Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
How will this forum stay mainstream based while questioning mainstream and presenting new mainstream based paradigms distinct from ethnocentric pseudoscience?
When a Deshret regular posts to Egyptology are they then allowed to bring their pseudoscience?
Would it just be enough if the poster qualifies their speculations as a possibility instead of asserting it's a fact?
What should be done when a poster rehashes their pseudoscience after a while or some other cat drags it in sometime later?
If this forum continues entertaining bits and pieces of pseudoscience dabbed between mainstream is it deluding knowledge seeking readers?
Controversy exists in the mainstream. Pseudoscience does not.
posted
Don't be naive Sage. Don't you understand the "game' being played by "academia'? Do you really think they are interested in the truth or facts. Do you really think they are interested in coming on a site like this to "debate". Really? Come bro. You have been around. You know what this is about. It has absolutely nothing to do with "truth". It is about maintaining the status quo at all cost. Let Deshret do their thing.....anywhere they want to.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Stop distorting and detracting the matter. Nobody worships white science interpretation. And nobody needs eethnocentric pseudoscience on hg origins.
If you've no solution nor as much as see there's a problem does that make you part of the problem?
There's the Deshret forum for the non mainstream. I'm concerned about the integrity of the Egyptology forum. Why should pseudoscience of any stripe infect it.
posted
Thanks for making this thread. And correct pseudoscience is not allowed in this section. If you see any threads that mirror it then just send me a PM and I'll move it to the correct section.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Like I said it's not about whole threads. That's easy to handle with little effort. Sometimes it's a paragraph. Sometimes just a sentence. Can a paragraph or sentence be transferred by itself?
Whole scale deletion is not fair to the poster, nor does the reader know what was speculation vs fact (truth is subjective and varies) .
Maybe I'm stupid but I think appropriate solutions'll take some time to come up with. It may be too work expensive a solution to implement but this needs nipping in the bud before the weed takes over as it surely will. I seen it happen here already.
posted
I say lets just see what happens. I say that because this site just got dedicated mods and a dedicated admin who are all trying to change this site up for the better. I want the Egyptology section to be a serious section for serious discussions to the point that people on rival forums don't try to mock ES anymore because they don't be able to.
But again I am just seeing how things work out and just taking small steps by steps. I prefer NOT to delete posts however because I consider ES a library but if some are just completely off track to the topic then I believe they may be a candidate for deletion
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
But of course. Ile Ife wasn't built in a day! But its civil engineers planned ahead.
posted
I will tell you a story. Couple of years ago I took Beyoku's advice and decided to contact a famous researcher about a paper she published. I did not expect any response but I admired her work and decided "what the heck' give it a shot. To my surprise she responded. But after a few exchanges and questions she caught on and stopped any correspondence. And I was being nice and polite not like when I am on here. They(European researchers) are not interested in divulging any truth or any information like that . It was not Henn although I do admire her work. Be aware that her now infamous "back-migration" paper is NOT what it seems at face-value.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tukuler alledges ethnocentric pseudoscience is being published on Egyptology, by posters on the Deshret site.When researchers first claimed the earth was round, the believers in this truth were said to believe in pseudoscience.
quote: Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can’t be tested or lack evidence to support them. Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pseudoscience.html#2Wtxgp4PrH2zJSqt.99
This definition makes it clear that pseudoscience is/are theories that were disproved scientifically, can’t be tested or lack evidence to support them.
.
.
As a result, if a person post a topic that can be tested and has evidence to support it, the topic is scientific, not pseudoscience.
As a result, my questions to Tukuler are:
1. What is ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
2.Who decides this or that phenomena is ethnocentric pseudoscience?
3.How do you determine what subjects are ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
4. Why do you consider a topic is ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
5. When is a topic ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
6. What criteria or criterion are used to differentiate ethnocentric pseudoscience from science?
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Basically intellectual dishonesty and confirmation bias.
- Picking and choosing evidence based on whether it agrees with you, e.g. trumpeting one result of a method and discarding others of the same method, dismissing an author as biased or deceitful in one instance and accepting the same author in another, using obsolete works and ignoring up-to-date scholarship. - Selecting evidence that supports your hypothesis, without making a serious attempt to find evidence that contradicts it. In other words, failing to be critical of yourself. - Making or criticizing technical arguments without understanding the subject matter. As opposed to concentrating on your own field and, if you are certain of your conclusions, saying "I think the other guys must be wrong, though I'm not sure why." Or suggesting general arguments with due humility. - Citing works which contradict your conclusions as if they supported you (rather than explicitly citing them as a source of data which you are interpreting in your own way). - Quoting out of context, giving a misleading impression of the author's argument.
Not exhaustive.
Lets discuss your comments capra. Your statements are in plain text. my answers to your comments are in bold type.
You wrote: Basically intellectual dishonesty and confirmation bias.
1. Picking and choosing evidence based on whether it agrees with you, e.g. trumpeting one result of a method and discarding others of the same method, dismissing an author as biased or deceitful in one instance and accepting the same author in another, using obsolete works and ignoring up-to-date scholarship.
Ans. The researcher decides what evidence they will use in a study.In science researchers have opposing ideas about a phenomena. In support of their propositions they present data supporting their claim. In any debate the researcher will present evidence supporting their proposition. Abundance of evidence in support of a proposition suffices in confirming a claim.
There is no such thing as an obsolate claim, unless the claim has been falsified. For example, Albert Einstein's special-relativity equation E = mc 2, was made decades ago--it remains valid today. In other words up-to-date scholarship that does not falsify an earlier claim or proposition is meaningless.
2. Selecting evidence that supports your hypothesis, without making a serious attempt to find evidence that contradicts it. In other words, failing to be critical of yourself.
This is an idiotic statement. It is the person making a claim job to find support for their theory. It is the job of the person disputing a claim to find evidence that contradicts a claim or proposition. no researcher would make a claim he doesn't believe is supported by the evidence.
3. Making or criticizing technical arguments without understanding the subject matter. As opposed to concentrating on your own field and, if you are certain of your conclusions, saying "I think the other guys must be wrong, though I'm not sure why." Or suggesting general arguments with due humility.
This statement is obtuse no one would argue a proposition without understanding the subject matter. I think what you means is no one should argue a point that disagrees with the status quo.
4. Citing works which contradict your conclusions as if they supported you (rather than explicitly citing them as a source of data which you are interpreting in your own way).
Data is data. All data can be reinterpreted.
5. Quoting out of context, giving a misleading impression of the author's argument.
It is obvious you do not know anything about being an intelligent consumer of research literature. To intelligently read a research article you have to do a review of the article. In making this review you have to look at the elements of research article:
Problem Statement Literature Review Design Population Results Conclusion Personal Opinion
I taught research for 11 years. My job was to make my students ask a series of questions about the research they were reading to make sure the research is valid and reliable.
These questions include the following:
1.Who were the participants in the study?
2.Is there a question about the interpretation?
3.Is any other interpretation of the motive plausible?
4.What was the general procedures?
5.What is the baseline?
6.Is the conclusion justified?
7.What were the major conclusions reached by the author(s)?
8.What was the procedure? What is lacking?
9.What are the good features of the study?
10.What are the bad features of the design?
11.What were the main results?
12.According to the author, how successful was the treatment?
13.Are these conclusions justified? Why.
14.Was observer bias likely to play a role?
15.Does the narrative analysis fulfill its purpose?
16.What was the rationale for the study, that is what led to it?
If a reviewer of a research article ask these questions about the article they read they may discover that the article lacks validity.
It is obvious from this comment capra, you accept articles as valid only because you agree with the comments of the author, when the data presented by the author my contradict his conclusion(s).
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Thanks for making this thread. And correct pseudoscience is not allowed in this section. If you see any threads that mirror it then just send me a PM and I'll move it to the correct section.
Since you are going to delete pseudoscience threads, you need to answer these questions too,
1. What is ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
2.Who decides this or that phenomena is ethnocentric pseudoscience?
3.How do you determine what subjects are ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
4. Why do you consider a topic is ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
5. When is a topic ethnocentric pseudoscience ?
6. What criteria or criterion are used to differentiate ethnocentric pseudoscience from science?
We need to know what you consider to be pseudoscience.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the purposes of this forum in my opinion pseudoscience is stating something as fact when it is an unproven theory.
For instance it is legitimate to say " The Hyksos were Kushites Theory"
but is is psuedoscience to leave off the theory part and say "The Hyksos were Kushites" as if it is a fact (especially if you are the only person in the world making such a claim)
Also in a thread saying " The were Hyksos were Kushites Theory" in the text of a post if the statement appears again is has to continue saying it's a theory, my opinion.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: For the purposes of this forum in my opinion pseudoscience is stating something as fact when it is an unproven theory.
For instance it is legitimate to say " The Hyksos were Kushites Theory"
but is is psuedoscience to leave off the theory part and say "The Hyksos were Kushites" as if it is a fact (especially if you are the only person in the world making such a claim)
Also in a thread saying " The were Hyksos were Kushites Theory" in the text of a post if the statement appears again is has to continue saying it's a theory, my opinion.
I am glad you said this is your opinion. Every day people teach in the public schools, the Theory of Evolution as if it is a fact, when the name it self says this is a theory.
A theory can neither be proven true or false.
You can only prove facts in a court of law where a judge determines what is true or false.
A theory is either confirmed or dis-confirmed through abundance of evidence falsifying or confirming a theory. As a result, until a theory is dis-confirmed it is valid.
In my thread I confirmed that the Hyksos were Kushites. This makes my proposition valid until it is dis-confirmed.
I have presented abundant evidence supporting my theory. The only thing Tukuler has is the picture of a dictionary page showing the various ways to interpret Kas, kash and khas-. It is obvious the same sign is a homophone and can have multiple meanings.
.
It is obvious the same sign is a homophone and can have multiple meanings. Moreover the term Heqa Khasut, referred "ONLY"to the Kushite rulers during the 5th Dynasty, and the rulers of the area around Avaris and Sharuhen during the Second Intermediate Period. The Hyksos called themselves Heqa Khas, Egyptians called the Hyksos "Aamu". As a result my interpretation of the Hyksos term: Khas as Kush, is the correct reading of the word from the perspective of the Hyksos who used this term to refer to themselves.
This is obvious when you read the Hyksos scarabs. .
.
As you can see the Hyksos scarabs do not have any of the lexical items associated with the Egyptian words for foreigner posted by Tukuler.
Jack be nimble Jack be quick Stop trying to be slick.
. .
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is getting locked as its getting out of hand and it served its purpose.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic