Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How do you interpret raw data?

  1. Ætiologic - isolates mechanisms for direct causation

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Bayesian - tends to include extraneous a priori considerations

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Frequentist - respects only empirical evidence and probability

    50.0%
  4. Nomothetic - uses an intuitive system of diagnostic references

    50.0%
  5. Pyrrhonian - will doubt anything, even skepticism itself

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Solipsist - ascribes perceptual qualia exclusively to the mind

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Jun 15, 2008 #1
    Specifically, how do you come to believe what you do? Common methods of justifying novel premises epistemologically tend to favor one of two ideologies:

    • Stochastic - likes to interpret according to high recurrence and correlativity
    • Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances

    These are the two ideological premises from which the six poll methods can be derived: Ætiologic, Nomothetic, and Solipsist arguments can be seen primarily as assertions of determinism, whereas Bayesian, Frequentist, and Pyrrhonian frames of reference always adhere to a statistical approach. There is also another undercurrent running in this poll: Frequentist and Ætiologic justifications tend to employ an exclusively empirical underpinning; Nomothetic and Bayesian inferences depend heavily on a priori convictions (Solipsism is also usually defended using the a priori because a posteriori attempts at verification are not widely credited; Pyrrhonism may seem like an analytic proposition at first but it actually only indoctrinates an inductive negation of premises, including the self-negation of any premise that might eventually support a rationalist Pyrrhonian criterion, and so is actually an [anti-] empirical enterprise - I have taken great pains to clarify this in the past; you can hear my detailed arguments here).
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 16, 2008 #2

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't really justify much, I have a healthy mix of comfort and obligation in my work (i.e. I do what I want and what it takes to get by):

    Ætiologic - isolates mechanisms for direct causation
    Bayesian - tends to include extraneous a priori considerations
    Frequentist - respects only empirical evidence and probability
    Nomothetic - uses an intuitive system of diagnostic references
    Pyrrhonian - will doubt anything, even skepticism itself
    Solipsist - ascribes perceptual qualia exclusively to the mind

    Ætiologic - don't use, I think it's politicians?
    Bayesian - politicians...?

    Frequentist - me at work and school and sometimes during introspection (your memory is a terrible sample space though, methinx, but maybe there's a reason some events stick out more than others, we call it 'weighting' in statistics, *chuckle*).

    Nomothetic - I practice this a lot, sometimes even at work, but I never rely solely on it, and investigate as a Frequentist before.

    Pyrrhonian - I go here sometimes.

    Solipsist - it's an interesting point that has it's merits and I often consider it in a philosophical atmosphere, but I'm not a 'brain in a vat'.
     
  4. Jun 16, 2008 #3
    Bayesian / Frequentist
     
  5. Jun 17, 2008 #4
    I agree with your description of solipsism, but I am not sure what you mean by 'politicians' and I think that the activation of memory has a lot to do with long-term potentiation and parallel connectivity in the hippocampus and cortex. However, if you primarily consider yourself to be a Frequentist, please remember to vote for it in the poll.

    Bayesian is a statistical form of rationalism and Frequentist is a statistical form of empiricism. Do you tend to prefer to theorize in your mind (Bayesian) or would you rather experiment in the real world (Frequentist)? Don't forget to vote!
     
  6. Jun 17, 2008 #5
    I voted nomothetic because I am always thinking like a physicist, I dislike frequentist and Ætiologic deduction (although it reminds me of engineering), I doubt the validity of bayesianism applied to reality, and I favor Wittgenstein's rejection of Pyrrhonism and Solipsism.
     
  7. Jun 19, 2008 #6
    I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
     
  8. Jun 19, 2008 #7
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2008
  9. Jun 21, 2008 #8

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah, my answers were a bit terse and I see a grammar error even. I meant that these seem like methods meant for making big conclusions that are inevitably at the mercy of politics.

    Here's your definitions:

    Ætiologic - isolates mechanisms for direct causation
    Bayesian - tends to include extraneous a priori considerations

    I might have a misunderstanding about Baeyesian, but showing causation is often associated with political motivation in my mind; extraneous a priori considerations reminds me of a large set of data that you've made assumptions about in order to arrive at your conclusion about causation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: How do you interpret raw data?
  1. How do you invest? (Replies: 12)

  2. How you doing Russ? (Replies: 25)

  3. How do you pronounce it? (Replies: 11)

  4. How do you think? (Replies: 4)

  5. How do you think? (Replies: 29)

Loading...