The Psuedoscience Thread

[samsonlonghair]

I am at the opposite end of the spectrum. I am the ultra-skeptic. Not only do I not believe in superstition, religion, or psuedoscience, I'm even more skeptical than that. I am skeptical of a number of things modern science theorizes. Some have called me crazy for my over-skepticism. For instance, I don't believe in "Dark Matter" in cosmology. I do believe in blackholes, but I don't believe in wormholes. I don't believe in statistics.

I also don't believe anything a salesman, a politician, a clergyman, or a marketer tells me.

Basically, I don't believe in anything that can't be proven (without statistics) and reliably replicated.

[MrPopo]

For instance, I don't believe in "Dark Matter" in cosmology.

Placeholder to explain current observations.

but I don't believe in wormholes.

Not really something that has anything more than a theoretical basis IF some theories about higher dimensions beyond 3 space and 1 time actually pan out. Pretty much in the same category as magnetic monopoles.

I don't believe in statistics.

Explain this. Do you not believe in addition or multiplication either?

[samsonlonghair]

I don't believe in statistics.

Explain this. Do you not believe in addition or multiplication either?

This is the one that always get's people. How can it be untrue if you were taught this in math class? First of all, I will say there's no need to suggest that I don't believe in arithmetic. The basic laws of humble arithmetic are hard and fast. Let's not insult one another here.

Statistics are another matter. Often times statistics rely on circular reasoning. People who use statistics for proof forget that correlation is not cause. The data collection methods are often sketchy (if reported at all). Statisticians have methods of manipulating data.

In defense of statistics, sometimes statistics can (within some degree of accuracy) predict outcomes in large populations, but the statistics fall apart when you try to apply those predictions at the individual level.

I have made this argument several times, but I never manage to convince anyone. I suppose I need to work on my persuasion skills. Instead of rambling on about my own skepticism, I'll simply borrow a quote from Twain (who claimed to be borrowing it from Disraeli, but that's another matter).

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Golgo 14]

A popular spelling in my region is "dandy" tho I guess I should have used the other one online. In any case, there's a large population of the ones known as harvestmen here and they have no venom.

Gaseous chlorine is added to public water systems to kill any bacteria that might be introduced from the treatment plant to your tap, but filtration can not remove it. A small amount that you would smell is more rapidly dissipated but the rest is still there. The majority of the chlorine will precipitate as an oxidized gas naturally over a few hours sitting out whether there's a filter or not. I took a water quality technology course and this was the first thing our teacher told us before even learning our names. Tho I am open to the possibility that my teacher was wrong. "It'll give you a glass full of charcoal dust - It's been proven to reduce flatulence."

For things which have no way to be tested or measured it can be fun to discuss possibilities, but passing bad science off as fact really bothers me for some reason.

I figured it was a variation, but to be correct, a Dandy Long-legs is a homosexual spider.

I know leaving tap water to sit for a few hours will take the chlorine out, but that doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I don't see why a Brita filter couldn't reduce chlorine. It's their main claim and I don't see any evidence (in an admittedly brief search) to prove otherwise. Brita filters don't take out some of the more nasty stuff that could be in water (you can get more extensive filters), but I don't think they claim to. Btw, I don't have anything for or against Brita. Just making conversation.

[samsonlonghair]

A popular spelling in my region is "dandy" tho I guess I should have used the other one online. In any case, there's a large population of the ones known as harvestmen here and they have no venom.

Gaseous chlorine is added to public water systems to kill any bacteria that might be introduced from the treatment plant to your tap, but filtration can not remove it. A small amount that you would smell is more rapidly dissipated but the rest is still there. The majority of the chlorine will precipitate as an oxidized gas naturally over a few hours sitting out whether there's a filter or not. I took a water quality technology course and this was the first thing our teacher told us before even learning our names. Tho I am open to the possibility that my teacher was wrong. "It'll give you a glass full of charcoal dust - It's been proven to reduce flatulence."

For things which have no way to be tested or measured it can be fun to discuss possibilities, but passing bad science off as fact really bothers me for some reason.

I figured it was a variation, but to be correct, a Dandy Long-legs is a homosexual spider.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/62/62f538b ... f538f8.jpg

I know leaving tap water to sit for a few hours will take the chlorine out, but that doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I don't see why a Brita filter couldn't reduce chlorine. It's their main claim and I don't see any evidence (in an admittedly brief search) to prove otherwise. Brita filters don't take out some of the more nasty stuff that could be in water (you can get more extensive filters), but I don't think they claim to. Btw, I don't have anything for or against Brita. Just making conversation.

Why don't we just put it to a simple test? Fill up a brita pitcher with tap water. Then fill up a regular pitcher with tap water. Place the two pitchers next to each other. Come back tomorrow and taste the water from each.

[J T]

I don't believe in statistics.

Explain this. Do you not believe in addition or multiplication either?

This is the one that always get's people. How can it be untrue if you were taught this in math class? First of all, I will say there's no need to suggest that I don't believe in arithmetic. The basic laws of humble arithmetic are hard and fast. Let's not insult one another here.

Statistics are another matter. Often times statistics rely on circular reasoning. People who use statistics for proof forget that correlation is not cause. The data collection methods are often sketchy (if reported at all). Statisticians have methods of manipulating data.

In defense of statistics, sometimes statistics can (within some degree of accuracy) predict outcomes in large populations, but the statistics fall apart when you try to apply those predictions at the individual level.

I have made this argument several times, but I never manage to convince anyone. I suppose I need to work on my persuasion skills. Instead of rambling on about my own skepticism, I'll simply borrow a quote from Twain (who claimed to be borrowing it from Disraeli, but that's another matter).

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

It sounds like your problem is more with statistics used poorly, rather than with statistics on the whole. If you know statistics well enough, you can get a pretty good sense of when it's being manipulated in service of making a point instead of in service of the truth.

You're also discussing problems in individual subject validity, which is a potentially very real problem and a reason to even take empirically supported advice with a small grain of salt, but it's generally not a huge problem and I still would still prefer to take a pill based on statistical support rather than take one based on anecdotal support.

[Golgo 14]

Why don't we just put it to a simple test? Fill up a brita pitcher with tap water. Then fill up a regular pitcher with tap water. Place the two pitchers next to each other. Come back tomorrow and taste the water from each.

No need for that since apparently leaving a pitcher of water to sit for a few hours does reduce the chlorine. So presumably both pitchers would have reduced chlorine, filter or not. Hmm, I guess that does weaken Brita's argument unless you just want your water right now! In both cases you have the inconvenience of having to keep a pitcher.

I guess a faucet filter would be more attractive if those are as effective at reducing chlorine as the pitcher filter. You'd get the immediate reduced chlorine water and no need to keep a pitcher of water around all the time.

I'm bored.

[MrPopo]

Statistics is taking a large collection of data and coming up with a model that fits the data. You can then use that model to make predictions. Where it goes wrong is the need for proper context and data gathering. With data gathering, if you have garbage to build your model on top of then your model will be garbage. And proper context is where the lies, damned lies, and statistics quote comes in. Given the proper phrasing I can make a set of numbers say whatever I want.

Think of insurance companies. Their entire business model is based on statistics. They crunch the data and use that to come up with a pricing model. Clearly something is going right, as insurance is a thriving business (and to simplify things, let's just consider life insurance, which is all actuarial work).

So the problem you have isn't with statistics; it's with poorly presented or interpreted numbers. Here's a good example of a valid conclusion, but the sample size ends up being too small for the conclusion to be reasonable.

[Cronozilla]

Basically what MrPopo said:

There's a reason why statistics have confidence intervals. Just because someone trying to argue a point without using them doesn't mean that the field of statistics itself is bullshit. It really isn't. If it were a lot of the devices and services people use in their day to day lives would be ridiculously broken.

The times when those mathematical properties don't turn out to be remotely correct are when either someone has taken the result out of context, it was never calculated to a proper confidence level, or sample chosen to do the statistical analysis on was garbage.

People also abuse statistics, scientific findings, and all sorts of stuff to say their message. Or more likely, to get money.

It was mentioned, but yes, Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) are primarily abstract ideas to represent what is missing in universal calculations (since they need to be represented somehow to still do math on the universal model) People talking about it now are just trying to ponder, hey what would this unknown stuff actually be? And they attempt to extrapolate models of that to test with.

People do seem to be very uncomfortable with the idea that nothing is absolute. People want definitive, unchanging, answers ... and that just isn't something that exists in reality. Superstition and a lot of pseudoscience tries to offer that. Unwaveringly consistent constants.

[samsonlonghair]

I expected to come back here and argue about statistics, but you guys are basically making my argument for me. I'm going to try to address all this in order. Sorry for an overly long post. Most of this is basically me agreeing with you, but seeing things from a slightly different (more skeptical) viewpoint.

It sounds like your problem is more with statistics used poorly, rather than with statistics on the whole.

Yes, this is one of my two main grievances with statistics.

You're also discussing problems in individual subject validity

Something like that. I have never heard the phrase "individual subject validity" before today. I would simply say that what's true of the flock is not necessarily true of the bird. This is my second main grievance.

which is a potentially very real problem and a reason to even take empirically supported advice with a small grain of salt, but it's generally not a huge problem and I still would still prefer to take a pill based on statistical support rather than take one based on anecdotal support.

But wouldn't it be even nicer to take a pill developed through empirical evidence and proven through rigorous tests?

Statistics is taking a large collection of data and coming up with a model that fits the data.

Conspiracy theories also take a large collection of data and come up with a model that seems to fit. Aren't you skeptical when you hear a conspiracy theory? What invokes this skepticism? You have heard a hundred bogus conspiracies; I have heard too many bogus statistics. I hear nonsense statistics batted around with no one questioning the source or verifying these statistics in independent studies.

Numerology also takes a large collection of data and come up with a model that seems to fit. The number twenty-three seems to come up so often. Is there some uncanny significance to the number twenty-three? Of course not. It's a simple coincidence.

Given the proper phrasing I can make a set of numbers say whatever I want.

You have made my point for me quite eloquently.

Think of insurance companies. Their entire business model is based on statistics. They crunch the data and use that to come up with a pricing model. Clearly something is going right, as insurance is a thriving business (and to simplify things, let's just consider life insurance, which is all actuarial work).

Touché. You make a strong point considering actuarial science. Here we have an industry with the most rigorous statisticians. These guys are the best statisticians bar none, but can any among them tell me the day I will die? How about the month? Can the very best actuary tell me the year I will die? Doubtful. Models that apply to large sets of data do not necessarily apply on individual terms.

So the problem you have isn't with statistics; it's with poorly presented or interpreted numbers. Here's a good example of a valid conclusion, but the sample size ends up being too small for the conclusion to be reasonable.

Yes, poorly presented or interpreted numbers is one of my problems with statistics. I think it's a reasonable criticism. I think anything short of a full census (or as near to one as reasonably possible) is too small a sample size.

The times when those mathematical properties don't turn out to be remotely correct are when either someone has taken the result out of context, it was never calculated to a proper confidence level, or sample chosen to do the statistical analysis on was garbage.

Indeed. You have also made my argument for me. I am not claiming the the mathematical concept of an average is flawed. The results of statistics are flawed.

People also abuse statistics, scientific findings, and all sorts of stuff to say their message. Or more likely, to get money.

Yes indeed. You make my point for me again.

Let me ask everyone this question:
How do you suppose that statistics would estimate themselves? What if you took every statistic in print from Jan 1st to Dec 31st then separated the results into two groups. Statistics that were collected responsibly, could be replicated with matching results elsewhere, and accurately predicted an outcome are in the group A. All other statistics are in group B. Which of these groups is larger? Statistically speaking, what percentage of statistics are valid? After you come up with a percentage, use that to predict whether or not the next statistic you read will be valid or bogus.

While that one is rolling around in your head, I leave you with some words from America's greatest philosopher.

You can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that.

________

It was mentioned, but yes, Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) are primarily abstract ideas to represent what is missing in universal calculations (since they need to be represented somehow to still do math on the universal model) People talking about it now are just trying to ponder, hey what would this unknown stuff actually be? And they attempt to extrapolate models of that to test with.

Thanks for being the first to reply to Dark Matter. It seems to me that "Dark Matter" is the name cosmologists apply to their own ignorance. I don't mean to imply that cosmologists aren't smart. I just mean that "Dark Matter" isn't a thing; It's a great big "Here be dragons" on the map of the universe. I don't believe in dragons, and I don't believe in dark matter.