Science is not what it used to be


Recommended Posts

Refuting what i've said is. The more adjectives you need to demean the others position the less likely it is to be of any consequence. Your writings are just one long ad hominem inter-spaced with adjectives adding NULL information.

I, as well as others, have refuted many of your assertions. Your response so far is to put your fingers in your ears and say, "LA LA LA LA LA, NULL information!"

Dr Batty proposes a correlation between IQ , a unit without meaningful content, and socio economic status, a wholly subjective state of life.

IQ has meaning, and it is a fairly reliable predictor of how well people might be expected to do in life. If someone forced me at gunpoint to donate a million dollars among a thousand kids with the understanding that if they could afford to pay me back someday, they will, I'd most likely get my money back by investing it in the smarter kids, as opposed to the kids with smaller shoe sizes, or the ones that wear red shirts (snicker), or the ones with brown eyes, or even the ones from the eastern United States.

Just as an aside, Chinese folk in many mid to higher-level jobs can actually have a slightly lower IQ than their caucasian comrades. They make up for it by working harder, so yes, IQ is not the whole story, and no one is trying to make it out to be.

Lets move this discussion further beyond actual media and press releases. Lets cite a paper and discuss its contents (first post cites a media press release). If we're really going to fault science, lets look at the science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets move this discussion further beyond actual media and press releases. Lets cite a paper and discuss its contents (first post cites a media press release). If we're really going to fault science, lets look at the science.

Agreed.

Also...Science isnt what it used to be. Its better...its more formal...and its relatively independent of the media.

Science has moved further and futher away from the stand point of foundational bias (which Petrossa is trying to say is a good thing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in order to discuss the science there should be a scientific quantification in the paper. As it stands it tries to relate nebulous,subjective data "iq and socio-economic" and presumes to call that model.

First isn't clear what constitutes low/high iq and how this is measured. Second isn't clear what is a low/high socio-economic status. Bothh parameters have in this paper a subjective, toroughly unscientific basis and as such offer no acceptable information.

Were is the iq data/which fashion magazine provided the socio-economic data? Cosmo? Whatare the parameters to determine status? Material possesions? General welfare? Has this been tested in other cultures? Etc. i conclusion this whole paper is an less then savory insight in the writers personal appreciation of his own status. rather paternalistic. Not science

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in order to discuss the science there should be a scientific quantification in the paper. As it stands it tries to relate nebulous,subjective data "iq and socio-economic" and presumes to call that model.

First, have you read the original article, or just the press releases that you linked to in the first post?

First isn't clear what constitutes low/high iq and how this is measured. Second isn't clear what is a low/high socio-economic status. Bothh parameters have in this paper a subjective, toroughly unscientific basis and as such offer no acceptable information.

Established methods for measuring IQ and SES should be explained the Materials and Methods section either this work, or previous work that this research is based upon.

Were is the iq data/which fashion magazine provided the socio-economic data? Cosmo? Whatare the parameters to determine status? Material possesions? General welfare? Has this been tested in other cultures? Etc. i conclusion this whole paper is an less then savory insight in the writers personal appreciation of his own status. rather paternalistic. Not science

I thought you were criticizing science, and using this paper as your basis (N = 1). Having an N of one is...like having a ----- the size of a pencil eraser. Makes people snicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were criticizing science, and using this paper as your basis (N = 1). Having an N of one is...like having a ----- the size of a pencil eraser. Makes people snicker.

This phrase disqualifies you from serious discussion. If you want to rain down on someone pick another subject, it's not my game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Also...Science isnt what it used to be.??Its better...its more formal...and its relatively independent of the media.

Science has moved further and futher away from the stand point of foundational bias (which Petrossa is trying to say is a good thing).

Thanks for talking for me, i appreciate it. However saying the exact opposite of what i wanted to say doesn't help much.

Science isn't what it used to be, nowadays anyone with a good memory and no discernible talent can get a degree. Reading the peer reviewing scientific papers is like trying to find a rare specimen of plant in a wood filled with plants of the same family.

In this forum i've already picked apart several 'papers' which seem to haven been written more on the basis of wishful thinking than any kind of actual scientific methods.

The last absurd one was the paper about Western Diet leading to cancer here. Nice paper. Full of science. Just one basic error: The Western Diet used in the research can't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This phrase disqualifies you from serious discussion. If you want to rain down on someone pick another subject, it's not my game.

I expected this. You'll find and latch onto any excuse you can to avoid addressing arguments againt your point of view. When you can't find anything to fault, you'll simply repeat your view using a different set of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected this. You'll find and latch onto any excuse you can to avoid addressing arguments againt your point of view. When you can't find anything to fault, you'll simply repeat your view using a different set of words.

Ridicule, dismissiveness, ad homini, rewriting what i said and than responding to that. Not worth my time. I've put in this forum and on my blog sufficient material showing i know what i'm talking about.

If you just want to score debating points go to campus fraternity, take a sixpack and go at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop it. Petrossa, just answer the guy's question.

First, have you read the original article, or just the press releases that you linked to in the first post?

From my reading of the article on the MRC site, I see it says:

Dr Batty found that, as expected, people on low incomes (in both early and mid-life), in jobs with low prestige and with less education ...

Those look like quite reasonable, quantifiable SES factors to me.

Another quote:

Commenting on the public health implications of his study, Dr Batty and his colleagues write:

Our findings suggest that measured IQ does not completely account for observed inequalities in health, but, probably through a variety of mechanisms, may quite strongly contribute to them. This implies that efforts to reduce inequalities should continue to be broadly based, including educational opportunities and interventions directed at early life. . . . It may be that individual cognition levels should be considered more carefully when preparing health promotion campaigns and in the health professional–client interaction.

I think the public health messages on things like diet, exercise and smoking could be simplified. At present, the messages can be quite complicated, even contradictory, and they lack clarity. For instance, we often read about how some types of alcohol are good for you while others, or even the same ones, are not. These messages can be difficult to interpret, even by knowledgeable people.

Secondly, efforts to reduce socio-economic inequalities should continue on a broad front. Initiatives aimed at raising living standards and education of the most disadvantaged families with children could potentially make a difference to those children’s health and well-being in later life.

To be honest, that sounds like quite a reasonable conclusion.

Also, stop going on about what science used to be like, unless you can you pinpoint when it was "best"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in order to discuss the science there should be a scientific quantification in the paper. As it stands it tries to relate nebulous,subjective data "iq and socio-economic" and presumes to call that model.

First isn't clear what constitutes low/high iq and how this is measured. Second isn't clear what is a low/high socio-economic status. Bothh parameters have in this paper a subjective, toroughly unscientific basis and as such offer no acceptable information.

Were is the iq data/which fashion magazine provided the socio-economic data? Cosmo? Whatare the parameters to determine status? Material possesions? General welfare? Has this been tested in other cultures? Etc. i conclusion this whole paper is an less then savory insight in the writers personal appreciation of his own status. rather paternalistic. Not science

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in order to discuss the science there should be a scientific quantification in the paper. As it stands it tries to relate nebulous,subjective data "iq and socio-economic" and presumes to call that model.

First isn't clear what constitutes low/high iq and how this is measured. Second isn't clear what is a low/high socio-economic status. Bothh parameters have in this paper a subjective, toroughly unscientific basis and as such offer no acceptable information.

Were is the iq data/which fashion magazine provided the socio-economic data? Cosmo? Whatare the parameters to determine status? Material possesions? General welfare? Has this been tested in other cultures? Etc. i conclusion this whole paper is an less then savory insight in the writers personal appreciation of his own status. rather paternalistic. Not science

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mhm, both the full paper and the accompanying editorial are available for free:

http://www.oxfordjou...epdf/ehp254.pdf

http://www.oxfordjou...epdf/ehp264.pdf

No further comment from me.

Lot's of comment from me.

Which IQ scale? European/American.

What is the baseline when IQ (whichever quaint local system of measuring IQ) causes no marked CVD risk?

On that baseline what does low IQ mean? 40,50,60,70,80?

So how much less CVD will a person having an a IQ of 100 live as compared to someone with an IQ of 105 or 95.

If he gets better at doing the IQ tests be practicce does this diminish his CVD risk and vice versa?

Where is the graph showing the decline in health as related to IQ numbers.

Conclusion: Crappy paper totally devoid of objectivity.

Why don't smart people live longer if you deny them medical care? (or do you wan to hold the tenet that all 3rd world people are stupid)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which IQ scale? European/American.

What is the baseline when IQ (whichever quaint local system of measuring IQ) causes no marked CVD risk?

On that baseline what does low IQ mean? 40,50,60,70,80?

So how much less CVD will a person having an a IQ of 100 live as compared to someone with an IQ of 105 or 95.

If he gets better at doing the IQ tests be practicce does this diminish his CVD risk and vice versa?

Where is the graph showing the decline in health as related to IQ numbers.

Conclusion: Crappy paper totally devoid of objectivity.

Why don't smart people live longer if you deny them medical care? (or do you wan to hold the tenet that all 3rd world people are stupid)

IQ response:

On enlistment, recruits also took a general aptitude test: the Army General Technical Test (AGTT). 28 This consists of two subtests, verbal and arithmetic reasoning. Scores on the AGTT correlate highly with those on standard tests of intelligence, 28 including, in this cohort, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.

28 being Montague EK, Williams HL, Lubin A, Gieseking CF. Army tests for assessment of intellectual deficit. US Armed Forces Med J 1957;8:883–892.

"On that baseline what does low IQ mean? 40,50,60,70,80?" is the wrong way around. They looked at buckets of SES factors and compared that to the intelligence tests, rather than buckets of IQ compared to SES factors. It's fairly clearly shown in Table 1 of the paper.

Where is the graph showing the decline in health as related to IQ numbers.

Why should such a graph exist? I don't think it even makes sense in the context of the paper. It's not the like the paper doesn't have a graph, it does: Figure 1. It's just not that one.

Why don't smart people live longer if you deny them medical care? (or do you wan to hold the tenet that all 3rd world people are stupid)

Now it sounds like you're trying to turn this political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IQ response:

28 being Montague EK, Williams HL, Lubin A, Gieseking CF. Army tests for assessment of intellectual deficit. US Armed Forces Med J 1957;8:883?892.

"On that baseline what does low IQ mean? 40,50,60,70,80?" is the wrong way around. They looked at buckets of SES factors and compared that to the intelligence tests, rather than buckets of IQ compared to SES factors. It's fairly clearly shown in Table 1 of the paper.

Why should such a graph exist? I don't think it even makes sense in the context of the paper. It's not the like the paper doesn't have a graph, it does: Figure 1. It's just not that one.

Now it sounds like you're trying to turn this political.

So we are discussing US IQ scales. Markedly different from EU scales.

So we have here a scientific paper that blandly states that 'low' IQ (undetermined what that may be except that its low) accounts for at least 20% of extra CVD .

This IQ is not representative for the rest of the worlds population since the worlds population doesn't in general have the same IQ norms. IQ measures nothing except in the context of equal participants. As such it's a test of NULL value. Each culture will have a different baseline according to their cultures preoccupation. Cultures which hunt extensively using handthrown objects will score way off the scale in manual dexterity and object recognition. They'll score lower for grammar.?

What is IQ 100 int the US is IQ 1350 in the inner amazonian forests, likewise an amazonian IQ of 100 will around 10 in the US.

If you want to make some scientific paper saying that 20% of CVD can be accounted for by low IQ and than going completely ape**** with conjecture on the feeding habits is not a scientist but someone looking to confirm his preconceived notions of his social circle.

Science to wipe your backside with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we are discussing US IQ scales. Markedly different from EU scales.

So we have here a scientific paper that blandly states that 'low' IQ (undetermined what that may be except that its low) accounts for at least 20% of extra CVD .

This IQ is not representative for the rest of the worlds population since the worlds population doesn't in general have the same IQ norms. IQ measures nothing except in the context of equal participants. As such it's a test of NULL value. Each culture will have a different baseline according to their cultures preoccupation. Cultures which hunt extensively using handthrown objects will score way off the scale in manual dexterity and object recognition. They'll score lower for grammar.

What is IQ 100 int the US is IQ 1350 in the inner amazonian forests, likewise an amazonian IQ of 100 will around 10 in the US.

If you want to make some scientific paper saying that 20% of CVD can be accounted for by low IQ and than going completely ape**** with conjecture on the feeding habits is not a scientist but someone looking to confirm his preconceived notions of his social circle.

Science to wipe your backside with.

Whether or not there are cultures that still hunt using bows and arrows is almost entirely irrelevant to a study that is quite obviously meant to cover "modern" culture. You're being absurd in order to find flaws now. Have you seen anyone suggest that these results apply to anything other than modern culture?

So what that it's a US based test? It's not like in the US they test entirely different things.

I don't think it's very hard to determine "low" IQ - the whole point is that 100 is roughly the middle, so <100 can fairly easily be called "low". How, I believe the scientists generally refer to lower because it's about relative values. I get the vague feeling that this whole subject offends you personally, but it shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no point in talking to him. Just put him on ignore.

ryeah! i only read posters i agree with! :rolleyes: it makes all the sense specially in science section :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ryeah! i only read posters i agree with! :rolleyes: it makes all the sense specially in science section :laugh:

Are you saying he's making valid points though?

If not, then it can make sense to put someone on ignore, if you have no interest debating them. If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ryeah! i only read posters i agree with! :rolleyes: it makes all the sense specially in science section :laugh:

Science isnt a democracy...you realise that right?

Science is one of the last bastions of the meritocratic doctrine that fuelled the englightenment.

Basically, i'll explain what i mean in a Nutshell.

Scientific method.

1) Postulate on a Phenomenon or Correlation (Basically come up with an idea).

2) Derrive a null hypothesis from Postulation

3) Form a testing mechanic to test Hypothesis.

4) Identify falsification of Theory, to assert dichotomy.

5) Prove that theory remains unfalsified and the dichotomy holds.

6) Publish for peer review

7) Ongoing peer review until Theory is falsified.

What petrossa is suggesting.

1) Postulate on a Phenomenon or Correlation (Basically come up with an idea).

2) Make sure the postulation wont offend anyone.

3) Derrive a null hypothesis from Postulation

4) Form a testing mechanic to test Hypothesis.

5) Identify falsification of Theory, to assert dichotomy.

6) Prove that theory remains unfalsified and the dichotomy holds.

7) Publish as long as the results fit with the world view of the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Nice summary. lol

Time and again, he's shown that he is unable to separate politics from science. Science merely delivers the knowledge. How it is used is politics. Darwin didn't dream of his evolution being exploited for Hitler's eugenics. Einstein at times regretted publishing his E=mc^2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science isnt a democracy...you realise that right?

Science is one of the last bastions of the meritocratic doctrine that fuelled the englightenment.

Basically, i'll explain what i mean in a Nutshell.

Scientific method.

1) Postulate on a Phenomenon or Correlation (Basically come up with an idea).

2) Derrive a null hypothesis from Postulation

3) Form a testing mechanic to test Hypothesis.

4) Identify falsification of Theory, to assert dichotomy.

5) Prove that theory remains unfalsified and the dichotomy holds.

6) Publish for peer review

7) Ongoing peer review until Theory is falsified.

What petrossa is suggesting.

1) Postulate on a Phenomenon or Correlation (Basically come up with an idea).

2) Make sure the postulation wont offend anyone.

3) Derrive a null hypothesis from Postulation

4) Form a testing mechanic to test Hypothesis.

5) Identify falsification of Theory, to assert dichotomy.

6) Prove that theory remains unfalsified and the dichotomy holds.

7) Publish as long as the results fit with the world view of the public.

Very droll and sarcastic. Please ignore the content of my writings and make fun of me. Really strengthens your arguments.

I prefer to discuss on a level a bit above the playground .

Petrossa shoots holes in wobbly theories that aren't scientific by the kindest norm.

Guy says(abbreviated): Low IQ counts for greater risk of CVD

IQ is a result of test, a test whose constituents varies from country to country. I's a random number that changes each time you take ?a test. So if you take the test several times the result gets graded downwards to account for having experience. In other words it has as much value as your zodiac

But still, If IQ counts, if i do the test multiple times and score higher do i stand less risk of CVD? And if i have an high IQ and by cause of an incident i get a lower IQ do i suddenly stand a higher chance of CVD?

It counts only for a certain group of people belonging to a certain country where low IQ can mean anything except a high IQ, whereby high IQ is undefined.

If it was science, i could replicate the test everywhere in any country. But i can't. In fact i can't replicate it all because i don't have the group dr Batty based his 'research' on.

I can't even falsify it because i don't have the same group at hand he had.

There were other scientists like that, most famously: Feynman.

Than we get 'socio-economic' groups. Again when i point out that what's poor in the USA is very rich in Papoea Guinea.

So that's also a floating target. It's just what you make of it.

If it was really science it'd be universal. The causal link between cigarette smoking and health risks is the same for every human (and other mammal)

A study which claims to see a distinct link between low IQ (without actually stating what counts a slow and where) and low socio-economic status (which seems the be a ethnocentric parameter) is just a toiletpaper.

I posted somewhere a likewise idiotic paper that got the writer a PHD:

Here another idiotic assumption of correlation being taken for causation.

Isn't it more likely that people who eat whole wheat are already eating less fast food?

Christ. The women prattles on about how 'perhaps' 'maybe' the undigested fibers in 'someway' are being absorbed in the colon and that 'something' in there helps fight diabetes 2.

And she got a Phd for that.

Absurd 'study' number 3258641587652 in the food series:

Wholegrain bread helps prevent diabetes

Date: December 08, 2009

People who regularly eat whole grain products are less likely to develop type 2 diabetes. This has been revealed by research conducted by nutritionist Marion Priebe. It?s not yet clear exactly how ?unrefined grains? offer protection, but her research has provided some initial clues. It?s a new step in the fight against diabetes. She will be awarded a PhD by the University of Groningen on 16 December 2009

Claim is supported

Previous studies of the eating habits of large numbers of people over a longer period of time revealed that those who ate a lot of whole grain products had a reduced chance of developing diabetes. However, the link could not be proved definitively. Many of the existing research projects did not take exercise habits into account, for example ? and perhaps people who eat a lot of whole grain products take more exercise than those who don?t. Sufficient exercise is another factor that reduces the chances of developing diabetes. Based on an analysis of existing research, known as a systematic review, Priebe now concludes that the claim is sufficiently supported.

http://www.rug.nl/Corporate/nieuws/archief/archief2009/persberichten/192_09

As absurd conclusions go, i guess this study takes the cake. As absurd convoluted racist expressions go this study takes the cake.

The stunning content displays a patronizing mentality last seen during the 18th century.

It seems to conclude that 'black' people, no explanation given what that means is it 1 ethnic group, or many ethnic groups bundled into one, get fat because they 'stress'.

Disregarding to fact that in many ethnic african groups bodysize is a measure of health and wealth and what we call obesity is their normal weight, the study just blunders ahead observes that 'black' people get fatter and fatter because of socioeconomic stress:

Adverse psychosocial exposures may partially drive the high rates of obesity among blacks. The objective of this study was to prospectively examine the relationship between perceived psychosocial stress and percent change in BMI among adult black men and women. We used data from 756 women and 416 men who were participants in the Pitt County Study, a community-based, prospective cohort study of blacks in eastern North Carolina. Participants were aged 25?50 years of age on entry into the study in 1988 and follow-up was obtained in 2001. Using multivariable linear regression, we calculated the adjusted mean percentage change in BMI over the follow-up period for each tertile of baseline measures of the Perceived Stress Scale (low, medium, and high), adjusted for potential confounders. For black women, higher levels of psychosocial stress at baseline predicted higher adjusted percentage increase in BMI over the 13-year follow-up: low stress 12.0% (95% CI 9.6?14.4), medium stress 16.3% (95% CI 13.7?18.9), and high stress 15.5% (95% CI 13.1?17.8). For black men, perceived stress was not associated with percent BMI change. These data suggest that interventions targeting obesity in black women should consider the potential impact of emotional stress on weight change.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v17/n11/full/oby2009130a.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ 200kg is normal for an African?

Further, you totally ignore what I said about systematic review. It's not something "hands-on" in the lab but rather a comprehensive study of hundreds of past research articles. The proposed link (directly or indirectly) is what the hundreds of articles suggest, then so be it. "Association" in a broad sense does not imply direct causation but can be mediated via some intermediate and convoluted pathways. "Correlation" does not imply causation and no single study is brave enough to say "this definitely causes that" unless they have some proof of its mechanism. I am yet to see a study that flatly concludes that "this causes this" when they can't come up with some mechanism for it.

Then, you didn't even read the paper about this topic or didn't understand what it said: first you asked whether the IQ test was American or European while the Methods clearly stated the name of the test. When someone pointed it out, you used another tactic claiming that IQ test isn't the same everywhere. So the American aptitude test is different from the Australian one? How? We speak the same language. We study the same maths. So the verbal and numerical reasoning should be different in what sense?

Next, you claim "if you do the test multiple times and get higher scores" assuming that the test is always the same. Guess what? It isn't. The format can be the same because it's just verbal and numerical but the actual content is what challenges the candidates. Knowing that a sequence may be composed of two interlaced sequences doesn't help you in the actual test. You need to spot it.

The IQ test employed has been performed by many candidates therefore a statistical analysis must have been done to work out the mean and standard deviation. Why else would we run a test if we didn't analyse the data to see who's top and who's not?

Your posts are becoming mere rants and they make you look rather odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's really the point of my observations is that what used to be science has been devolved into a narration which consists of assumptions 'supported' by ethnocentric observations, where bias is an accepted value. This i see as the result of the ever dumbing down of standards to accomodate for the influx of mediocre 'talent'. This kind of 'studies' are the proof of failing higher education.

Looking back over the thread ad homini far outweigh factual retort, ending with the deadliest of non sequitor: you just don't understand. The last bastion of the cornered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.