It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussioncommon sense vs. science: which do you trust more?(143 posts)(143 posts)
(143 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 21, 2017
low rated
avatar
Shadowstalker16: It isn't universally acknowledged because it isn't as close to as science-ey as you say. Its effects are intangible and vary from person to person, and using it as a universal rule for predicting behavior is stupid to say the least. The subconscious having some role in our behavior doesn't mean it controls it, nor that it is the same for everyone.

So in arguments about these so called questionable games, the people who acknowledge the subconscious talk as if everyone is affected equally and that effect is usually assumed to be the most negative one, which is a very subjective assumption, because that is assuming the subconscious of everyone, which cannot even be found out without assuming.

Given the nature of what we know about this subconscious, its very much a matter of opinion and not fact. If I'm wrong, then tell me if human behavior can be predicted to a tea based on this idea of the subconscious mind controlling us, or how such questionable games don't seem to affect everyone equally.
– Yes, it's science. Social science. "Soft" science. But science. Not "science-ey".
– Science in a field in which our findings are necessarily limited is still science.
– The natural sciences mostly deal with theories anyway, not "facts"
– The theory of relativity is still just a theory.
– Without it, e.g. satellite navigation would not work, but we still can not attain "proof" that it is correct
– The theory of relativity is e.g. also not "science-ey", it's science, plain and simple.
– No one here has tried to use some hypothesized media effect to precisely predict a certain type of behaviour
– No one here has asserted that these effects are necessarily always negative
– Few would even attempt to
– Kasper definitely didn't
– The validity of e.g. cultivation theory is not defined by its ability to "predict behaviour"
– hence I think you're asking Kasper to prove something that he hasn't at all claimed
– hence I think you're assuming something about some theories that the theories themselves don't claim
– The danger of media consumption is not that consumers lose of their sense of reality
– Your average shooter differentiates between reality and fiction quite well actually
– According to cultivation theory we increasingly assume the world around us to be like the one shown in the media
– understandably so, as we connect to/experience most of the outside world through the media only, including esp. fiction
– this has scarcely anthing to do with "losing your sense of reality"
– these world views would lead to vastly different, unpredictable kinds of behaviour based on the individual
– most of those behaviour patterns would not be violent or otherwise overtly antisocial
– however, there's worth in debating violence normalisation or stereotypical female as well as male roles
– Not with intent to censor or otherwise abandon, but to diversify
– I'm not an expert on cultivation theory, but "common sense" tells me that diversified media would help
– If you love both violent and non-violent games, the effects of violence normalisation could be mitigated
– If you're confronted with a wide array of non-stereotypical characters, you don't get your prejudices validated
– You don't have to make a "conscious effort" to let media portrayals seep into your perception of the world
– On the contrary, you have to make a conscious effort to view the media you love critically

Uhm, back on topic now any time soon?
Post edited March 21, 2017 by Vainamoinen
Posted March 22, 2017
avatar
timppu: So, did common sense mean what you personally find the most logical and believable answer, or what most people believe to be the correct answer? I saw someone mentioning that "common sense" by definition means more of the latter (hence, "common").

So if I live in an area where most people are religious, but I am the lone atheist finding it highly illogical that there would be some such higher thinking power that created us humans... from my point of view, is it common sense that god exists, or not?
Common sense i think applies to practical matters, whereas religion i think is more of a philosophical matter. so if your an atheist among religious people, and the religious people believe sticking your hands under a running lawn mower is not common sense, then i think that is something 'common' to most people.

There is a saying 'it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all' .... if most people in your area agree with that then is it common sense? No, its philosophical and just because you don't agree with it does not mean you lack common sense.
Posted March 22, 2017
avatar
Shadowstalker16: It isn't universally acknowledged because it isn't as close to as science-ey as you say. Its effects are intangible and vary from person to person, and using it as a universal rule for predicting behavior is stupid to say the least. The subconscious having some role in our behavior doesn't mean it controls it, nor that it is the same for everyone.

So in arguments about these so called questionable games, the people who acknowledge the subconscious talk as if everyone is affected equally and that effect is usually assumed to be the most negative one, which is a very subjective assumption, because that is assuming the subconscious of everyone, which cannot even be found out without assuming.

Given the nature of what we know about this subconscious, its very much a matter of opinion and not fact. If I'm wrong, then tell me if human behavior can be predicted to a tea based on this idea of the subconscious mind controlling us, or how such questionable games don't seem to affect everyone equally.
avatar
Vainamoinen: – Yes, it's science. Social science. "Soft" science. But science. Not "science-ey".
– Science in a field in which our findings are necessarily limited is still science.
– The natural sciences mostly deal with theories anyway, not "facts"
– The theory of relativity is still just a theory.
– Without it, e.g. satellite navigation would not work, but we still can not attain "proof" that it is correct
– The theory of relativity is e.g. also not "science-ey", it's science, plain and simple.
– No one here has tried to use some hypothesized media effect to precisely predict a certain type of behaviour
– No one here has asserted that these effects are necessarily always negative
– Few would even attempt to
– Kasper definitely didn't
– The validity of e.g. cultivation theory is not defined by its ability to "predict behaviour"
– hence I think you're asking Kasper to prove something that he hasn't at all claimed
– hence I think you're assuming something about some theories that the theories themselves don't claim
– The danger of media consumption is not that consumers lose of their sense of reality
– Your average shooter differentiates between reality and fiction quite well actually
– According to cultivation theory we increasingly assume the world around us to be like the one shown in the media
– understandably so, as we connect to/experience most of the outside world through the media only, including esp. fiction
– this has scarcely anthing to do with "losing your sense of reality"
– these world views would lead to vastly different, unpredictable kinds of behaviour based on the individual
– most of those behaviour patterns would not be violent or otherwise overtly antisocial
– however, there's worth in debating violence normalisation or stereotypical female as well as male roles
– Not with intent to censor or otherwise abandon, but to diversify
– I'm not an expert on cultivation theory, but "common sense" tells me that diversified media would help
– If you love both violent and non-violent games, the effects of violence normalisation could be mitigated
– If you're confronted with a wide array of non-stereotypical characters, you don't get your prejudices validated
– You don't have to make a "conscious effort" to let media portrayals seep into your perception of the world
– On the contrary, you have to make a conscious effort to view the media you love critically

Uhm, back on topic now any time soon?
I don't care what kind of science it is if its making broad generalizations based on its theories.

I also don't care if findings are limited or whatever, but I'm gonna call BS when ''everything is a theory'' fallacy is used. There are degrees of validity and to argue that there isn't or that every theory is within the same degree of accuracy is dumb.

No one here, but Kasper was talking about discussions where they may, and I was replying to that post. And in some cases, people have stated that there are negative effects as well as treated them as hard and fast rules to predict human behavior.

Then tell me what the value of a theory is based on other than its ability to prove the hypothesis. If theories claim something to happen or not happen, then asking for proof is the next step in finding out whether it is valid or not.

The rest is your opinion. Ie ''it can be debated''? Yeah it can. Why doesn't everyone experience it? Why isn't there co-relation between crime rates and media consumption? Why do most of these often cited cases of it happening occur in the US and not other high gaming population countries? It can be debated, the same way creationism can be debated.

Same with common sense, its vastly personal and opinion based. And your common sense isn't mine.
Posted March 22, 2017
Three or four pages from now, we'll look back fondly on what this thread was before it became another case of "Vainamoinen and Shadowstalker antagonize one another times infinity until threadlock".
Posted March 22, 2017
avatar
mystikmind2000: Common sense i think applies to practical matters, whereas religion i think is more of a philosophical matter
To me it can just as well be a practical matter. I think I've heard many religious people trying to reason why there must be a higher power like God, like that life appearing to Earth would have been far too unlikely if there had not been a higher power creating it. To them that is common sense, life wouldn't be possible without some "higher power" like god. I guess this is about "intelligent design".

To me it appears many religious people want to put logic behind their beliefs as well. I recall the time one friend of my ex-wife, who happened to be religious, for some reason wanted to explain me her theory when a human being gets a soul: when the ovum gets inseminated.

I know I should have kept my mouth shut, but I had to ask "How about identical twins who come from the same inseminated ovum? Do they share the same soul, or is the soul divided in two?". She got a bit mixed up with her thoughts and wanted to talk about something else.

That just was an example to me that religious people also want to have some logic in their beliefs, what they think as "common sense".

BTW I wouldn't really call myself an atheist, I frankly have some mixed up feelings myself how the life and universe works, and I personally find some illogical anomalies in thinking that we are just biological creatures who are born and die away. Still trying to figure it out, using logic and "common sense" (but I don't think I ever will).
Post edited March 22, 2017 by timppu
Posted March 22, 2017
avatar
HunchBluntley: Three or four pages from now, we'll look back fondly on what this thread was before it became another case of "Vainamoinen and Shadowstalker antagonize one another times infinity until threadlock".
Rules haven't been broken yet and the topic is tangentially related. Besides, there have never been any thread locked because of the reason you describe.
Posted March 22, 2017
low rated
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Rules haven't been broken yet and the topic is tangentially related.
Agreed, but "tangentially" includes "tangent" as in "go off on a tangent" for a reason. :)

We can, indeed, make an effort to get the thread back on track. However, as the opening question alone concerns behavioral science, which is about as soft and theoretical a science as it gets, that tangent may be ridden down again some time soon.

The rules are there now, and some people including myself may infringe upon them without really trying to test their limits. The discussion of this topic though should be possible without throwing shit at each other. I, too, think that rules have not been broken by individual posts in here that make an effort to speak to the topic.

Rules have definitely been broken in here by the ritual downvoting of certain people of course, certain targeted people who didn't write anything even remotely offensive or controversial. That and only that I have reported, evidently. So, honestly, Hunch, we're rather fondly looking at what this thread was before the ritual downvoters arrived, none of whom I even assume has participated in the discussion. We're looking fondly at what this thread was in its first hour or so. Neither Shadowstalker nor I could have poisoned an amicable atmosphere that had departed before we entered.

avatar
Shadowstalker16: Then tell me what the value of a theory is based on other than its ability to prove the hypothesis. If theories claim something to happen or not happen, then asking for proof is the next step in finding out whether it is valid or not.
I'll do my very uncynical best.

A theory IS a hypothesis. You're essentially saying: "Here, I think that this observation we're making is because this works like that". If the theory lets you predict certain outcomes beforehand, or if an outcome that's explicitly ruled out by the theory is not observed, the theory is strengthened. It is not "proved". We can not prove theories in natural sciences UNLESS we severely limit the complexity by declaring some conditions the theory is based on to be sacrosanct. We call these conditions "axioms". Axioms are never proven, they're just taken for being correct. If you eventually find out they're wrong, you're still fucked.

I gave the example of the theory of relativity above. Many more such examples exist. We e.g. revere Isaac Newton for his theory of gravity, which let us predict certain outcomes with reasonable accuracy for hundreds of years. We've been working with Einstein's theory of gravity for nigh a hundred years instead. And, who knows, we may overhaul the whole thing again and go with the Verlinde theory of gravity for the next hundred. And that's how it is. Nothing proven, all just theories, and they are in flux. And that, mind you, with so very elementary "common sense" things as gravity.

avatar
Shadowstalker16: Why isn't there co-relation between crime rates and media consumption?
First of all, if there WAS a causal link (correlation means nothing) between media consumption and crime rates, we wouldn't be able to easily see it, because are other factors that vastly influence crime rates, like the distribution of wealth i.e. the despair of the population, the political climate, etc; but second and most importantly, it's more complex than that, see below.

avatar
Shadowstalker16: Why do most of these often cited cases of it happening occur in the US and not other high gaming population countries?
A causal link between video games and violence has never been established and likely will never be established. And in the US of A as well as in many other countries (including Germany), video games are only just a scapegoat of opportunist politicians to deflect from the country's clear cut real problems, which consistently are school and workplace bullying and other social isolation, religious fundamentalism, drug and alcohol addiction, xenophobic conspiray theories, and of course ridiculous gun laws.

(However, I will go on a limb and say that the US of A makes violent video games accessible to minors like scarcely any other country in the world. During last year's election, e.g. Hillary Clinton was still scolded for trying to introduce very basic age restrictions back in 2005. In the GOG thread that shall not be named, outrage exploded because Mike Dirnt of Green Day expressed concern over this situation even though he explicitly said he has no solution to the problem)

We're pretty damn certain that habituation happens through watching violence in the media. We're pretty damn certain that frequent consumption of violent media makes you think the world around you is more violent (which, ahem, may be quite correct as far as assumptions about the world around you go). But the idea that you are going out into the world to make it even more violent based on the violence you experienced in the media, that just doesn't follow. It's not a prediction cultivation theory makes. It could happen, yes. Then again, you could be so intimidated by all the violence that you're feeling uneasy about leaving your house. You could become a LESS confrontational person. Or you could just harbor the thought that the world is violent without any immediate observable action/reaction to the sentiment, which is pretty definitely what happens most often.

This is all a mixture of "common sense" and "the science" here of course. Good thing they're not mutually exclusive, and good thing we have to really wreck our brains to come up with examples that put both in direct opposition. :)
Post edited March 22, 2017 by Vainamoinen
Posted March 22, 2017
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Rules haven't been broken yet and the topic is tangentially related.
avatar
Vainamoinen: Agreed, but "tangentially" includes "tangent" as in "go off on a tangent" for a reason. :)

We can, indeed, make an effort to get the thread back on track. However, as the opening question alone concerns behavioral science, which is about as soft and theoretical a science as it gets, that tangent may be ridden down again some time soon.

The rules are there now, and some people including myself may infringe upon them without really trying to test their limits. The discussion of this topic though should be possible without throwing shit at each other. I, too, think that rules have not been broken by individual posts in here that make an effort to speak to the topic.

Rules have definitely been broken in here by the ritual downvoting of certain people of course, certain targeted people who didn't write anything even remotely offensive or controversial. That and only that I have reported, evidently. So, honestly, Hunch, we're rather fondly looking at what this thread was before the ritual downvoters arrived, none of whom I even assume has participated in the discussion. We're looking fondly at what this thread was in its first hour or so. Neither Shadowstalker nor I could have poisoned an amicable atmosphere that had departed before we entered.

avatar
Shadowstalker16: Then tell me what the value of a theory is based on other than its ability to prove the hypothesis. If theories claim something to happen or not happen, then asking for proof is the next step in finding out whether it is valid or not.
avatar
Vainamoinen: I'll do my very uncynical best.

A theory IS a hypothesis. You're essentially saying: "Here, I think that this observation we're making is because this works like that". If the theory lets you predict certain outcomes beforehand, or if an outcome that's explicitly ruled out by the theory is not observed, the theory is strengthened. It is not "proved". We can not prove theories in natural sciences UNLESS we severely limit the complexity by declaring some conditions the theory is based on to be sacrosanct. We call these conditions "axioms". Axioms are never proven, they're just taken for being correct. If you eventually find out they're wrong, you're still fucked.

I gave the example of the theory of relativity above. Many more such examples exist. We e.g. revere Isaac Newton for his theory of gravity, which let us predict certain outcomes with reasonable accuracy for hundreds of years. We've been working with Einstein's theory of gravity for nigh a hundred years instead. And, who knows, we may overhaul the whole thing again and go with the Verlinde theory of gravity for the next hundred. And that's how it is. Nothing proven, all just theories, and they are in flux. And that, mind you, with so very elementary "common sense" things as gravity.

avatar
Shadowstalker16: Why isn't there co-relation between crime rates and media consumption?
avatar
Vainamoinen: First of all, if there WAS a causal link (correlation means nothing) between media consumption and crime rates, we wouldn't be able to easily see it, because are other factors that vastly influence crime rates, like the distribution of wealth i.e. the despair of the population, the political climate, etc; but second and most importantly, it's more complex than that, see below.

avatar
Shadowstalker16: Why do most of these often cited cases of it happening occur in the US and not other high gaming population countries?
avatar
Vainamoinen: A causal link between video games and violence has never been established and likely will never be established. And in the US of A as well as in many other countries (including Germany), video games are only just a scapegoat of opportunist politicians to deflect from the country's clear cut real problems, which consistently are school and workplace bullying and other social isolation, religious fundamentalism, drug and alcohol addiction, xenophobic conspiray theories, and of course ridiculous gun laws.

(However, I will go on a limb and say that the US of A makes violent video games accessible to minors like scarcely any other country in the world. During last year's election, e.g. Hillary Clinton was still scolded for trying to introduce very basic age restrictions back in 2005. In the GOG thread that shall not be named, outrage exploded because Mike Dirnt of Green Day expressed concern over this situation even though he explicitly said he has no solution to the problem)

We're pretty damn certain that habituation happens through watching violence in the media. We're pretty damn certain that frequent consumption of violent media makes you think the world around you is more violent (which, ahem, may be quite correct as far as assumptions about the world around you go). But the idea that you are going out into the world to make it even more violent based on the violence you experienced in the media, that just doesn't follow. It's not a prediction cultivation theory makes. It could happen, yes. Then again, you could be so intimidated by all the violence that you're feeling uneasy about leaving your house. You could become a LESS confrontational person. Or you could just harbor the thought that the world is violent without any immediate observable action/reaction to the sentiment, which is pretty definitely what happens most often.

This is all a mixture of "common sense" and "the science" here of course. Good thing they're not mutually exclusive, and good thing we have to really wreck our brains to come up with examples that put both in direct opposition. :)
I'll touch upon this because this cycle of defeatist predictions about threads getting locked is probably driving away others who might have constructive posts to bring the thread back on topic. If you have such concern that posts in a thread are getting to a level where they are breaking the rules, please just report the concerned post / s and be done with it. Please don't post again and again about the rules and locking and such like you're commentating some wrestling match, and don't push the idea that posting constructive posts will be wasted down the throats of people who haven't gone though the thread.

But it seems to me that you are arguing that all theories have equal validity despite proof. Just because both are theories doesn't mean both are equally valid. Science or not, there are good and bad theories and bad theories are the ones that inadequately explain phenomenon. Just look at medicine for example. There were various theories that stated that diseases were caused by imbalance of humors, immoral behavior etc and there was the germ theory. Both are theories that explain the phenomenon but there is a reason why we only use the current one in treatment.

As to habituation, whether to violence or sexism or whatever, that is what I was talking about. Its a theory pending proof. The theory can be used any number of times to analyze events and phenomenon but until something is done that proves the claims made by it, I'm not believing it, nor do I think it is right to believe it. Evolution and gravity may be theories as well, but those have been meticulously explained. I'm not instantly going to believe in theories based on the human subconscious just because its a theory just like evolution. There is an element of validity that comes with proof that the (said) theory lacks.
Posted March 22, 2017
low rated
avatar
Shadowstalker16: There is an element of validity that comes with proof that the (said) theory lacks.
You're still circling around the idea of 'proof', but the sad truth is, again, proof positive can't be attained. We are often able to disprove theories when we make observations that strongly contradict those theories. I do in no way argue that "all theories have equal validity" (and am searching frantically in my posts where I could have given you that idea). There are, as you well know, some really wacky theories out there – theories that can not be disproven using the scientific method, but still strike you as immeasurably unlikely. Among them, of course, diverse creation myths founded on the axiom of an all-knowing, all-powerful being that created earth and man just a few thousand years ago and then made it look like stuff's been around for a few million years. Can I disprove those theories? Of course not. Do I attribute validity to those theories? Definitely not.
Posted March 22, 2017
avatar
Shadowstalker16: There is an element of validity that comes with proof that the (said) theory lacks.
avatar
Vainamoinen: You're still circling around the idea of 'proof', but the sad truth is, again, proof positive can't be attained. We are often able to disprove theories when we make observations that strongly contradict those theories. I do in no way argue that "all theories have equal validity" (and am searching frantically in my posts where I could have given you that idea). There are, as you well know, some really wacky theories out there – theories that can not be disproven using the scientific method, but still strike you as immeasurably unlikely. Among them, of course, diverse creation myths founded on the axiom of an all-knowing, all-powerful being that created earth and man just a few thousand years ago and then made it look like stuff's been around for a few million years. Can I disprove those theories? Of course not. Do I attribute validity to those theories? Definitely not.
Cannot be disproven is different from valid though, as you said. And if that is (ie, all theories are equally valid) not what you were saying, then how do you justify taking any of predictions based on psychological analysis of the human subconscious seriously? What is it that gives those theories validity? Is it proof, is it choice to believe or is it equally valid because its a theory like evolution? That's what I've been asking all this time. What is the grounds for believing predictions based on theories that are severely lacking proof?
Posted March 22, 2017
low rated
avatar
Shadowstalker16: What is it that gives those theories validity?
The data does.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00466/abstract
Posted March 22, 2017
After watching a trend here, my hypothesis is that dtgreene often starts something without involving h*self, and does not answer directly... when h* does involve h*self, it's only to put something new in, or to just digress.

Care to comment on that, dtgreene?
Posted March 22, 2017
avatar
Shadowstalker16: What is it that gives those theories validity?
avatar
Vainamoinen: The data does.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00466/abstract
So it is proof?

Is there a way to get the whole study? The page you linked doesn't seem to have it and everything is very poorly described in the little article.
Posted March 22, 2017
low rated
avatar
Vainamoinen: Rules have definitely been broken in here by the ritual downvoting of certain people of course, certain targeted people who didn't write anything even remotely offensive or controversial.
And, for that matter, the downvoting of the first post of this topic, making it extremely annoying for those who want to follow the topic. (I actually consider the graying-out of topics where the first post is "low rated" to be one of the worst misfeatures of this forum.)
Posted March 22, 2017
low rated
Common sense says that science is trustworthy
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussioncommon sense vs. science: which do you trust more?(143 posts)(143 posts)
(143 posts)