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.
Or songs off the Taylor Swift album
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.
Long long man https://youtu.be/6-1Ue0FFrHY
Is a Japanese commercial series
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.
The chat gpt thing deserves a warning. A data breach could lead to an abuser or employer getting information that they can use against you.
Or if you must use the cap, just drop the cap with the detergent in with the laundry. It will clean itself.
Then where is the organization? All I have found are grifters and internet warriors.
Yep, as long as Valve keeps it up to date and as long as newbie users don’t figure out what Sudo does it will be fine for them.
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
Some of us are still here since they black out. I haven’t posted or commented on there since.
Generative ai is just an advanced chat bot, a toy that uses too much power to be efficient.
My personal experience is that any output has to be double checked and edited. It would be better to just do whatever I asked it to do from the beginning. When it can fact check itself and cite sources, then it might become useful.
An ai that can comb through vast amounts of data and give an output of specific data relevant to the question presented than a generative ai might be useful. But it can’t analyze data very well at the current moment. It hallucinates too much.
American pride won’t admit defeat, you’re right. However, most Americans are blind to brown nosing. Like Trump, if you just make them feel good emotionally, you can make them do whatever you want. (See the lifting of the tik tok ban)
Just call us good little boys and girls and tell us Jesus would want us to share, and you’ll have a communist America overnight.
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.