The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Nathanielle
Ahem... Two remarks:
1) If you are so into science, then you should know, that the amount we actually do know about biochemistry is so small, that making the assumptions you do, to be able to explain things and prove others wrong, is not exactly ridiculous, but to a certain extent: yes.

2) Calling someone who acts other than the way your favorite studies would suggest brain damaged is very simple minded and not like a good scientist would work, who is really interested in finding the solution.

3) Anecdotical evidence simply shows, that the current knowledge is not sufficient to explain (and thus predict!!!) human behaviour or also the different values which different cultures developed.

And yes, I personally think it is hiliarious to explain me, how I should behave and that my reasons are not the ones, I think they are. If biochemistry would be so simple, as you put it, than we would act otherwise and that different.

I never claimed point 2 and point 3 means nothing. Anecdotal evidence is always worthless.
Original post by Lotus_Eater
And you accuse me of being unscientific! You've already come to your conclusions about family units. And there's nothing wrong with that because, as I say, most of our beliefs are derived from observation and personal experience as much as peer-reviewed data. But if you're going to complain I am stupid for not deriving my conclusion from neuropharmacology (or whatever) then make sure you don't commit the same 'sin' yourself.

This morning I reread some of your older posts, and clearly you are profoundly bothered by casual sex. Your post where you likened people to houses, sowing in value judgement after value judgement to perceived promiscuity, was many things but it wasn't remotely scientific. I doubt we'll ever agree but I think privileging sexual purity is a weird and damaging way to live. Have your own standards but don't insist that other people subscribe to them.

I'm guessing you don't study a science because what I proposed was merely a hypothesis, not a factual explanation. Slow down and take time to read things through. If humans were meant to be sleeping around, then oxytocin, and ultimately love (more complex chemical concoction) wouldn't exist.
Original post by geoking
I'm guessing you don't study a science because what I proposed was merely a hypothesis, not a factual explanation. Slow down and take time to read things through. If humans were meant to be sleeping around, then oxytocin, and ultimately love (more complex chemical concoction) wouldn't exist.


All my statements were similarly all hypotheses yet I still got trashed for being unscientific.

Your teleological conception human biology is highly contestable. Personally I think defining our purpose with reference to biological function is profoundly limited and certainly shouldn't be used to make moral arguments.

The fact that you ignore the majority of the points I made suggests that these arguments have hit home but pride prevents you from admitting to a change of mind.
Original post by Lotus_Eater
All my statements were similarly all hypotheses yet I still got trashed for being unscientific.

Your teleological conception human biology is highly contestable. Personally I think defining our purpose with reference to biological function is profoundly limited and certainly shouldn't be used to make moral arguments.

The fact that you ignore the majority of the points I made suggests that these arguments have hit home but pride prevents you from admitting to a change of mind.


Your statements were based on fallacies... it's becoming clear you don't quite understand how the hypothesis - method - results - conclusion model works. Mine are bases on loose facts that I can't go into (working, on my phone).
Your idea of humans seems to be stuck in the realms of the mystical rather than addressing that we are 'just' bags of meat and chemicals. Whether you like that or not, there is no magic involved in what goes on in your brain. Its just signals and chemicals.
I ignore the majority of your points because its the standard argument an arts student makes - Attempting to pass of opinion as fact, and over actual facts.
Original post by geoking
Your statements were based on fallacies... it's becoming clear you don't quite understand how the hypothesis - method - results - conclusion model works. Mine are bases on loose facts that I can't go into (working, on my phone).
Your idea of humans seems to be stuck in the realms of the mystical rather than addressing that we are 'just' bags of meat and chemicals. Whether you like that or not, there is no magic involved in what goes on in your brain. Its just signals and chemicals.
I ignore the majority of your points because its the standard argument an arts student makes - Attempting to pass of opinion as fact, and over actual facts.


Well I don't believe we are 'just' bags of meat and chemicals. Making your points with an exasperated condescension might reflect how you actually react to different perspectives, but you should know it is utterly unpersuasive.

I have never once pretended to be a scientist. The fact that I made an effort to see where you were coming from was rudely disregarded. Instead you seem determined to characterise anyone who holds different views to your own as quasi-deranged (i.e. 'mystical').

The fact that you cannot credit alternative views and respond so high-handedly to friendly chat suggests you have a world of interpersonal problems. Which is more my area of interest and expertise.

Anyway, I don't propose to continue this 'discussion' because not only is talking with you utterly unenlightening, it's now not even entertaining.
Original post by geoking
I never claimed point 2 and point 3 means nothing. Anecdotal evidence is always worthless.


Anecdotal evidence is not always worthless.
If you say there are only white swans and I see a black one, provided I checked it wasn't just painted, and ideally if I took a photograph but at least I could tell you where it was so you could verify it yourself, then your theory that only white swans exist has been disproven.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Anecdotal evidence is not always worthless.
If you say there are only white swans and I see a black one, provided I checked it wasn't just painted, and ideally if I took a photograph but at least I could tell you where it was so you could verify it yourself, then your theory that only white swans exist has been disproven.

For gods sake why is this forum arguing about what is a known fallacy? ****ing ludicrous.

The problem there is the initial idea that only white swans exist will have been based on anecdotal evidence. Do yourself a favour - accept this as a fact and move on.
Original post by Lotus_Eater
Well I don't believe we are 'just' bags of meat and chemicals. Making your points with an exasperated condescension might reflect how you actually react to different perspectives, but you should know it is utterly unpersuasive.

I have never once pretended to be a scientist. The fact that I made an effort to see where you were coming from was rudely disregarded. Instead you seem determined to characterise anyone who holds different views to your own as quasi-deranged (i.e. 'mystical').

The fact that you cannot credit alternative views and respond so high-handedly to friendly chat suggests you have a world of interpersonal problems. Which is more my area of interest and expertise.

Anyway, I don't propose to continue this 'discussion' because not only is talking with you utterly unenlightening, it's now not even entertaining.


Well I don't believe we are 'just' bags of meat and chemicals - please entertain me, what else are we? Magic and fairy dust? :tongue:

This is why im getting high handed. I friendly chat is one thing, having to entertain absurd ideas is another, and I've little patience for the latter.
Original post by geoking
For gods sake why is this forum arguing about what is a known fallacy? ****ing ludicrous.

The problem there is the initial idea that only white swans exist will have been based on anecdotal evidence. Do yourself a favour - accept this as a fact and move on.


Not necessarily. There could have been a study done and it just failed to find white swans and so the theory went that all swans were white until the anecdotal evidence disproved it.

I think I'll trust my psychology degree (teaching the scientific method) and philosophy minor (with a first in logic) over some person on a forum.

You can use anecdotal evidence to disprove a theory, you just can't use it to prove a theory.
(edited 9 years ago)
lolfagg.jpg69 replies is wot d OP wanted frm hiz ex gf lolololol. So funneh. 69. Teehee.

Spoiler

Original post by minimarshmallow
Not necessarily. There could have been a study done and it just failed to find white swans and so the theory went that all swans were white until the anecdotal evidence disproved it.

I think I'll trust my psychology degree (teaching the scientific method) and philosophy minor (with a first in logic) over some person on a forum.

You can use anecdotal evidence to disprove a theory, you just can't use it to prove a theory.

I spy with my little eye no BSc...the only use anecdotal evidence can be is to question, not disprove, a theory, because the nature of it is that there is no proof, just another persons word.

If you want to argue this, find me a paper which uses anecdotal evidence. Enjoy! :smile:

If I was you, id be asking the uni for a refund :tongue:
Original post by geoking
I spy with my little eye no BSc...the only use anecdotal evidence can be is to question, not disprove, a theory, because the nature of it is that there is no proof, just another persons word.

If you want to argue this, find me a paper which uses anecdotal evidence. Enjoy! :smile:

If I was you, id be asking the uni for a refund :tongue:


I have a BSc.
As long as it is replicable (which it is if I tell you where the black swan is) as well as accurate (I made sure someone didn't stick a hair dye on the swan), it disproves the theory.

Case studies are almost exclusively anecdotal.
Original post by geoking
I spy with my little eye no BSc...the only use anecdotal evidence can be is to question, not disprove, a theory, because the nature of it is that there is no proof, just another persons word.

If you want to argue this, find me a paper which uses anecdotal evidence. Enjoy! :smile:

If I was you, id be asking the uni for a refund :tongue:


Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used to disprove a statement/theory. As was said, if you say all men have short hair, but I know a male who does not it disproves your theory.

Formally - P1- All men have short hair.

P2 - X is male

C - X therefore has short hair.

I can disprove your point by providing an example of a male with long hair. Your theory is thereby disproven.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Anecdotal evidence can definitely be used to disprove a statement/theory. As was said, if you say all men have short hair, but I know a male who does not it disproves your theory.

Formally - P1- All men have short hair.

P2 - X is male

C - X therefore has short hair.

I can disprove your point by providing an example of a male with long hair. You're theory is thereby disproven.

You've confused a baseless statement with a theory.

If I was to claim that the earth was actually made from cake, that doesn't disprove anything with regard to the theories revolving around the composition of the planet.

Again, I'm guessing no BSc?
Original post by geoking
You've confused a baseless statement with a theory.

If I was to claim that the earth was actually made from cake, that doesn't disprove anything with regard to the theories revolving around the composition of the planet.

Again, I'm guessing no BSc?


I wouldn't guess again given that you weren't right first time.
Original post by minimarshmallow
I have a BSc.
As long as it is replicable (which it is if I tell you where the black swan is) as well as accurate (I made sure someone didn't stick a hair dye on the swan), it disproves the theory.

Case studies are almost exclusively anecdotal.


I go to the lake, no swan is there.

You need something called "proof". That's what separates anecdotal evidence from evidence.

Case studies are never anecdotal. I think you don't quite understand what anecdotal means, or are you saying the majority of papers written and published are using fallacies?
Original post by geoking
I go to the lake, no swan is there.

You need something called "proof". That's what separates anecdotal evidence from evidence.

Case studies are never anecdotal. I think you don't quite understand what anecdotal means, or are you saying the majority of papers written and published are using fallacies?



Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization).

(From Wikipedia)

You can't use anecdotal evidence to support a theory against evidence disproving it, this would be the fallacy of misusing it.

(We're so far off topic, I can't even remember where this started, so I think I'll wrap it up rather than just continue to read where you repeat yourself over and over).
Original post by Doppelgänger
It's "wrong" simply because it's superficial.


It's not really superficial. It entirely depend on the age and circumstances.

Both scientifically and emotionally, sex has a lot of implications for human bonding and love.

If you're older and you're withholding sex from someone who really wants it/needs it (it is sometimes a need), then I think you're being quite selfish by being in a relationship with that person depending on how long you're asking them to wait. It's generally best to date someone with the same values.

However, if you're say, 16, and she doesn't feel ready, it is a bit immature and superficial to end a relationship then and there because then you're at a different stage in your life and I'd imagine the relationships are much more short lived so it's not like the cannon would be ready to blow but being suppressed, so to speak. You're quite young and it probably doesn't have the same implications as witholding sex from a more mature person.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by geoking
You've confused a baseless statement with a theory.

If I was to claim that the earth was actually made from cake, that doesn't disprove anything with regard to the theories revolving around the composition of the planet.

Again, I'm guessing no BSc?


A baseless statement can in fact be a theory. Anyways, if we go on a scientific theory. Lets use the example you were using earlier with mini.

Hypothesis: All swans are white.

P1 - After observation and recording. I have only observed white swans.

C - All swans are white.

If I have seen a black swan (or indeed a swan of any color other than white) your theory is disproven.
Original post by geoking
I never claimed point 2 and point 3 means nothing. Anecdotal evidence is always worthless.

Nearly every psychological study uses somehow "anecdotal evidence" by asking the probands, what they feel and think or how they treat their children or ... Would you say all this research is worthless? How do you want to monitor the effects then? The technical standard we have now, is too low, to be independant from the reactions of the probands. We simply can't now, what they think exactly. We can see patterns or people behaving the same way or people seeing things which are clearly not there, but we are not independant on the anecdotal evidence, you call worthless, not yet. (Not that I don't now, the value of anecdotal evidence e.g. concerning memories of veterans for historic research, but in some research areas we have too, especially when we want to know exactly how this anecdotal evidence can even develop.)

Latest