與神對話：真相和真神，都是沉默的
| « 1 | < | > | 6 » |
即是經你把口就不懂怎樣說的, 你有口也難言的道理。 大學係學術討論基本門檻 無的都無問題，可以活到100歲 人唔一定要討論學術的 可以討論一下運動飲食旅行一樣得 宗教，唔討論學術，咪憑信心囉 聖經唔係叫你憑信心咩 仲咩咁無信心要把宗教討論成學術層次呢 你又要做多馬/多默，又無大學學術背景，想點？ 聖經話未曾見過就信便有福的 | |||||
大學係學術討論基本門檻 「憑信心信」是對耶穌說的，不是你說的也只管信。難道你對本壇條屎忽旁講辟邪紀實，屎料feng 講基督徒都係反中反黨都係「憑信心信」咩。 再者，我唔係質疑大學學術有冇問題， 係質疑你係咪懂大學既學術。因為你只懂叫人睇一堆大學學術野來明你想翕乜春。 係咪你去睇醫生問病情，醫生就叫你去大學讀完醫先好返嚟問。讀完醫你就會懂架喇! | |||||
真係以為社會"科學"有"科學"兩個字就係科學，連科學方法都唔知嘅話，真係講都嘥氣。 | |||||
如果連社會科學心理學你都當係科學呢，呢個就唔係有冇讀大學可以夠門檻討論嘅問題，係你連事情本質都唔清唔 ... 醫學出晒事，特別是癌症研究。 醫學唔係「科學」？ 另外，社會科學屬於科學。 研究社會但唔係用科學方法的，叫「人文學科」。 似乎你混淆了「人文學科」和「社會科學」兩個discipline 。 人文學科和社會科學在研究上有些唔同，社會科學用科學方法研究，人文學科唔可以用晒科學方法。 另外有些人覺得社會科學唔係「硬科學」，因為科學方法研究社會現象解釋力不及自然科學高。 一般來說，科學可以分三範： 一係規範科學或邏輯科學，即係數學 二係經驗科學，包括自然科學和社會科學。 三係科學的應用，如工程。 雖然呢個replication crisis醜聞係在心理學發現，但已經燒都去很多不同的discipline ，現在甚至連傳統的硬科學，如化學和生物學都有。 | |||||
「憑信心信」是對耶穌說的，不是你說的也只管信。難道你對本壇條屎忽旁講辟邪紀實，屎料feng 講基督徒都係 ... 讀過醫，跟醫生溝通方面，細節上肯定會好好多，呢個係事實。 無讀過，醫生咪用些簡單的方法同你講，叫你準時食藥，定期覆診就咁簡單。 | |||||
讀過醫，跟醫生溝通方面，細節上肯定會好好多，呢個係事實。 起碼討論醫藥療效、副作用、雙盲實驗、隨機雙盲試驗、細胞和分子，呢些概念，會比普通人清晰些 | |||||
「憑信心信」是對耶穌說的，不是你說的也只管信。難道你對本壇條屎忽旁講辟邪紀實，屎料feng 講基督徒都係 ... 如果唔想睇，咪憑信心囉。 好似你睇醫生，你信得過醫生，去攞藥食先得。 你半信半疑，先要問下佢隻藥，雙盲實驗結果係點，有無p-hacking，點解有副作用都建議我食，之類答案。 咁你討論基督，你信得過基督，真係好簡單。唔信，也好簡單。 你半信半疑，你先要去做研究，咁就要去大學入面搵答案，咁就要涉及研究學習大量複雜的學術和學問了。演化論、生物學、考古學、歷史學、地質學、心理學、超心理學、宇宙大爆炸、宇宙學，一大推慢慢你研究。 | |||||
無錯。識點醫學就易明白醫生講野。 係咪對無乜學識既病人、醫生就唔應該用淺白的話向病人解釋？ 係好似你在#14 咁搬堆醫書叫病人返去睇？ | |||||
呢啲似當年民主派唱特區政府咁，做乜都有話柄唱衰。 無錯，有啲教徒係唔使問咁多先信既。聖經都唔需要睇。 不過呢類人又被打造成是盲信，迷信。 欲加些罪，何患無詞。 | |||||
你咁分類已死得，連科學方法都唔識分唔知幾重要，基本上顯示你通篇都係癈噏。 以為社會科學因為有"科學"兩個字就係科學，知識太貧乏。如果你讀完大學都係咁嘅水平，唔讀好過。 社會科學係叫humanities, 同science係唔沾邊。 連基礎知識論都唔識，就咪懶高深。需知行家一伸手，便知有沒有。 物理學有冇可重覆性危機吖？ 複製羊有冇可重覆性危機吖？ 對呢啲咁大路嘅問題都可以避而不答，其實咪即係完全冇料囉。 | |||||
你咁分類已死得，連科學方法都唔識分唔知幾重要，基本上顯示你通篇都係癈噏。 你真係唔識野，竟然以為 social science = humanities ? 你入去社會科學院實比人笑死 黃絲真係唔識社會科學和人文學科 唔怪得你會黃 | |||||
你咁分類已死得，連科學方法都唔識分唔知幾重要，基本上顯示你通篇都係癈噏。 你唔識野就問 ChatGPT 啦 機械人都聰明過你N咁多倍 不過呢，人一黃，腦便傻 仲有黃絲係懶醒，輸咗又唔認 2019年香港單野都覺得自己係聰明正義 咁真係好難講落好 | |||||
物理學有冇可重覆性危機吖？ 自己Google or wiki下啦 又要懶得去研究，又要懶醒。 或者自己搵GPT問下replication crisis in physics 唔識就謙虛一點啦 基督教唔係教你地謙卑的咩 不過實際上，真係好少見到基督徒懂謙卑， 又懶又驕傲的大有人在。 連google都唔睇，報紙唔睇，期刊唔睇，References唔睇， 就懶醒咁屌人的就大有人在。 | |||||
[quote]你咁分類已死得，連科學方法都唔識分唔知幾重要，基本上顯示你通篇都係癈噏。 自己Google or wiki下啦 自己Google or wiki下啦 又要懶得去研究，又要懶醒。 或者自己搵GPT問下replication crisis in physics 唔識就謙虛一點啦 基督教唔係教你地謙卑的咩 不過實際上，真係好少見到基督徒懂謙卑， 又懶又驕傲的大有人在。 連google都唔睇，報紙唔睇，期刊唔睇，References唔睇， 就懶醒咁屌人的就大有人在。 ... Guest from 124.244.37.x 發表於 2024/7/20 23:11 . | |||||
你咁分類已死得，連科學方法都唔識分唔知幾重要，基本上顯示你通篇都係癈噏。 呢位懶醒，不學無術的黃人 駛唔駛講返social science, humanities有咩分別呀 Here’s a detailed look at how social sciences and humanities are viewed and differentiated: Social Sciences Definition: Social sciences are academic disciplines that study human society and social relationships. They employ various methods to investigate societal issues, human behavior, and cultural phenomena. Characteristics of Social Sciences: 1. Empirical Research: Social sciences often use empirical research methods, including surveys, experiments, case studies, and statistical analysis, to gather and analyze data. 2. Theoretical Frameworks: They develop and test theories to explain social phenomena and human behavior. 3. Interdisciplinary Nature: Social sciences often intersect with other fields, including natural sciences and humanities, to provide comprehensive insights. Examples of Social Sciences: - Psychology: The study of the mind and behavior. - Sociology: The study of society, social institutions, and social relationships. - Economics: The study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. - Political Science: The study of government systems, political activity, and political behavior. - Anthropology: The study of human societies, cultures, and their development. Humanities Definition: Humanities are academic disciplines that study aspects of human culture, history, and experience. They focus on critical, analytical, and speculative methods rather than empirical methods. Characteristics of Humanities: 1. Qualitative Analysis: Humanities often rely on qualitative analysis, including critical interpretation, narrative, and historical context. 2. Cultural and Historical Context: They emphasize understanding human experiences, values, and cultural artifacts within their historical and social contexts. 3. Subjectivity and Interpretation: Humanities embrace subjectivity and multiple interpretations, recognizing the complexity of human experiences. Examples of Humanities: - Literature: The study of written works, including fiction, poetry, and drama. - History: The study of past events and their impact on the present and future. - Philosophy: The study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and reason. - Art History: The study of art and artistic movements throughout history. - Linguistics: The study of language and its structure, development, and usage. Social Sciences vs. Humanities Commonalities: - Human Focus: Both social sciences and humanities focus on human experiences and societal issues. - Interdisciplinary Approaches: Both fields often collaborate and intersect, enhancing the understanding of complex human phenomena. Differences: - Methods: Social sciences prioritize empirical and quantitative methods, while humanities emphasize qualitative and interpretive approaches. - Goals: Social sciences aim to develop theories and explanations based on data, whereas humanities seek to understand and interpret cultural and historical contexts. Conclusion Social Sciences are generally considered a branch of science due to their use of empirical research methods and theoretical frameworks to study human society and behavior. They share some characteristics with the natural sciences, such as hypothesis testing and data analysis, although the subject matter is different. Humanities, on the other hand, are not typically classified as sciences. They focus on qualitative analysis, interpretation, and critical thinking about human culture, history, and values. While they do not rely on empirical methods to the same extent as social sciences, humanities provide essential insights into the human condition and enrich our understanding of the world. In summary, while social sciences are considered sciences due to their methodological approaches, humanities are not categorized as sciences but remain crucial for exploring and understanding human culture and experience. | |||||
如果連社會科學心理學你都當係科學呢，呢個就唔係有冇讀大學可以夠門檻討論嘅問題，係你連事情本質都唔清唔 ... 閣下犯了一個常見高中生對科學誤解問題 誤解者誤以為一個學科科學與否，係研究對象。 誤解者以為，科學是代表研究自然，不是研究自然就不是科學。 誤解者以為，理科是科學，文科就不是科學。 事實上，科學與否，不是因為它歸類為文科或理科。 文理科只係高中教育體系的歸類方法，並非科學分類標準。 科學與否，是看它採用的研究方法，是否乎合科學標準。 社會科學之所以是科學，因為採用了合乎科學標準的研究方法。 人文學科不是科學，因為未能採用科學的研究方法。 風水學，玄學，都係研究自然，但你不會說它們是科學，因為它們研究方法不乎合科學標準。社會科學是科學，因為乎合科學研究的標準。科學與否，不在研究對象，乃在研究方法。 誤解者誤以為人文學科和社會科學一樣，呢個係高中生常見的錯誤。 | |||||
自然科學有無replication crisis 答案係顯然有的 A 2019 study in Scientific Data estimated with 95% confidence that of 1,989 articles on water resources and management published in 2017, study results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8%, even if each of these articles were to provide sufficient information that allowed for replication. A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists. | |||||
UC San Diego A New Replication Crisis: Research that is Less Likely to be True is Cited More [b]Papers that cannot be replicated are cited 153 times more because their findings are interesting, according to a new UC San Diego study[b] The link between interesting findings and nonreplicable research also can explain why it is cited at a much higher rate—the authors found that papers that successfully replicate are cited 153 times less than those that failed. “Interesting or appealing findings are also covered more by media or shared on platforms like Twitter, generating a lot of attention, but that does not make them true,” Gneezy said. | |||||
With the findings from these three replication projects, the authors used Google Scholar to test whether papers that failed to replicate are cited significantly more often than those that were successfully replicated, both before and after the replication projects were published. The largest gap was in papers published in Nature/Science: non-replicable papers were cited 300 times more than replicable ones. 至於基因複製技術方面 可以參考著名的黃禹錫博士事件 黃禹錫也不負眾望，宣稱他是世界上第一位用卵子培育出人類幹細胞的科學家，且在同年5月，他宣佈利用了患者的克隆胚胎幹細胞，又於8月成功地培育出世界首隻克隆狗（複製狗），一時儼然成為幹細胞研究的「全球學術界領頭羊」，風光無比，甚至當時大韓航空也提供黃禹錫夫婦免費搭乘長達十年的頭等艙，試圖打響航空公司的品牌。 10月19日，韓國成立了世界幹細胞中心（The World Stem Cell Hub），黃禹錫理所當然地成為研究中心主持人，且政府還加碼宣佈每年投入2,500萬美金，給他的研究團隊進行相關研究。但是11月起，學術圈卻豬羊變色，因為人們發現黃禹錫的研究捲入了倫理問題，甚至發現他的研究成果有「造假」的成分存在。 當年的大韓民國盧武鉉總統，都站出來應援這位「民族英雄科學家」，要揭發此事新聞台拿出確切證據，但諸如後來國立首爾大學所成立調查委員會，證實黃禹錫與研究小組，除了成功培育出全球第一隻複製狗「史納皮」外，其餘科學成果都是造假，特別是發表在《科學》雜誌上的兩篇論文成果，均屬子虛烏有；且媒體也披露他的研究小組為了研究，提供酬金購買下屬女研究員卵子，違反了倫理道德；他的研究小組成員、美國匹茲堡大學教授夏騰（Gerald Schatten），也指出2005年黃禹錫發表的論文內，有許多造假等種種有力證據，一一證明了黃禹錫研究作假。 | |||||
回覆 35# Guest from 124.244.37.x They employ various methods to investigate societal issues, human behavior, and cultural phenomena. 科學與否，是看它採用的研究方法，是否乎合科學標準。 乜叉方法都用，就係唔用scientific method，你仲咁懶醒將佢歸類為科學，係理科人見到都笑死，唔識嘅就俾你嚇死。 社會科學學者想沾"科學家"之名嘅光之嘛吓話，咪近代titie inflation趨勢啫。plumming 又係 plumming engineer, sales 又係 sales engineer, 搞程式嘅又叫 software engineer。人人話自己叫engineer，咪講到engineer個名低晒囉。人人都喺社會工作，又變左社會工作者呀？ Gemini 問：工程師這身份是何時開始出現的？其認證特徵為何？ 又冇專業認證、又冇規範、失德又冇後果，算那門子工程師？ 想做科學家，又唔敢用科學方法，慳啲啦。 回覆 33# Guest from 124.244.37.x 又犯埋晒啲低級閱讀理解錯誤。點解我問你就以為我唔識？連我係提問、反問、設問你都分唔出，係咪要我由呼吸開始教你？ 早叫左你讀物理學發展史，又懶醒唔讀就黎嗆。 物理學係冇可重覆性危機，因為重覆唔到嘅實驗就唔被物理學接受。 好心你自己睇睇維基Replication crisis Bird notes that the claim that a majority of tested hypotheses are false a priori in certain scientific fields might be plausible given factors such as the complexity of the phenomena under investigation, the fact that theories are seldom undisputed, the "inferential distance" between theories and hypotheses, and the ease with which hypotheses can be generated. In this respect, the fields Bird takes as examples are clinical medicine, genetic and molecular epidemiology, and social psychology. This situation is radically different in fields where theories have outstanding empirical basis and hypotheses can be easily derived from theories (e.g., experimental physics).[132] 扮乜野高深莫測吖，根本就係因為變數太多做唔到ceteris paribus隔離唔到參數做唔到準確實驗複製之嘛，咁嘅癈論根本喺科學之王物理面前不堪一擊。 不懂何謂科學，不懂科學方法，花裏胡哨天花亂墜胡吹一通以為自己有什麼新鮮發現，到最後不過在故弄玄虛。 無怪钱钟书先生在《围城》里说： 在大学里面，理科生看不起文科生； 自有其理。 I am sorry, 唔洗分咁細。人文科就人文科，冇用到科學方法就係冇用到，就唔好厚住臉皮叫自己做"科學"。連朱經褘望一大班市民都分唔到邊一個係衝擊者，我冇咩責任去分辨。要分嘅話，就係一啲會好厚面皮叫自己做"科學"，一啲唔會。 A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others) 70+%？！一樣啦，唔識嘅就嚇死。 一個研究員一年做幾多個實驗？一個研究員做幾多年野？係話70%人曾有經歷，唔係人70%嘅經歷都係吖嘛。你有冇做過小學學能測驗？呢啲咪叫話術囉。 我就真係從來唔睇生物學嘅，所以都記錯，係複製幹細胞做假，唔係複製羊做假。 replicate 唔到，好多人都replicate 唔到，咪唯有challenge initial result囉，咪偈發做假囉。完全符合科學方法。 不過其實科學也正面對緊「可重覆性危機」或「可複製危機」（Replication Crisis) 咪所以說明，呢啲唔叫科學囉。 醫學喎，"癌症研究更低至11%的結果可重覆"。咁其他係幾多？又冇提？又唔敢講？ 咁現代醫學係根本已有一大堆係完全可重覆嘅醫療方法吖嘛，啲乜野疫苗(唔係武肺疫苗)，乜野手術可以防到醫到乜乜物物病毒病變，有幾多%併發症乜乜物物全部有晒百幾幾百年數據，完全係透過解剖、藥理學、病理學通過晒科學方法俾無數人研究過，呢啲咪科學囉。 醫學不嬲就係生物學範疇係變數極多系統極複雜㗎啦，尖端研究如癌症等得11%結果可重覆有咩奇？咪代表得果11%嘅phenomenon係可以用黎做歸納式推論嘅底層證據囉，咪即係代表其他89%實驗，其設計時想驗證嘅hypothesis好可能唔準確囉，但因為變數太多根本揾唔到問題出左喺邊度囉。 你都識講"數學"吓？ 邏輯之王數學，一條式都係只能解一個未知之嘛，二元方程都要最少兩條方程去解啦，咁基本嘅常識，你一係就竟然唔識，一係就竟然唔知係可以引伸去解釋所謂Replication crisis就係因為"元"同"已知方程"數量相差太多嘅現象。 你連呢啲都唔明，係真係唔會令到一個理科高材生如我，會佩服你提出嘅乜野所謂偉論。 現代一堆要糊口嘅研究員、要R錢嘅研究所、要用盈利營運嘅學術期刊出版社、要做人才管理SET KPI嘅高等學府管理層，合起來做成的人類社會科研界中的跑論文數量的不理想情況，一個人文科學現象；與已經被廣泛接納為知識、歷經無數驗證replicatable嘅科學定律s及人類先賢幾百年來嘗試揭秘大自然各種精妙絕倫絞盡腦汁研究的成就，兩者有何相關或可比之處？ 結論： 想沾"科學"嘅光，唔該用科學方法，唔係就行埋一二便。 學吓知識論先好出黎獻世 做足功課先好出黎發表咩偉論 BONUS: 先旨聲明癈事你又誤會，以下問題嘅答案我係有嘅，我宜家係問你本身識唔識 請講出科學方法面對的根本的問題==>科學方法面對嘅根本問題有乜野呀？ 請講出科學方法的前設==>科學方法嘅前設係乜呀？ 請講出(自然)科學定律不能保證的事==>(自然)科學定律有咩保證唔到呀？ |
| « 1 | < | > | 6 » |