(cache) /r/science mod deletes comment refuting white privilege. Asks the poster to "edit in a peer reviewed research paper" to prove it doesn't to restore his comment. : subredditcancer

[–]Doomblaze 61ポイント62ポイント63ポイント 9時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]thenovamaster[S] 25ポイント26ポイント27ポイント 9時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]989490 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 6時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]DancesWithPugs 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ViolinTakers 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 8時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]ch0pp3r 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]classhero 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]REDDIT_IN_MOTION 72ポイント73ポイント74ポイント 10時間前 (30子コメント)

[–]thenovamaster[S] 28ポイント29ポイント30ポイント 9時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]INSIDIOUS_ROOT_BEER スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 7時間前 (28子コメント)

[–]the_logic_machine 23ポイント24ポイント25ポイント 6時間前* (19子コメント)

[–]INSIDIOUS_ROOT_BEER -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 6時間前 (18子コメント)

[–]the_logic_machine 18ポイント19ポイント20ポイント 5時間前 (17子コメント)

A negative claim can also be a positive claim.

No. You are confusing artifacts of language with logical premises. A statement that is linguistically negative may be reparsed or rephrased to be a positive premise.

Science doesn't prove atheism.

Correct. This is because science doesn't prove anything.

^{Also see my first comment, clearer now}

You're a regular here, so I want to make sure you understand these core logical concepts. To do that, you must understand how you are wrong here.

"There is no god" is a negative claim. Don't be confused by the fact that linguistically, we begin the sentence with "there is", the positive. But that's just how we do negatives in English. We state the positive, then the negation immediately follows it. So this claim can be reparsed to "A god does not exist".

"There is no proof there is a god" is not a relevant hypothesis. The subject of the sentence is "proof". You're saying "there is", "no proof", and the fact that the proof pertains to a god is a minor detail. You've made a claim about the existence of a proof, not the existence of a god.

"White privilege doesn't exist" is a negative claim. Again, don't be caught up in the language. The premise this denotes is the one of non existence. All negative claims are essentially identical, except for the detail of the thing they say doesn't exist. Last time it was god, this time it's white privilege.

"there is no proof...white privilege" Same thing. You're talking about proof again.

Did that help?

[+]INSIDIOUS_ROOT_BEER スコアが基準値未満のコメント-17ポイント-16ポイント-15ポイント 5時間前 (16子コメント)

Are you a STEM autist, because you seem like a STEM autist.

"God hasn't been proven." Now my mull hypothesis has god as the subject.

And yes the absence of something is a provable event, the assertion of which makes for a "positive claim", Arrow's theory from the wiki page:

In social choice theory, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, the General Possibility Theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, states that, when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no rank order voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking.

In layman's terms:

Burdens of proof are on the person making an assertion. A negative claim is calling bullshit on an assertion. Calling bullshit has a lower burden of proof. But, if instead of calling bullshit on an assertion, you make the opposite assertion, the burden of proof switches.

Beyond that, unlike the issue of god, showing peer reviewed evidence, i.e. PROVING, that privilege has no impact on society would be a fairly easy thing to prove. You would take the concrete factors that make up what proponents call privilege and you would run a statistical analysis to determine whether privilege has any impact.

Until then, all of you artists can accept the fact that most social theory isn't backed by hard science yet because we are really terrible at mathematically modeling soft sciences.

Do you know what you cannot prove?: liberty. You can't point to a peer reviewed study that suggests that liberty exists or that it is good. You would have to be an absolute autist to not understand what is meant by liberty, why it exists, and why it is good just because you didn't learn an equation proving it in Calculus 2.

White privilege almost certainly exists and it is demonstrated time and again in issues like incarceration rates. That is the dumbest argument in the world. It is the assumption that because I have white privilege the sum total of my privileges is presumed to be higher than anyone else's or that my privileges are the same as everybody else that shares my race. The problem with white privilege isn't that it's imaginary, it's that it can be exaggerated or it can be evoked in petty arguments.

You call yourself the_logic_machine but you're letting your logic get all mangled by bias and I am sure you are going to come back at me with some "~~proof~~ (sorry) evidence" that you don't have to back up your claims with evidence... only your opponents do. Well, you're wrong. Does that help, you smug bitch?

[–]the_logic_machine 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 4時間前 (12子コメント)

I tried to help you, and you call me names. I'm done helping you. I will only continue for the benefit of those following along.

"God has not been proven" is not a hypothesis at all. It is a statement about the past. It does not make a statement about what will happen when we interrogate the universe.

Next, insidious_beer goes on to mix his science and his logic. Remember that science does not prove anything, it only substantiates hypotheses. Logic can prove things. Arrow's impossibility theorem proves that there cannot exist some blablabla. That is fine logic, there exist many proofs of impossibility or applications of modus tollens. But the fact that it is possible to prove that something does not exist does not mean that science is capable of such a proof. Science is not capable of any proofs. Arrow's impossibility theorem is a mathematical theorem; we used math to state and prove it. Remember that science and mathematics stem from fundamentally different branches of knowledge.

Insidious_beer goes on to say that "calling bullshit... has a burden of proof". This is nonsense. Asking for evidence does not require you to provide evidence yourself.

He shows us again that he does not understand science: "showing peer reviewed evidence, i.e. PROVING". Again, science is not capable of proofs. Showing peer reviewed evidence is not equivalent to a proof.

Then he talks about soft sciences and liberty or something I don't care to read that, then he tries to derail the discussion. We were talking about how the moderator was wrong to state that there was a burden of proof on someone making a null hypothesis, and he launches into a diatribe about how "white privilege is imaginary". Whether this is true or not, I suspect that falling back to something you are sure you are right about is a normal defense mechanism when you feel like a moron.

And then he finishes with ad hominem and insults, and projects his own smugness onto someone who was attempting to help him better his understanding of logic & science. This indicates he probably does not have anything else to say.

[+]INSIDIOUS_ROOT_BEER スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント 3時間前 (11子コメント)

Look buddy, the day anyone comes to you for help is going to be the most desperate of mans days.

Of course you glossed over "soft sciences and Liberty" bullshit because you don't understand it. You don't understand, or you're choosing to ignore, that abstract concepts can have concrete impacts on the physical world even when we lack the scientific proof.

In science you make a hypothesis and if your observations match your hypothesis, you have evidence that your hypothesis may be useful in predicting future events. I may have been sloppy in my terms but that is because I'm on a fucking website, I'm not presenting a fucking TED talk, you fucking loser.

Here is your hypothesis: "the concept of white privilege, the supposed social construct by which whites get favorable outcomes in social systems, largely has minimal impact on actual social outcomes." I think you're full of shit.

As someone who started college as one of the brightest members of the mathematics department with interests in various areas of studies both in areas that offered BAs and areas that offer BSs, as someone who breiefly considered pursing a philosophy degree before settling into a social science, political science, and having learned the difficulty of making the seemingly intangible tangible, I can say pretty confidently that you are disqualified in giving an opinion on how social science works.

What you do know is bashing somebody over the head who hasn't used the vocabulary for 10 years and you know pedantically pointing out the difference between a proof and a hypothesis. And you should become accustomed to ad hominem attacks (did you even know ad hominem was a foreign phrase and should be italicized and you can do that in reddit's markdown, if that helps.)

You should get used to ad hominem attacks because you're an asshole. I hope that helps you not come off like a pedantic prick in the future you fucking autist.

[–]SistaSabuda 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 3時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]the_logic_machine 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]DancesWithPugs 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 2時間前 (8子コメント)

[+]INSIDIOUS_ROOT_BEER スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 2時間前 (7子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]videogameboss 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 3時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]DancesWithPugs 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]videogameboss 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]kerovon 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 7時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]ReBurnInator 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 6時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]OgreMagoo 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]CrashedonMars 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]still_futile 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 7時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]kerovon 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 7時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]PadaV4 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]chill1995 34ポイント35ポイント36ポイント 10時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]davematts 27ポイント28ポイント29ポイント 9時間前 (19子コメント)

[–]thenovamaster[S] 20ポイント21ポイント22ポイント 9時間前 (10子コメント)

[–]hfto 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 4時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]thenovamaster[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]INSIDIOUS_ROOT_BEER 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 8時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]thenovamaster[S] 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 7時間前 (4子コメント)

[+]INSIDIOUS_ROOT_BEER スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 4時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]thenovamaster[S] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (2子コメント)

Very true. My point of contention is when social sciences use subjective data as opposed to objective data. The study in link that the original post points to does just that. The study assumes that the extra paragraph that was added claiming white privilege was "threatening" to the participants and that is why they responded by saying that they had faced hardships as well. They made no attempt to quantify "threatening" (even in a simple "how threatened were you by this" question).

I could do the same exact study and hypothesize that "adding a paragraph about racial inequality between Whites and African Americans will make Whites more acutely aware of their own hardships in life" and that would be just as true. In my opinion the author of the study set the study up to reach the conclusion they already had decided it would come to. Anyway, the issues I have with the study isn't really the cancer here.

[–]INSIDIOUS_ROOT_BEER -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 3時間前 (1子コメント)

This isn't cancer at all in my opinion. It has been shown time and again that race leads to favorable outcomes in social situations. I think those two have been correlated enough to at least accept a correlation between them.

I believe that white privilege is real, that it is an abstraction that has impacts on the physical world.

I believe that it is used by some people to trivialize the hardships of whites. I believe that is the true controversy. My white privileges are offset by other hardships. Its like if we were playing a game of poker and the cards were stacked so that one guy had three of a kind to start because of his wealth and I had a pair because of white privilege, my privilege mostly earns me undeserved scorn from people who should be uniting with me to take on real privilege. White privilege is the rallying crying for rich, white, trust fund women who do not want to reflect on their own privilege, which puts white privilege to shame.

Seriously, it used to be common to speak of privilege and the duties that privileged people owe to everybody else, but now the only discussion of privilege is when it comes to white privilege. It is blown out of proportion and camouflages real privilege. It strikes me as homeless people getting mad at the homeless guy with two tall boys to drink instead of one. Does he have two bottles? Obviously. The next question: so what? There's much much bigger fish to fry.

[–]thenovamaster[S] 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前* (0子コメント)

See I have to disagree with you there. The claim that white's are more privileged than other races is an Ameri-centric view, one of which isn't even true statistically. In America asians have the highest degree of "privilege" as it is defined sociologically. Asian privilege isn't even a point of contention for anyone, however. Granted that might be because asians make up a much smaller percentage of the population than whites.. but billionaires make up an even smaller percentage and their "privilege" as the 1% is constantly harked on. As many people like to point out if you are a white man living in an Asian country (Japan for example) your American white privilege will mean nothing. You're likely going to be heavily discriminated against, you're now the "victim" of "Japanese privilege".

What most studies (I can only speak from a criminology background here, so please excuse the scope) find is that yes: black people are found to be disproportionately less wealthy, are the victims of more crimes, commit more crimes, and spend more time incarcerated than white people. Objectively and statistically that is true but to attribute that purely to something as subjective race relations would be a folly when there is so much objective data that can be studied such as wealth distribution to crime rates, crime rates to education level, intra- and interrace crime statistics, intracity crime mapping.. the list goes on and on. Objective data is data that can be immediately actionable and can usually explain patterns in subjective data. Subjective data is well and good but it's use, by it's very nature of being unreliable, has to be limited.

Edit: grammar

[–]ViolinTakers 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 8時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]ch0pp3r 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]RickardIron 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 7時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]davematts 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Drapetomania 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]hell___toupee -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 1時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]Drapetomania 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]hell___toupee -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 1時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Drapetomania 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 50分前* (1子コメント)

[–]hell___toupee -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 39分前 (0子コメント)

[–]JHVH_UNO 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Drapetomania 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]PickleSouled 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ChaosMotor 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 48分前 (0子コメント)

[–]shodanx 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]SoCo_cpp スコアが基準値未満のコメント-18ポイント-17ポイント-16ポイント 6時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]thenovamaster[S] 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 5時間前 (3子コメント)

[+]SoCo_cpp スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15ポイント-14ポイント-13ポイント 5時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]GuyAboveIsStupid 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]thenovamaster[S] 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

subredditcancer

RULES – VISIT: Blackout2015 – HOW TO: LEAK – CHAT – UNEDDIT – GGBlocker

/r/subredditcancer/comments

調停者

In layman's terms: