive milne]

Now watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyIOQhnciGA

Cui Bono?

To answer that, it might be better to consider the converse question... ie) who benefits least?
and then;
who benefits from that?