President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Came here to post this
Just ****ing marvelous. If there’s one and only one aspect of Trump I’m impressed by its ability to constantly scam shittier people than him
And btw if a genuine 3 sigma result was published, it should replicate 997 times out of 1000... that is if the study design was proper (you fixed the effect you wanted to look for BEFORE doing the study).
I punished myself and kept reading but sigh.... they should really offer some numeracy courses targeted at conservatives. You are not at all understanding what sigma and confidence levels mean. If the study is on the impacts of planetary alignment or prayer on patient health I would expect published 3 sigma results to replicate much closer to 0 out of 1000 times. A blanket statement like you're makinf is simply not possible. If it was true, why do you think particle physicists wait until 5 sigma? Because CERN and Fermilab are full of anti-Trumpers? If you're dealing with something as complicated as biology and you have a ton of data and studies false 3 sigmas are expected and if you're not getting them something is wrong. That right wingers don't understand this is fine/expected, but that's also why they will continue to be ignored by scientists.
I punished myself and kept reading but sigh.... they should really offer some numeracy courses targeted at conservatives. You are not at all understanding what sigma and confidence levels mean. If the study is on the impacts of planetary alignment or prayer on patient health I would expect published 3 sigma results to replicate much closer to 0 out of 1000 times. A blanket s
If you don't predetermine what you are looking for yes. Otherwise no. Which is what i wrote. If you check a high enough number of "health variables" some will be outliers and those won't replicate.
But if you check only 1 or 3 things, which you predetermined, then if it's significant at 3 sigma it is supposed to replicate. Ofc in an identical cohort (that's another problem).
If you want to check prayer effects on "health", you have to tell us before you start the study that you will look at a single specific number. Otherwise you check mortality rates for every type of cancer, and the frequency of every single possible disease, and you will find some of them being very low in the praying group, and that won't replicate.
If you say before the study starts that you will only check heart attacks, then if the number of heart attacks is significantly lower in the praying group at 3 sigma, you have a very high chance that will replicate (if cohorts are built properly, controls are applied properly and so on)
What you want to deny is that recent findings replicate far less than older findings did replicate. you want to deny "science" is covered in public money and delivering less and less.
I’m stating the obvious mathematical fact that when you’re researching cutting edge medicine where things are not clear cut and obvious your statement about reproducibility is just wrong. As just a statement of fact it betrays a profound ignorance of basic statistics and experimental design. If you agree with that we agree.
21,000,000 million is a lot
21 trillion in fact. So just under 3000 times more people than inhabit the earth.
I wonder if this is a sign of mentao incompetence?
Come on, play fair. Neither of two of his offspring could do 7 x 16 in their heads, so you’ve got to lower the bar a bit for them…or a lot.
We got conservatives here thinking Medicine can produce 10 sigma results so they’re not exactly a math or thinking based culture. It’s obviously bigoted to point that out and suggest maybe that’s why nobody in the Harvard math department is a Trumper though.
CNBC on a legal way a growing number of companies are eluding significant portions of trump tariffs with the "first sale rule"
I punished myself and kept reading but sigh.... they should really offer some numeracy courses targeted at conservatives. You are not at all understanding what sigma and confidence levels mean. If the study is on the impacts of planetary alignment or prayer on patient health I would expect published 3 sigma results to replicate much closer to 0 out of 1000 times. A blanket s
What frustrates me about the constant back and forth with Lucy (not directed at you specifically, just a general platitude towards this ilk) is that he’s clearly intelligent enough to know this **** and clearly intelligent enough to manipulate. It’s why I refer to him as a lying piece of **** and not a stupid piece of ****
You reference Vance, for example. Vance is an incredibly intelligent guy who has sacrificed all morality to focus on manipulating facts and theory to advance populist agendas for the sake of power. Lucy is cut from the same cloth but has a fraction of the intelligence and 0.00% of the chance of gaining power
Why waste words on people who don’t care that they’re disingenuous pieces of **** but rather revel in it?
I’m stating the obvious mathematical fact that when you’re researching cutting edge medicine where things are not clear cut and obvious your statement about reproducibility is just wrong. As just a statement of fact it betrays a profound ignorance of basic statistics and experimental design. If you agree with that we agree.
if you are researching cutting edge medicine the complexity of your molecule or treatment is irrelevant, as it is understanding how and why exactly you obtain or fail to obtain some specific results, for the purpose of statistic significance.
you apply your treatment and check how distant the outcome is from expected, ex-treatment outcomes in the two cohorts.
it's identical if it's "cutting edge" or drinking water.
if you designed properly you are only checking specific outcomes and if the magnitude of the effect is big enough (significant) on those outcomes then it should replicate almost always qualitatively.
if your super complicated new drug or treatment regime does indeed reduce the tumoral mass a lot more than normal coupled with another existing treatment, there isn't a high chance of that being a false positive, if your experiment was built to check that to begin with and not a wide range of possible outcomes.
and the sample size isn't the only determinant of the statistic significance, you have a quantity of effect, it isn't a boolean outcome. if nothing reduces tumoral mass more than say 10% in 3 weeks in literature, and your treatment reduces it 60% in the experiment, the odds of it being a false positive are almost nil ("many sigmas") even if the number of patients is N=20.
you know it's almost certain that treatment works to reduce tumoral mass more. how much more you still don't know and you will never have as precise an estimate as in physics yes. but that it works? you can have very very very close to certainty (and then it should replicate).
that is why you thinking you need a N in the trillions to have 10 sigma significance is absurd. it's not particles that either do something or not.
it's an effect that is impossible to have by chance because of its magnitude.
There seems to be a lot of murderers and rapists in our universities. I guess that's why he's so mad at Harvard.
lol this is getting even more clownish. You can’t prove to 10 sigma confidence that vaccines don’t cause spontaneous death within 5 minutes to 20% of patients. Why? Enough people don’t exist to rule out that we just keep getting lucky and hitting the 80% every time to that absurd level of confidence. It’s just a mathematical fact. And just because were certain that vaccines don’t do that doesn’t mean we can arbitrarily declare 10 sigma confidence.
If you just read the 1st 5 words of Trump's holiday tweets and stop, it's a very positive uplifting message.
If you just read the 1st 5 words of Trump's holiday tweets and stop, it's a very positive uplifting message.
I’d argue you can go as far as 7 words. Inclusivity was attempted
Yep, it's eggshells after that
His Xmas one this year:
Merry Christmas to all, including to the
ok
wonderful
uh huh
soldiers
awwwww
of China
oh boy
who are lovingly
awwwwww
but illegally
oh no
operating the Panama Canal
ok no more
The bold is the logical sequitur , politically, from a rightwing position. I was trying to guide you through the process.So the replication crisis is massive, it exists, and it is getting worse. And this is uncontroversial (i think you now agree on this?). It happens because of a complex web of reasons, all linked to academia and scientifical publishing.Academia and scientifica
I have trouble linking leftish or right wing view on scientific results that becomes the conventionnalismes views because it went through to all the Statistical requirements.
In other words, bad Publishing papers, regardless being funded or realize by any political scientific view will never become mainstream .
Which is what I think u don’t understand about how science truth comes to be.
Publishing « bad » papers isnt the problem, it actually shows that it doesnt try to control science narrative like u seem to believe its happening.
The real problem isnt Publishing , the real problem is when Law makers uses unconfirmed Studies and unconfirmed scientific truth by political hacks try to do political policies based on that -> aka rfk jr and other imbeciles…
That’s is the real danger !
The bold is the logical sequitur , politically, from a rightwing position. I was trying to guide you through the process.
So the replication crisis is massive, it exists, and it is getting worse. And this is uncontroversial (i think you now agree on this?). It happens because of a complex web of reasons, all linked to academia and scientifical publishing.
The replication crisis as a concept is a real thing that people are studying and attempting to cure.
The replication crisis in biology is not. The replication crisis in biology implies that there is something particular about biology that makes it worthy of particular scrutiny.
And the consequence that the replication crisis is causing a stall in scientific progress is also not established.
You’re adding semantic content to a phrase and irresponsibly using it, then wondering why I am asking to show empirical evidence and to take more nuanced approaches to it.
Academia and scientifical publishing is controlled by leftists (do you need data on self -identification of professors, journal editors and so on politically?). Everything that happens in that field is because of leftist decisions.
He cites BIOLOGY because some people do acknowledge and admit social sciences are fully captured by leftism , but they think STEM isn't. Biology having a massive replication crisis disproves that notion.
Therefore leftism is CAUSING the replication crisis.
That's the logical political conclusion.
The solution must thus start from *removing leftism from academia and scientific publishing*. You cannot fix it without fixing the root cause we just determined is upstream of the replication crisis (and any other problems in academia).
Given a lot of money is given to academia to perform leftism and create those problems, i use the word fraud to describe what's going on: money syphoned to leftists to do leftists thing while they destroy the very element they should purportedly nurture with that money (science).
Keep in mind the context is "why is Trump slashing funds for research and why that's a good thing". It is a good thing because those funds are used to encrust even more leftism in academia, while destroying science.
And the replication crisis is the iceberg tip showing us clearly how disastrous the situation is.
So the form of the argument is this:
The replication crisis exists and is massive [q]
Leftists control academia [r]
Biology also has a replication crisis [s]
Conclusion: Leftism must be removed from controlling academia because they caused the replication crisis
Well just on the face of it if this is meant to be a logical argument I can reject it because its form is invalid.
If I wanted to steelman this argument I would just say that there is a compositional fallacy going on. Even if I grant you that most universities are controlled by leftists and all universities are suffering from the replication crisis, that doesn’t get you to leftism caused the replication crisis.
It does play rhetorically well (emotion) but it isn’t logical (fact-based)
Obviously JD Vance with no training or talent in science knows exactly what is going on in biology and it just happens to be the thing he is obsessed about regardless of the topic. I’m sure he’ll diagnose the reason we haven’t solved the cosmological constant problem next and spoiler alert it will be wokeness.
Also for me there is a legitimately (classical) conservative concern here, which is that if we try to let someone like Vance or Trump go in there and tinker with things, they might end up destroying part of what makes it work in the first place.
There are legitimate pragmatic concerns with a tear-it-all-down approach, whether it comes from left wing post-structuralism or right-wing zealotry. And at least with the former view we can subsume this within the academic world, but the latter view is inherently anathema to academia.
Nothing sadder than a tough guy who needs to remind you he's tough
He’s President of the United States and is online posting
crap like a middle school boy. To leaders of other countries!
