But the data will be the same regardless of who is conducting the experiment. Changing the population that you conduct the experiment on is changing variables. Interpretation of the data may change depending on whether the experimenter is athiest or Christian.
I already qualified that I meant objective in two different senses and conceded that pure logical objectivity is not attainable through the scientific method.
Objective in the second way means that people performing the same actions will get the same results regardless of cultural or personal biases.
Observer bias refers to the interpretation of the data, and the construction of a model using that data. Bias also exists in the formation of theories which determine which experiments will be done.
However, two people performing the double slit experiment, for example, will find the same results as long as they follow the same methodology. The idea of the double slit experiment and what the data mean are of course up to interpretation and that interpretation will have some amount of bias.
This is the same as saying basketball games have objective scores. The score is what it is regardless of who is reading the number on the scoreboard or who is playing the game. The rules of the game are arbitrary in the same way that an experimental hypothesis and methodology are arbitrary. What the score means is subjective to the fans in the same way that data interpretation is subjective to the observer.
This is true to the extent that science can only prove things through induction and induction is not as good as deduction for logical proofs. Which means that it is not “objective” in the logical senses as it relates to physical reality. But science is “objective” to the extent that experiments are repeatable by any any given person following the same methodology will be the same results.
However the meme image is about interpretation of glyphs used to represent numbers. And the left guy on the bottom is a dumb fuck for not using one of the possible agreed upon options for the interpretation of that glyph.
This is more about interpretation of language and communication than science. Which puts you somewhere between the “9” and “6” guys because you are at least keeping the conversation in the interpretation of data / epistemology arena.
The problem are the people who see this and call it woke or start rambling about a flat earth. Those are the real dumb fucks who aren’t talking about any reasonable interpretation of the thing that is clearly being discussed.
Hopefully they ban enough popular people for their switch to a federated video sharing platform to have an impact on viewership.
Tesla is a great example of how genius is not a generalizable thing. He is the reason most of us have electricity, but he was a mess when it come to understanding people.
They did indeed want you to leave the 32x in for regular games. It came with brackets that kept the cart slot open and grounded the 32x to the genesis’ rf shield. They are a pain to put in and they fall out when you take the 32x out.
Long long man https://youtu.be/6-1Ue0FFrHY
Is a Japanese commercial series
They canceled it recently
You are correct. The only other thing that Lincoln is criticized for is suspending habeas corpus during the US civil war. I don’t know what the person you’re commenting on is on about. They may be a confederate sympathizer.
It’s called formula front. I played the cap out of our back in the day. You can play it manually, but only having one thumb stick makes it hard.
Then where is the organization? All I have found are grifters and internet warriors.
That would go against the narrative that every thing bad comes from the US
It’s important to note that “maintenance calories” are the vast majority of the energy you use on a daily basis. Exercise is just a small portion of the calories you burn.
I used the sticky part of a post-it before I had a laptop with a built in slider
Yeah, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Go listen to some people that don’t use PragerU talking points.
Arguing terminology is not really that helpful here, nazis called themselves socialists. And very few countries with “democratic republic of” in their name are democratic republics.
The terms Socialism and Communism have been used interchangeably since the beginning. This move to split socialism off is both a move by some within the movement to be more palatable to liberals and a move by opposition from without to further factionalize the movement. However, many people use the terms interchangeably or use communism to differentiate themselves from capitalist liberals claiming to be socialists.
Specific subsets of communism/socialism like Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, vanguard theory and various other implementations of communism are violent, should be criticized and learned from.
All this is to say plenty of people claiming to be communists do not want widespread suffering or genocide. They may be willing to use force to implement their ideas, but so are the adherents of nearly every other ideology.
Nazis always want racial segregation and the of Jews. Communists want equity. Nazis want superiority.
What you are focused on is Vanguard Communism which proposes that because the workers are not yet educated enough to understand that communism is better for them, a group of communists should make a totalitarian government. That totalitarian government will then shepherd the country to total communism.
History shows that this form of communism generally falls to corruption and they never get to full on communism. The proponents of this view always blame outside influences (like the west), while conveniently ignoring that power corrupts everyone.
Cuba is often shown as an example of successful vanguard communism. However it still hasn’t fully divested the communist party of its totalitarian power, and a lot of migrants move to Florida. So, it doesn’t really meet the criteria in my eyes.
Whoever told you that had an agenda.
First, communism is an economic theory. A very stripped down version of the theory is this: It proposes that the rich have obtained their wealth through the exploitation of workers. They justify the exploitation by “owning” the raw materials, tools, factories, land, and other apparatuses that the workers need to produce things. But without workers those things could not be converted or used to convert raw materials into goods. The theory suggests that the workers should own those things instead of the rich people. The idea is that the workers would then share amongst each other because, being of the same class, they are naturally more likely to care about the needs of the others in that class. Whatever your opinion or critique of this general idea, it is an idea not a cult.
Like all theories that have some level of popularity it has a lot of variations and sub theories. Some are more idealistic than others. These factions have a lot of history with one another a review of the Russian revolution and lead up show the kind of factionalism that exists with the movement. If you study revolutions you know that this is common.
Second, people have used virtually any ideal to justify atrocities. We should not throw out an idea only because someone somewhere used it to justify violence.
Third dogma is a problem. It is used in communist communities in the same way that it is used in the Catholic Church, to try and prevent descension. As noted above communist movements tend to have a lot of factions but the one that gains the most traction always tries to force the others into line. This is common wherever there are new ideas being implemented as policy.
This is likely why people think communism is intent on murdering its enemies. However, every revolution, Russian, French, Haitian, United States, etc. used violence and murder to achieve its goal.
Communists also say that capitalism murders people every day, and they die with a smile on their face. A pittance of a paycheck goes in their widow’s purse while they have died without realizing that they were exploited to death.
Rainbow road mode is a bitch
No the point of science is to test theories. Data can confirm or de confirm a theory. So, part of science is data collection. In fact, the data colllection is the most important part, otherwise it’s just theory and philosophizing.