Vallerina 2 #1 January 31, 2006 Oops...tried searching for it...oh well.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #2 January 31, 2006 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2044529;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #3 January 31, 2006 I never thought any of them were that "hidden" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #4 January 31, 2006 QuoteI never thought any of them were that "hidden" Two days in a row where you stated things oh so perfectly! There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #5 January 31, 2006 There's another? I protest. All I really know, is some PhD got a ton of research grant money, most likely, for this "Study" you talk about. So it's fair to say the system works, eh? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #6 January 31, 2006 QuoteThere's another? I protest. All I really know, is some PhD got a ton of research grant money, most likely, for this "Study" you talk about. You're asking for an irony score there!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 January 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteThere's another? I protest. All I really know, is some PhD got a ton of research grant money, most likely, for this "Study" you talk about. You're asking for an irony score there! We are prepared for that. score away. Remember the research grant that was used to determine that "Skydivers are of a Type that may take chances and enjoy exciting situations"? I think it was over $200,000 I'm not complaining, I want in on it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #8 January 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere's another? I protest. All I really know, is some PhD got a ton of research grant money, most likely, for this "Study" you talk about. You're asking for an irony score there! We are prepared for that. score away. Remember the research grant that was used to determine that "Skydivers are of a Type that may take chances and enjoy exciting situations"? I think it was over $200,000 I'm not complaining, I want in on it. Sorry, I thought you were complaining about research to discover facts about decisions made without facts. Score withdrawn.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 January 31, 2006 QuoteSorry, I thought you were complaining about research to discover facts about decisions made without facts. Score withdrawn. I'm more interested in the 'normal' scientific process (social "science" anyway) where research is twisted to discover "facts" to support the pre-determined positions of the researcher). But your thing has a high irony score. Iron is good for the blood. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #10 January 31, 2006 How do you learn things about how people (in general) work and respond to things if you don't so social research? After all, any idiot can decide that blondes have more fun. The variables are complex, and subjective. But I'm not sure that means that trying to take a critical look at them is worthless. Hopefully, as people practice, enough ways that work will be built that there will be increased credibility. Otherwise we'll stay stuck with "it worked for us so it'll work for you, young lady!" Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 January 31, 2006 I have no issue with objective controlled experiments and statistical processing of various hypothesized potential key input variables against a measurable output variable. I do have issue with non-objective manipulation of setups and results and assumed conclusions biasing experimental setups. In any kind of science. And the metrics are usually totally nuts and have poor gage capability. Social behavior is not modelible, because of the complexities you speak to. The means that the process of make a theory and go prove it is much more dangerous. In the hard sciences, at least the common sense check and 1st principles can guide us objectively through initial bias. Social issues we have to be completely innocent to learn reality. I've yet to see an unbiased social study on any 'important' subject. With the complexity of social interaction depending on such a tiny world population with such drastic individual interaction, maybe subjective issues are the scientific equivalent of random number generators. In that case, trends are meaningless when studying social issues. Thus, we actually do just have to take it on a case basis. That leaves social study as an interesting effort of just people going around trying to validate their personal bias. Too bad, they could be building cars, or fixing computers. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #12 January 31, 2006 QuoteI do have issue with non-objective manipulation of setups and results and assumed conclusions biasing experimental setups.And you should. And there's some really crappy science out there.QuoteSocial behavior is not modelible, because of the complexities you speak to. The means that the process of make a theory and go prove it is much more dangerous.But this is where having a good interchange about the theory and methodology is important -- when there are so many more holes to be poked into someone's research, it's more important to do it in the open, so that something can be learned about the holes. Maybe if the body of credible research on small things gets to be extensive enough, some of it can be done on larger items. QuoteSocial issues we have to be completely innocent to learn reality. ...I've yet to see an unbiased social study on any 'important' subject. Quote maybe subjective issues are the scientific equivalent of random number generators. If we keep working at it, imperfectt hough it may be, there will eventually be a body of knowledge significant enough to provide a smell test for some of the studies, and some of the data. But, well, we have to keep doing crappy research so that we can begin to determine what makes it good. Kind of like a scientific method on the scientific method. "nope, that didn't work, let me try the study this way." QuoteThat leaves social study as an interesting effort of just people going around trying to validate their personal bias.Every now and then people begin to learn something new. Regardless, smart people with good people sense will have an idea of how things should work. I'll bet that gravity sounded pretty obvious to people who didn't get into the mathematics. I'm not defending some of the bullshit studies. However, I'm definitely defending the act of studying things that we don't understand, however imperfectly. Because the act of studying them, if done with some desire to improve, will eventually end up with better methods of studying fuzzy data. 50 years ago if someone had postulated some of the particles that are postulated now, or 130 years ago if they'd postulated black holes, the reaction would have been funny. Since there is an unambiguous language used to communicate these theories and studies (math, backed up by physics), we can all be on the same page. It's a lot harder when people don't even know what book they're in, and each person is describing their own book, trying to see if it's like others' books. But I don't think that means we shouldn't study those materials. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 January 31, 2006 QuoteI'm definitely defending the act of studying things that we don't understand, however imperfectly. Totally agree, as long as you have repeatible and reproducible metrics. Until that happens, though, the drawing of conclusions is nuts. And we see a lot of conclusions, and not much measuring. Right now it's the equivalent of sitting in front of an old time radio twisting 30 knobs and claiming they know they are making the sound clearer. (When the reality is, only two knobs work - ON/OFF/VOLUME and the station selector - all the knobs they are twisting are just spares that aren't attached to anything). This is a 'science' that specializes in playing around within natural variation and calling their studies reality. Let them fix that and then I'll take them seriously. In the meantime, glad it's a money making field. Stack it right up there with evangelism and politics. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #14 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm definitely defending the act of studying things that we don't understand, however imperfectly. Totally agree, as long as you have repeatible and reproducible metrics. Until that happens, though, the drawing of conclusions is nuts. And we see a lot of conclusions, and not much measuring. Right now it's the equivalent of sitting in front of an old time radio twisting 30 knobs and claiming they know they are making the sound clearer. (When the reality is, only two knobs work - ON/OFF/VOLUME and the station selector - all the knobs they are twisting are just spares that aren't attached to anything). . I have a knob on the dash of my plane that has no obvious purpose. It is connected into the wiring harness and the wires are not easily traced. It is not shown in the handbook. In 19 years I have not discovered what it does (nor have the various A&Ps who work on the plane). I just let passengers play with it to amuse themselves. I toyed with the idea of placarding it "Warp drive" or "Quantum Space Modulator", but in the end decided that mystery is best.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
