In 2007, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an interesting article advocating that he presented “ignoring data.” The idea was pretty simple – say you have a sub-sub theory that explains how the world works. New research is published using data that is not accessible in a theoretical framework. How should I answer?
One response is to abandon the theory in favour of new data. Another response is to leave your theory alone, and as Yudkowsky puts it, “attacks the experiment – condemning references to inconsistencies, defective designs, or conflicts of interest.” But A is the third possibility – simply ignoring the data. As Yudkowsky said,
Nevertheless, I said it completely, without apologizing, and with intentional neglect. I maintain my theory. Your experiment is wrong.
This is an important fact if the experimental results contradict the standard model. It requires extraordinary action. Experiments that make traditionalists want to destroy data – or even experiments that make traditionalists skeptical of data should have a higher priority for replication. Experiments worth protesting should be brought to attention!
However, it is not socially condemnable to say, “Hell of your experimental tampering, I’m following my theory.” Therefore, the data you have to hide is through the dire hints of character assassination, sly innuendos, and controversy. Data that you cannot admit that you are denying the data, so you must be designated, excused, swayed under the rug and swept quietly into the darkness. This is not a good way to focus your attention on unusual outcomes. This is not a good way to melt for attempts to replicate.
This makes a lot of sense. If multiple studies and experiments establish the theory and support it, then there should not be much truly attractive appraisals of rebuttal data. Experiments and research, even those that have been meticulously created, can be wrong in every way. In 2011, subscientists appear to have found data indicating that neutrinos moove faster than light. In this case, a completely sensitive response is to ignore the data. After all, what is the possibility? What if all facility physics has been completely improved or if Hin’s referral had a sleish measurement error? (Spoiler alert – turns out to be the latter.)
Certainly, my own rebellion against the data in this blog post has no such thing as the accuracy seen in physics experiments, the acer of the measurements used, or the definition of the underlying phenomenon. Still, there were certain moments of moments that were immediately evoked by my response to “ignoring data.” It then reports what kind of raw data criteria are said to be given.
I was in college at the time and saw a lot in the financially bound times of my life. I split up a small apartment with two other people and worked on my economics degree while spending full time with Burns and Noble, trying to clean financially. Around that time, I heard the argument, Offen was repeated in many ways, “This generation of rising youth has a lower standard of living than their parents did at the same age!” And I immediately, without hesitation, decided to ignore the data.
A while ago, my parents mailed me a variety of memorabilia from my young man. One of them was a DVD that I transferred the contents of a VHS tape made several years ago, three and a half years ago. This video was probably published around 1987. My dad remembered this video to send to his mother, so she was able to watch the family movies of how we ride. One of the things that surprised me the video was when I was watching it when I felt like I was about the same age as when my mother remembered. This video gave Grimps to what my parents’ life seemed to be the same age as I was then.
How did our lives compare? At the time, did I experience a lower standard of living compared to them? It’s definitely not! Well, if you made our comblocket comparison, I’m sure I looked far below the ladder compared to them. I remember that video around 1987, and in 2011 I was watching it, but my nominal roe was lower than theirs – and when you adjust for inflation, it wouldn’t have been the answer. But not only did my standard of living be less loving than they did, you (in fact, I don’t have the amount you can happily pay me – much of what I enjoy about my standard of living in 2011 would have been unable to make any amount of money in 1987 difficult to dissolve into me).
I was able to list everything available day and night in 2011 that my parents in 1987 couldn’t do in their wildest dreams, but for now I’ll use one comparison. My dad was behind the camera throughout the video, but sometimes I could see him reflected in the mirror. That home movie remembered a heavy and troublesome camera that needed to be attached to the shoulder and produce low-quality output with low resolution. They didn’t even own a camera – they rented it for a few days to make this video. And when I saw that video I was able to record a very high quality video with a smartphone in my pocket weighing only a few ounces. Though they consider the phone to be outdated today, some have been discussing the need to reintroduce the Witch Burning Act of 1987!
People can discuss each other until their faces turn blue, as they try to best measure their standard of living. Here are some great new measures to offer. However, if your standard of living is determined that I was at a lower standard of living in 2011 than in 1987, your measures are terrible and should be thrown away. If that’s what your data says, I’ll ignore it.
