14 responses | 0 likes
Started by TimNew - Sept. 17, 2022, 9:52 p.m.

No one is objective.  It's a basic human weakness to allow biases to influence perception.  Anyone who claims to be objective is dishonest.  If they truly believe it, they are being dishonest with themselves.

That's why we have the scientific process.

In science,  you identify objective metrics/criteria, and measure them.  Then you draw conclusions from the results.  The problem is,  when you define the criteria,   your innate bias will influence the emphasis you place on criteria. 

Even if you do a great job and objectively measure,  the odds are very good,  nearly certain, that some other scientist will disprove your conclusions eventually.  That is why science is always evolving.  It's also why anyone who uses a term like "The science is settled" is not a scientist.

That being said,   when you present, or observe facts, if you are objective,   you'll alter previous conclusions based on the facts in evidence.  If you don't,  you are not objective.   It's that simple. 

To simplify,  let's take a relatively basic hypothetical scenario.

Suppose there's a video of one man shooting another man.   Shortly after the shooting, the man dies.  Most people, probably everyone, would reasonably assume the man who shot him was responsible for his death based on the video.

Then the autopsy results come out. The gunshot wound was superficial/non life threatening and the deceased had ingested 3 to 5 times a fatal level of drugs.  Also, he had assorted severe health issues.

An objective person would believe that it's unlikely the shooter was responsible for the death and depending on the circumstances leading up to the shooting,  might say the man was guilty of assault.   But..   What if the shooter was attacked by the deceased prior to the shooting? Of course, I digress as that's another discussion.

A person who is not objective,  basically dishonest,  might say something like "Autopsies are flimsy evidence" and the video, coupled with the opinions of "experts" who were not there and never examined the deceased outweigh the autopsy results.

An objective person would know that in such a case, the autopsy results would be the definitive facts. A person who said anything else would be dishonest and not at all objective.

Very simple,  yes?

By metmike - Sept. 17, 2022, 11:44 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Tim,

Wonderful topic!

Actually, the scientific method compels the scientist to try to sincerely prove themselves wrong not just look at empirical data that they will automatically interpret to match their bias because of human nature, as you mentioned.

That's what makes actually applying the scientific method very difficult but also extremely effective at eliminating bias.

Nobody is objective about everything, like you stated. However, people applying the authentic scientific method take the bias out of it........by definition. That's the main purpose to use this methodology in science and other realms.

Politics is the ANTI scientific method.

Religion is also the ANTI scientific method. That's why we call it our "faith". sometimes it’s good to believe in things that are not proven. There are numerous realms in life when this is actually needed.

I had great faith that my wife would be committed to me(and me to her)  well before we got married and I certainly couldn't prove it then but based a marriage on that faith.  After 37 years of behavior and observations, I now have the empirical data to prove my hypothesis but there's always the chance that my PREDICTION about the future could be wrong because it's still always a  prediction, which is a different realm than proving that she's not cheated on me since we met.

Why trying to prove yourself wrong is the key to being right


Reasoning is following evidence to a logical conclusion. Rationalizing is selecting evidence using motivated reasoning and confirmation bias to justify a conclusion

Some great tips here!

How to Prove Yourself Wrong When Being “Right” Is Holding You Back


If you want to be right, prove yourself wrong

  Personal Development     https://ozanvarol.com/want-right-prove-wrong/

By metmike - Sept. 18, 2022, 12:39 a.m.
Like Reply

What's interesting is the number of people, including scientists that are convinced that they use the scientific method to defend their position that actually use the ANTI scientific method.


Comment: Why do so many people get the scientific method wrong?            


"Claims that the “the science isn’t settled” with regard to climate change are symptomatic of a large body of ignorance about how science works.

So what is the scientific method, and why do so many people, sometimes including those trained in science, get it so wrong?

The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general."

The mark of intelligence is to progress in an uncertain world and the science of climate change, of human health and of the ecology of our planet has given us orders of magnitude more confidence than we need to act with certitude.

Demanding deductive certainty before committing to action does not make us strong, it paralyses us."

metmike: This is ridiculous rationalizing to defend something, while completely ignoring the Mt. Everest amount of data that proves him wrong.

In the last 15 years, since Al Gore claimed "the science is settled" we've learned more than we knew the previous 150 years in many realms of climate science.

The evidence, instead of showing a climate crisis has proven to be a climate optimum. 




There are 50 threads worth of evidence showing it:


Am I completely objective?

Of course not, that's why my favorite threads here are those that disagree with me or point out things that I'm overlooking.

The fact is that being wrong and realizing it offers the best opportunity to learn when applying the scientific method frame of mind. There is still an enormous amount that we still don't know about the climate and those closed mind individuals that assumed the science was settled 15 years ago, have been left in the learning dust by so called "climate deniers" who use the latest empirical data/observations to learn new things about climate.    

By metmike - Sept. 18, 2022, 12:45 a.m.
Like Reply

This goes in many other scientific fields too:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False


By TimNew - Sept. 18, 2022, 7:51 a.m.
Like Reply

Actually, the scientific method compels the scientist to try to sincerely prove themselves wrong

Yes.  Isn't it ironic when one regularly proves himself wrong but lacks the capacity and/or objectivity to realize it? 

By mcfarm - Sept. 18, 2022, 9:35 a.m.
Like Reply

well here is certainly a mind blower if "a scientists is compelled t prove himself wrong"....can you say Dr Fauci with a straight face?

By metmike - Sept. 18, 2022, 11:24 a.m.
Like Reply

"Yes.  Isn't it ironic when one regularly proves himself wrong but lacks the capacity and/or objectivity to realize it? "

By definition, sincerely using the scientific method,  if  he (or somebody) proves themselves wrong........they would know it.

I'll give you examples to help you understand, the scientific method better,  Tim. 

1. Isn't it ironic that if we hadn't had that 4 inches of rain...... we wouldn't have had this flood. We had the flood because the extreme rain causes floods.

2. Isn't it  ironic that if I had not cut the grass today.........the grass would still be short. Cutting the grass CAUSES it to be short.

Using the Scientific Method and proving oneself wrong IS realizing it, Tim by definition. That's the beauty of it, man!

If you didn't realize it, then you were not using the Scientific Method, plain and simple.

Proving oneself wrong, of course always includes using the evidence of others that have authentic data/evidence that disagrees with you. That's why I included the example of the gentleman that insists he's using the scientific method and claims the (climate) science was settled 15 years ago.......but is ignoring a Mt. Everest amount of NEW science since then, that disputes what he decided was settled science a long time ago.

Sure, we can prove the climate crisis by using climate  models, that use a theoretical climate and hand picked mathematical equations based on the assumption that there's a climate crisis. Or by twisting the interpretation of extreme heavy rain events,  93% caused by natural variation.

But we can DISprove it .........with 10 times more empirical data and observations of a planet greening up. A booming biosphere. Life doing great. Best crop growing conditions in the last 1,000 years (previous time that it was this warm) because of the law of photosynthesis the the modest increase in temperature of 1 deg. C. 

Not in spite of the increase in CO2..........but because of it.

Ignoring that is practicing the ANTI scientific method. 

The authentic science screams loudly that we have a climate optimum and that CO2 is the building block for all of life and a beneficial gas.

The politics are telling us that it's a climate crisis and that CO2 = pollution based on a redefining of physical, scientific  laws, including photosynthesis.  climate model projections that have all been too warm and instead of adjusting them down to reality, they got adjusted to be even MORE extreme. Then, then the most extreme, impossible on  get's used to represent what is called science by those practicing the ANTI scientific method.

If you think that I get carried away on this particular subject, let me remind you. This is the biggest reason that I'm even here. As an atmospheric scientist to enlighten others with the truth.

As a professional commodities trader, this has ended up being a perfect fit!


By TimNew - Sept. 19, 2022, 6:50 a.m.
Like Reply

Great stuff MM.  Thanks.  Let's continue this teaching opportunity.

What objective criteria did you use to draw the scientific conclusion that autopsies are flimsy evidence in your final conclusion that George Floyd was brutally murdered in a racist attack by a racist cop? 

By metmike - Sept. 19, 2022, 10:10 a.m.
Like Reply

Agree, Tim. This is a wonderful THREAD.........for people that want to learn.

What objective criteria did you use to draw the scientific conclusion that autopsies are flimsy evidence in your final conclusion that George Floyd was brutally murdered in a racist attack by a racist cop?


Tim, like you've done dozens of times before, you're making  that up to attack a position, I never had.

Let's help you out........again. This time with additional information.

Here's a review for you again: 

Latest on the George Floyd legal case            

                            14 responses |             

                Started by GunterK - March 19, 2021, 9:01 p.m.   



            Derek Chauvin trial             

                            61 responses |          

                Started by metmike - March 29, 2021, 10:39 p.m.            


Chauvin verdict reached            

                            36 responses |                  

                                            Started by metmike - April 20, 2021, 4:13 p.m.    



Now that 2 years has passed, sometimes  we can look back at additional information, which can show us new things that we didn't know before and can learn from. But only if we want to learn.

Fact check: George Floyd's death ruled a homicide, not fentanyl overdose


The claim: The cause of George Floyd's death was a drug overdose

Following weeks of testimony in a closely watched case, a 12-member jury found former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin guilty on all countsin the death of George Floyd, a 46-year old Black man who died while being restrained by Chauvin in police custody last May.

As Americans flooded the streets to mark the verdict, misinformation erupted on social media.

Despite video evidence of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes, a viral social media post claims Floyd's death was the result of a drug overdose.

"Derek Chauvin is not responsible for George Floyd's drug overdose," reads a screenshot of a tweet shared to Instagram on April 20 with more than 5,000 likes.

In the photo's caption, the user added other misleading claims such as: Floyd had COVID-19; had no injuries to his neck, muscles, esophagus trachea or brain; he went into cardiac arrest from drug overdose; and his lungs were three times normal size, "indicative of opiate overdose."

Similar versions of the claim have been shared across other platforms. One Facebook page wrote on April 20, "Science says Floyd died of an overdose & also says he wasn't suffocated."

USA TODAY reached out to the Instagram user and Facebook page for comment. The Instagram post has apparently been deleted.

Autopsy cites 'restraint and neck compression'

The Hennepin County medical examiner's office ruled Floyd's death was a homicide caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest" complicated by "restraint, and neck compression" while he was being subdued by police.

Medical Examiner Andrew Baker testified that the way officers held Floyd down and compressed his neck while restraining him "was just more than Mr. Floyd could take," given the condition of his heart.

Similarly, an independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family ruled  "asphyxiation from sustained pressure was the cause" of Floyd's death.

Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump said at a news conference in June 2020 that Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Allecia Wilson performed the autopsy, finding there was "neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain."

Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist of Loyola University Medical Center, also testified during Chauvin's trial that Floyd died of a lack of oxygen from being pinned to the pavement with a knee on his neck. He added, “A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died."

Tobin noted Floyd's body position – officers lifting up his handcuffed arms, Chauvin's knee on his neck, back and sides – are what led to his low oxygen levels, resulting in "low tidal volume, which gives you shallow breaths."

Experts agree Floyd did not die of overdose

While findings from Floyd's autopsy revealed 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in his blood, medical experts called as prosecution witnesses agreed the amount of fentanyl was not enough to be considered fatal.

Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist at NMS Labs in Pennsylvania, testified and presented data showing the levels of methamphetamine found in Floyd's system were lower than the average amount found in 94% of DUI cases in 2020.

Additionally, the report does not say Floyd's lungs were three times normal size, as the post claims. The autopsy states sections of the right and left lung showed "generally normal overall architecture."

Our rating: False

The claim that the cause of Floyd's death was a fentanyl overdose is FALSE, based on our research. The medical examiner's autopsy and an independent autopsy done at the request of Floyd's family both ruled his death a homicide. Floyd's toxicology report revealed fentanyl in his system, however, experts agree it was not enough to be considered fatal. COVID-19 was not listed as a factor in Floyd's death, and claims that Floyd didn't have any life-threatening injuries are misleading. Floyd's lack of oxygen during his arrest resulted in brain damage and caused his heart to stop.

Our fact-check sources:


As proven conclusively here with all sources, Tim it's YOU that are ignoring ALL the evidence, including that from 2 autopsies,  so that you can believe a manufactured/false narrative(that was carried on far right sites, including Zero Hedge and Fox in the evening) that told you what you wanted to believe.....and no amount of authentic evidence has been able to get you to UNbelieve it.

mcfarm and Gunter  did the  same thing because they completely believed in those same really bad far right sources. Read the posts in the above thread, especially the first one that show that.

The ANTI scientific method.

Now that you know the indisputable truth(or should know based every reasonable definition of the truth), are you interested in applying the authentic Scientific Method to this case, here on September 19, 2022?

By metmike - Sept. 19, 2022, 5:53 p.m.
Like Reply


In staying true to the Scientific Method, if you read all the posts, I considered ALL the evidence, including the possibility that he could have died from a drug overdose and while doing that, I was doing backflips being patient responding and respecting the views of you guys that vehemently disagreed.




Problem was.........there was no legit evidence of him dying from a drug overdoes from any credible source. Far right sources repeating a manufactured/false narrative is NOT evidence.

His defense team had no legit evidence of this either. 

The real question is why you guys continued to ignore a Mt. Everest amount of the completely one sided evidence that proved what you wanted to believe as wrong?

We already know the answer....but here's another important lesson related to that  ABOVE that of how to apply the Scientific Method.

The George Floyd homicide and trial was obviously an extraordinarily high profile case that was used by political entities to manipulate people.

This is exact same thing is going on every day in hundreds of realms, big and small. 


This post to joj, explains it in detail and gives many examples:



By metmike - Sept. 19, 2022, 5:57 p.m.
Like Reply

                Tribalism in our world            

                            Started by metmike - Sept. 11, 2022, 11:37 a.m.        


Humans  and Americans are becoming MORE tribalistic.

I think that technology has created very powerful communication sources that will tell people whatever they want to hear/read and is greatly feeding tribalism.

Echo chambers.

Captured brains


By TimNew - Sept. 20, 2022, 5:41 a.m.
Like Reply

You called the Autopsy reports flimsy evidence.  You called Floyds death  a racist murder . And like before,  you are trying to deny your words.  But you are only fooling yourself. I am not the only one who read those words.

And this is why you don't debate with donkeys.

By metmike - Sept. 20, 2022, 10:47 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Tim!

"You called the Autopsy reports flimsy evidence."

Turns out that describing YOUR  FAKE autopsy reports as flimsy evidence was giving them far too much credit by believing they might be possible.  I should have done a better job fact checking!


"And this is why you don't debate with donkeys."

I do this all the time, Tim. However, for me this is not so much a debate as it is a LEARNING OPPORTUNITY to be shared with other readers. Don't forget.........I'm the moderator and obligated to MODERATE here.


                NEW: 2 Threads of the week 9-19-22/Scientific Method            

                            Started by metmike - Sept. 19, 2022, 4:52 p.m.            


.......which is the main reason I'm here. 


I've learned more in the past 4 years as moderator here as in the previous 24 years. Having conversations with others here forces me to constantly do fact checks(you should try it some time) to practice the Scientific Method and learn massive amounts of new things. 

I've also learned MUCH more about human cognitive bias and people than I knew before. How to practice patience and be more respectful.

For no pay?

Knowledge, discernment and lessons on humanity are worth far more than a million dollars.

The coolest thing is that there is so much more to learn and multiply the learning by sharing it on a forum.......and  need for me to get better but such little time!


Appreciate your contribution here, even if that was the complete opposite of your intention..........which we all know was to try to pick a fight. Attack with mischaracterizations. Accusing me of  exactly what you've been doing.

You've forced me to become an expert on recognizing this behavior too. No kidding and I'm sincerely grateful.




When I provide the documentation links for evidence like this,  it helps solidify new principles that I recently learned  and am sharing here.

By metmike - Sept. 20, 2022, 12:38 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Sept. 21, 2022, 5:01 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks to my son, Mac for this one:

Treat Failure Like a Scientist


"But for the scientist, a negative result is not an indication that they are a bad scientist. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Proving a hypothesis wrong is often just as useful as proving it right because you learned something along the way.

Your failures are simply data points that can help lead you to the right answer."

Failure Is the Cost You Pay to Be Right

"None of this is to say that you should seek to make mistakes or that failing is fun. Obviously, you’ll try to do things the right way. And failing on something that is important to you is never fun.

But failure will always be part of your growth for one simple reason…

If you’re focused on building a new habit or learning a new skill or mastering a craft of any type, then you’re basically experimenting in one way or another. And if you run enough experiments, then sometimes you’re going to get a negative result.

It happens to every scientist and it will happen to you and me as well. To paraphrase Seth Godin: Failure is simply a cost you have to pay on the way to being right.

Treat failure like a scientist. Your failures are not you. Your successes are not you. They are simply data points that help guide the next experiment."