|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1341 Posts
I don't know where people are getting the idea that as long as you are adhering to the scientific method (eg you are making an empirically falsible claim), universities or any scientific institution is obliged to take it seriously.
We've known for ages that if there is a financial incentive, organisations (for example tobacco companies) are able to get a group of people to publish papers that are making scientific claims (eg that can be falsible through experimentation), as well as experimental results that turn out not to be replicable (or are intentionally have flawed methodology).
The result being, that we generally don't take seriously, claims (especially those that run counter to existing experimental results) that are not backed up by experimental results from a reputable source (a reputable sources being ones that have a history of replicable results), or made by people who have historically made claims that have been backed by those results. Chances are academics are not going to allow (or at least heavily discourage) anyone from citing similarly unbacked sources.
To do otherwise would be to expend immense scientific resources disproving what is potentially almost a limitless amount of, strictly speaking, claims that conform to the scientific method, but don't necessarilly have (and sound unlikely to get) backing from experimental results.
Eg as LightSpectra put it, constantly dispproving Miasma theory. There is no reason why one cannot put forth a paper that is making claims that adheres perfectly to the scientific method that propose miasma theory, it's just unlikely to find experimental confirmation when the rubber hits the road.
This is without even taking into account malicious actors (again like tobacco companies) that can put forth both malicious proposals and bad experimental results. Does the scientific method have a way of filtering this out/disproving it eventually? Yes. But these actors also have the resources to grind basically all institutional scientific endeavour to a halt if we had to treat everything that is merely adeherent to the scientific method seriously.
|
On July 22 2026 14:41 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 14:22 EnDeR_ wrote:
What was the grading rubric for this document? What was the context, which degree programme, which year? We normally add accuracy checks as part of any assessments involving external research. I must have the draft somewhere; the claim was that the rate of economic growth tied to development of climate change tools and rate of adaptions per regions. Obviously not too difficult to write about, given a lot of these are quantifiable data with case studies.. It's just the standard final assignments. for economics (social science, not the commerce). Accuracy is easy since I was only referencing the university provided research paper portal access and major news outlet basing around past events. They didn't give me a failure, they just said I should pick another topic all together. Who knows, maybe they thought it's too broad or predictive.
What you are describing is the 'do nothing' scenario typically used in climate modelling. That one generally has the most catastrophic outcomes so the advice you received doesn't feel that out of place. If you've got any journal article links making the case for more growth as an answer to climate change, I'd like to have a read.
|
On July 22 2026 15:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
I don't know where people are getting the idea that as long as you are adhering to the scientific method (eg you are making an empirically falsible claim), universities or any scientific institution is obliged to take it seriously.
We've known for ages that if there is a financial incentive, organisations (for example tobacco companies) are able to get a group of people to publish papers that are making scientific claims (eg that can be falsible through experimentation), as well as experimental results that turn out not to be replicable (or are intentionally have flawed methodology).
The result being, that we generally don't take seriously, claims (especially those that run counter to existing experimental results) that are not backed up by experimental results from a reputable source (a reputable sources being ones that have a history of replicable results), or made by people who have historically made claims that have been backed by those results. Chances are academics are not going to allow (or at least heavily discourage) anyone from citing similarly unbacked sources.
To do otherwise would be to expend immense scientific resources disproving what is potentially almost a limitless amount of, strictly speaking, claims that conform to the scientific method, but don't necessarilly have (and sound unlikely to get) backing from experimental results.
Eg as LightSpectra put it, constantly dispproving Miasma theory. There is no reason why one cannot put forth a paper that is making claims that adheres perfectly to the scientific method that propose miasma theory, it's just unlikely to find experimental confirmation when the rubber hits the road.
This is without even taking into account malicious actors (again like tobacco companies) that can put forth both malicious proposals and bad experimental results. Does the scientific method have a way of filtering this out/disproving it eventually? Yes. But these actors also have the resources to grind basically all institutional scientific endeavour to a halt if we had to treat everything that is merely adeherent to the scientific method seriously.
>We've known for ages that if there is a financial incentive, organisations (for example tobacco companies) are able to get a group of people to publish papers that are making scientific claims (eg that can be falsible through experimentation), as well as experimental results that turn out not to be replicable (or are intentionally have flawed methodology).
This doesn't mean the scientific community do not take them seriously. the scientific community use scientific method to disprove and question the result.
>The result being, that we generally don't take seriously, claims (especially those that run counter to existing experimental results) that are not backed up by experimental results from a reputable source
who's we here?
Publication agency you mean?
>There is no reason why one cannot put forth a paper that is making claims that adheres perfectly to the scientific method that propose miasma theory, it's just unlikely to find experimental confirmation when the rubber hits the road.
except it's not that easy, because of peer review and publication agency have their processes.
I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of rigorous research needed to be published, including any that are to address some other research papers.
|
On July 22 2026 14:56 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 14:52 Acrofales wrote:On July 22 2026 14:16 ETisME wrote:On July 22 2026 14:08 LightSpectra wrote:
The first step of peer review is immediately throwing something in the garbage if it obviously has no merit. That is, again, why biologists aren't wasting half their day continually re-debunking miasma theory.
Your tutor telling you your paper on climate change was bad enough that you should pick a different topic was doing peer review. >Your tutor telling you your paper on climate change was bad enough that you should pick a different topic was doing peer review that's a big assumption, considering I was referencing credible research papers. Again, are you not taught what scientific method is? I hope you are learning. Also I wasn't writing a research to be published. the educator is meant to point out where the issue is, not on whether they agree with the conclusion. Don't role play yourself as the tutor now  You're talking drivel. I worked as a university professor for a while and graded assignments. Here's how it works: before the class starts, we establish what the students are expected to learn in the course and set up clear instructions as well as clear criteria for grading. So for the example let's stick with a class on web development. The associated practical assignment is to build an e-commerce website. The instructions say to ensure it's legal and ethical. If you follow the assignment and decide to build a website for selling Nazi paraphernalia, I would have told you in the second session (when ideas needed to be presented) that that doesn't count as an ethical topic, and you should pick a different theme. If you don't and on session 3 you insist that selling Nazi paraphernalia is an ethical topic, I'll just scale it up to the dean, and whatever the dean decides is what we'll go with. And while I haven't had any students try to build a website selling Nazi paraphernalia, there have been a few edgelords suggesting drugs as their product. Usually I just told them to sell cannabis products instead, and it's fine. The topic, however, is over of exactly two areas where any subjectivity is allowed, and the topic isn't part of the rubric. It's a prerequisite for getting graded at all, and there's plenty of time to discuss and change it during the quadrimester. Inside the rubric there are 9 points to be given out for entirely objective things like "does clicking the buy button add the product to your shopping cart". The final point, which is allowed to be subjective, is for general UX. If you got enough of the regular points, UX is almost always a freebie: the only way to fuck that up would be to intentionally pick some clashing colors, the text in Comic sans and everything blinking all the time. And even then, I'd probably give the points for creativity: you understand how to use CSS to get a customised look and feel, even if you used it to troll me. Ok, you say I am talking drivel, but you literally replied to me with a non-structured sentence? I love how it always go back to nazi. I am not in the IT field. Do you use research papers reference to grade assignments? Would you have taken me to the Dean by doing a research paper on economic growth leads to more climate science tools then? >ll just scale it up to the dean, and whatever the dean decides is what we'll go with Exactly. If it's deemed a reasonable and relevant topic, you still have to go with it. You rate it based on the rubric, not whatever topic you feel uncomfortable with. That's literally not your job. As an ex-professor, is it logical to you, that I would get to final assignments, without knowing the basic course structure and not already done a few assignments and papers? As an ex-professor then, is your chunk of text serving much value if you had the correct expectation, i.e. I would have done a few courses and assignments?
Of course there are more academic oriented classes as well. Rubrics are harder to set up there, but reading peer reviewed papers is standard practice. Whether I'd take you to the dean for writing a paper on the impact of economic growth on global warming is going to depend on what the class is on and what the rubric says. If it's intro to scientific method and the rubric says to pick your topic freely, then I'd probably just warn you that there's a lot of pseudo-science in the area and it'll be difficult for a new student to separate the wheat from the chaff. But if you insist, you'd be welcome to pick that topic. If the rubric says to pick a CS-related research topic, then obviously I'd ask you in what way this is computer science.
Also, I'm not here to tell you your university is bad. There's plenty of bad universities out there, if you went to one of them, then I'm sorry for you. At my university, the rubric was public and published online for every course. I actually think that was a legal requirement, not just university policy.
|
On July 22 2026 15:48 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 14:41 ETisME wrote:On July 22 2026 14:22 EnDeR_ wrote:
What was the grading rubric for this document? What was the context, which degree programme, which year? We normally add accuracy checks as part of any assessments involving external research. I must have the draft somewhere; the claim was that the rate of economic growth tied to development of climate change tools and rate of adaptions per regions. Obviously not too difficult to write about, given a lot of these are quantifiable data with case studies.. It's just the standard final assignments. for economics (social science, not the commerce). Accuracy is easy since I was only referencing the university provided research paper portal access and major news outlet basing around past events. They didn't give me a failure, they just said I should pick another topic all together. Who knows, maybe they thought it's too broad or predictive. What you are describing is the 'do nothing' scenario typically used in climate modelling. That one generally has the most catastrophic outcomes so the advice you received doesn't feel that out of place. If you've got any journal article links making the case for more growth as an answer to climate change, I'd like to have a read.
Not quite true.
You must know the paper is more about the methodology, statements made with referencing and research etc, data modelling if needed.
The conclusion does not have to prove my hypothesis to be correct.
More economic growth, more broad investment including green tech, and more accessibility hence more adoption, lead by government regulation and incentives.
This was always going to be fairly easy paper to write about
|
Some people here have entirely too much faith in "the scientific method". In the abstract, I agree. In reality, the research is done by people with their own interests and reviewed by peers with theirs. Only extraordinary claims will prompt a reviewer to try to replicate your experiments, and only if they have the equipment to do so and it is cheap. Plenty of papers get published and stick around for years before someone digs into them for real.
And with the publish-or-perish pressure and the extreme speed with which AI can write convincing sounding nonsense, the publishing crisis is getting worse, not better.
|
On July 22 2026 16:07 Acrofales wrote:
Some people here have entirely too much faith in "the scientific method". In the abstract, I agree. In reality, the research is done by people with their own interests and reviewed by peers with theirs. Only extraordinary claims will prompt a reviewer to try to replicate your experiments, and only if they have the equipment to do so and it is cheap. Plenty of papers get published and stick around for years before someone digs into them for real.
And with the publish-or-perish pressure and the extreme speed with which AI can write convincing sounding nonsense, the publishing crisis is getting worse, not better.
Yes and no.
You can always criticize the sources you use as well (backed by other papers of course), and provide alternative sources to back it up.
And having a scientific method requirement means it isn't just made-up fantasy data, and the method can be reviewed.
Even good research papers can still be a result of too small sample set, or the method has some strong bias from the sample set.
At the end of the day, it's still the most highly regarded method to write a paper on, unless you propose something else.
Especially for academic and research, what else would we use?
The last part about AI is 100% true, apparently, they are still fairly bad as of now, with a lot of hallucinated data and sources.
But who knows, maybe AI is the solution as well, that's why universities are using to detect whether some students are using AI to write papers.
|
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name.
|
On July 22 2026 16:18 Turbovolver wrote:
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name.
I don't even remember the conversation.
More productive companies that produce products and services that people use, and generating more profit, is better allocation of resources and rewarded for it.
Is that good for the world? If it wasn't good then it wouldn't be generating that much profit or/and creating a moat.
Sure there's exceptions.
But if you know any good performing company have low share price, let me know, I will invest in it. is this supposed to be a tough question?
|
On July 22 2026 16:18 Turbovolver wrote:
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name.
Of shareholder value increasing, decreasing, and remaining the same, which of those would you rank as good, bad, or indifferent?
|
On July 22 2026 16:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 16:18 Turbovolver wrote:
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name. Of shareholder value increasing, decreasing, and remaining the same, which of those would you rank as good, bad, or indifferent?
That doesn't seem like a question with an easy, clear-cut answer.
If you'd like to make the case for one of them, I'm all ears.
|
On July 22 2026 16:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 16:18 Turbovolver wrote:
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name. Of shareholder value increasing, decreasing, and remaining the same, which of those would you rank as good, bad, or indifferent?
Given how utterly disconnected the stock price usually is from what the company contributes to society, I'm going to have to go with "indifferent" on all of those.
|
On July 22 2026 16:15 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 16:07 Acrofales wrote:
Some people here have entirely too much faith in "the scientific method". In the abstract, I agree. In reality, the research is done by people with their own interests and reviewed by peers with theirs. Only extraordinary claims will prompt a reviewer to try to replicate your experiments, and only if they have the equipment to do so and it is cheap. Plenty of papers get published and stick around for years before someone digs into them for real.
And with the publish-or-perish pressure and the extreme speed with which AI can write convincing sounding nonsense, the publishing crisis is getting worse, not better. Yes and no. You can always criticize the sources you use as well (backed by other papers of course), and provide alternative sources to back it up. And having a scientific method requirement means it isn't just made-up fantasy data, and the method can be reviewed. Even good research papers can still be a result of too small sample set, or the method has some strong bias from the sample set. At the end of the day, it's still the most highly regarded method to write a paper on, unless you propose something else. Especially for academic and research, what else would we use? The last part about AI is 100% true, apparently, they are still fairly bad as of now, with a lot of hallucinated data and sources. But who knows, maybe AI is the solution as well, that's why universities are using to detect whether some students are using AI to write papers.
Yeah, my point wasn't that alternative methods are better. If you aren't even trying to follow the scientific method, including having your research reviewed by your peers, you're probably engaged in quackery.
My point was that even if something IS published in a reputable journal, it may be wrong. And the probability of it being wrong is increasing due to there being ever less time for review, ever more pressure to publish anything you can and greater capacity for writing well articulated and convincing bullshit.
|
My phone just updated and tried to install Candy Crush as part of it. It didn't even let me choose not to force-install Block Blast and some Mahjong app. Now if Samsung announced this new service to shareholders and their stock price went up, I can tell you I would not call that a good thing lmao
|
On July 22 2026 16:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 16:34 oBlade wrote:On July 22 2026 16:18 Turbovolver wrote:
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name. Of shareholder value increasing, decreasing, and remaining the same, which of those would you rank as good, bad, or indifferent? Given how utterly disconnected the stock price usually is from what the company contributes to society, I'm going to have to go with "indifferent" on all of those.
The reason we use money is because it's a quantifiable representation of value.
The reason why we use balance sheet to judge how well a company is doing, is because it gives you a quantifiable representation of it's financial health and performance.
Share values is how confident investors are in its ability, and all that.
all it takes is your voting with your wallet, did you put your money into a company that is contribution more to the society but less return? Share value does affect their ability to raise more capitals, hope you are supporting the more social contributing companies
|
On July 22 2026 16:39 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 16:34 oBlade wrote:On July 22 2026 16:18 Turbovolver wrote:
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name. Of shareholder value increasing, decreasing, and remaining the same, which of those would you rank as good, bad, or indifferent? That doesn't seem like a question with an easy, clear-cut answer. If you'd like to make the case for one of them, I'm all ears.
Wow sounds very reasonable that you don't want to make some kind of indefensible universal claim. You project that reasonableness onto others, right, so this isn't a thing where you pigeonhole ETisME into believing something like "Any specific stock price increase is always a direct and pure gain for society" or something I'm sure. Because then we can sit there going "Look retail pumped GameStop for a week and then the stock tanked again - what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?" and think we're geniuses.
Or do you want to understand why a system that allows people to invest capital, meaning to own parts (shares) of a business, including their own business (what is a business? something that produces goods/services - the literal means of production), and have the market assess values in some way instead of a purpley haired person saying "You dug a ditch with a spoon for 8 hours, you cleaned the floor with a toothbrush for 8 hours, you did 8 hours of heart surgery, and you did 8 hours of rocket engineering, you all created equal intangible ethereal 'value'" is a good system? It's a fascinating subject and a beautiful system.
|
On July 22 2026 16:55 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 16:39 Turbovolver wrote:On July 22 2026 16:34 oBlade wrote:On July 22 2026 16:18 Turbovolver wrote:
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name. Of shareholder value increasing, decreasing, and remaining the same, which of those would you rank as good, bad, or indifferent? That doesn't seem like a question with an easy, clear-cut answer. If you'd like to make the case for one of them, I'm all ears. Wow sounds very reasonable that you don't want to make some kind of indefensible universal claim. You project that reasonableness onto others, right, so this isn't a thing where you pigeonhole ETisME into believing something like "Any specific stock price increase is always a direct and pure gain for society" or something I'm sure. Because then we can sit there going "Look retail pumped GameStop for a week and then the stock tanked again - what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?" and think we're geniuses. Or do you want to understand why a system that allows people to invest capital, meaning to own parts (shares) of a business, including their own business (what is a business? something that produces goods/services - the literal means of production), and have the market assess values in some way instead of a purpley haired person saying "You dug a ditch with a spoon for 8 hours, you cleaned the floor with a toothbrush for 8 hours, you did 8 hours of heart surgery, and you did 8 hours of rocket engineering, you all created equal intangible ethereal 'value'" is a good system? It's a fascinating subject and a beautiful system.
Can we talk about this without all the hysterics, please?
|
On July 22 2026 16:30 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2026 16:18 Turbovolver wrote:
ETisME couldn't (or didn't want to) tell me how "shareholder value goes up" is a net good for the world as a greater whole, really this seems like it's just that again but now applied to a more specific specific issue.
Good Business = Good, it's right there in the name. I don't even remember the conversation. More productive companies that produce products and services that people use, and generating more profit, is better allocation of resources and rewarded for it. Is that good for the world? If it wasn't good then it wouldn't be generating that much profit or/and creating a moat. Sure there's exceptions. But if you know any good performing company have low share price, let me know, I will invest in it. is this supposed to be a tough question?
Well, here's a few of my issues with the line of thinking, to provide something more concrete that could be addressed:
1) Crypto is like minimal regulation, closest thing to a free market we have, yet it is even more detached from "actual value" than the traditional stock market. Not saying that shoots down the idea of shareholder value being good on net all by itself, but it's interesting when crypto projects that are not a currency, and specifically offer "value" to those who purchase them (a bunch of NFTs did this, coming with supposed tangible future benefits), turn out mostly to be rug pulls with zero actual value.
2) Pleasing shareholders in the short term and hence creating successful value on the books (at the cost of longer-term good will/customer satisfaction) has also been how a lot of things (at least in hobbyist spaces, not as sure about more broadly) have self-destructed. Incentives for a CEO actually seem to be to do precisely this?
3) Really just point 2) again but outside of hobbyist spaces I guess it's called enshittification. The benefit provided to society of something like a Discord comes before the IPO. Has the benefit of Discord to society gone up when they've convinced a bunch of people to pay a subscription to make their profile avatars look fancier?
4) Maybe the overall point of philosophical difference here. People just aren't rational with their money, and there's a lot more inertia in financial systems and especially customer behaviour than economists like to pretend, but it seems to me like the arguments that use money to measure "good" rely heavily upon it as an assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
