Teo, put your conspiracy beliefs to the test or expect to be banned.

[NonZeroSum]

What's the point? I know that, if I visit the jail in Osijek, I'd see about the same stuff I saw when visiting my mother in jail in Požega. Except that the custodians at the door probably won't let me enter the jail in Osijek because none of my family members are there. And even if they let me in, they would almost certainly take my mobile phone, so I won't be able to take a selfie inside of the jail.

Selfie at the front door to prove you were there is fine. Just go on visiting days so you can talk to other people their to visit family. As well, you can ask other people their for a name of a cell mate who doesn't get visitors who you can visit as an act of charity or say you're writing a paper for university. The second and fourth Sundays of the month - 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m

Either you develop your conspiracy theory about how many people are amazing payed actors & what type of personalities get suckered into believing the people inside are there against their will like you did when you visited your mom. Or, when walking round the building with massive walls and iron bars on the windows, seeing the people their to do a job, talking to genuine family members, visiting the courhouse nextdoor, that you start to doubt your theory.

We're simply looking for evidence that you can collect witness testimony, compare it to other research you can do online of millions of hours of footage inside prisons, millions of news stories about people who went to prison, etc. And can come to some conclusions which show your critical thinking skills are improving. It can be anything, like "wow this disheveled woman who got the bus to visit her family in prison really doesn't seem to be someone well payed by the illuminati, I wonder how they suckered her into belieiving her family is in there against their will, like I believed, I wonder what lead to her family member deciding to be a payed actor?."

On the 11th & 25th of October, Sunday, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. You have to commit to going or don't bother posting because if you just say you have no interest in going you will be banned.

-

[teo123]

The vast majority don't do it in other countries either, I'm just saying it doesn't make you a genius for doing so.

If the vast majority of people don't do research, and I do that, that means I understand how science works better than the vast majority of people.

My point was that just because a paper is published, that doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the paper.

What do you think is the point of peer review?

Because you wrote them.

Then isn't that some sort of circular reasoning? My ideas are wrong because my papers are bad, and you think my papers are bad just because it was me who wrote them. Not to mention it's an insulting ad-hominem attack.

My point is that since social sciences aren't as rigorous, the results aren't as reliable.

That's not what you said. You said it's easier to publish soft science papers than to publish hard science papers.

I know someone who read that book (and you haven't), so I'll ask him about it.

Well, I haven't read the book itself, but I've read lots of blog-posts by Brian Caplan, so I can guess what the book is about.

An assumption in social sciences doesn't mean that's what actually happens.

Assumptions in social sciences are more certain than conclusions based on those assumptions. Conclusions can't be right if those assumptions are wrong, but those assumptions can be right even if conclusions are wrong.

it more seems like it's because the government is corrupt

Probably, but I am not sure. Croatian government being corrupt is an empirical matter, that's not something that can be reached by reason alone. And I don't like empirical matters. Luckily, whether or not jails exist appears to be able to be solved a-priori.

Then find one out there; We're all curious to see.

I'll try to. No promises, though. It's a bit like asking for a citation for cholesterol you eat not causing heart disease or glucose you eat not causing type-2-diabetes. It's well-known among nutritionists, and they don't talk about those things explicitly often.

[Red]

If the vast majority of people don't do research, and I do that, that means I understand how science works better than the vast majority of people.

No you don't, given your terrible track record. The fact that you think you do is what causes you to be wrong even more.

What do you think is the point of peer review?

Peer-review in social sciences doesn't count as much as peer-review in the natural sciences. We've been over this.

Because you wrote them.

Then isn't that some sort of circular reasoning? My ideas are wrong because my papers are bad, and you think my papers are bad just because it was me who wrote them.

No, it's more like:
Teo wrote a paper -> Teo is wrong almost 100% of the time -> The paper is probably wrong too.

Not to mention it's an insulting ad-hominem attack.

No, it's just that I don't consider you a trustworthy source.

My point is that since social sciences aren't as rigorous, the results aren't as reliable.

That's not what you said. You said it's easier to publish soft science papers than to publish hard science papers.

Yeah, that's WHY social science papers are easier to publish. There isn't always a rigorous consensus.

Well, I haven't read the book itself, but I've read lots of blog-posts by Brian Caplan, so I can guess what the book is about.

I don't think so, given your track record of misunderstanding things to an insane degree.

Assumptions in social sciences are more certain than conclusions based on those assumptions.

Would the conclusion be reliable if it's based on an assumption? It's like proving God's existence with the existence of the Universe; It's assuming a God is even possible.

Anyway, assumptions in science are always meant to be taken with a grain of salt.

Conclusions can't be right if those assumptions are wrong, but those assumptions can be right even if conclusions are wrong.

Again, they're assumptions. They may be right, but even if they are, they shouldn't be believed without any good reason or evidence.

Probably, but I am not sure. Croatian government being corrupt is an empirical matter, that's not something that can be reached by reason alone.

Well, luckily, there is empirical evidence to prove that the supposed country of Croatia is corrupt, it's probably just censored in your country.

And I don't like empirical matters. Luckily, whether or not jails exist appears to be able to be solved a-priori.

It'd be cute if it weren't so sad.

Teo, you have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about. You can't just arbitrarily decide what can't be decided by empirical evidence.

I know you don't believe in jails because them existing probably doesn't make you feel comfortable in some way, but the truth sucks Teo.

I'll try to. No promises, though. It's a bit like asking for a citation for cholesterol you eat not causing heart disease or glucose you eat not causing type-2-diabetes. It's well-known among nutritionists, and they don't talk about those things explicitly often.

You seem so confident! Yeah, you're never gonna get around to that.
I've looked through both Google and Google scholar. Can't find one. You actually might be the only person in history to unironically think such a thing. That doesn't make you special or anything like that, it just means you're wrong in an unimaginable way that it qualifies as an accomplishment.

[brimstoneSalad]

@teo123 countries and the people running them do many irrational things while believing they're being rational because they're acting on bad information and confirmation bias.

Most wars, including the "war on drugs", the way the prison industrial system works, support of animal agriculture, etc.

These things can even be very transparently wrong, but institutions have a kind of momentum and change often takes time -- and it takes brave people willing to fight for that change. Denying the existence of prisons does nothing to fight the prison industrial system that needs to be changed.

This is how you create change:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNpehw-Yjvs

As @NonZeroSum said, you need to show evidence of change. Denying the existence of prisons is every bit as insane as believing the Earth is flat or denying that airplanes and bombs exist because you misunderstand the hard sciences. When it's so easy to confirm something exists empirically you should realize that either the theory which predicts it doesn't exist is wrong or your understanding of that theory is wrong.

Sorry, you have until October 25th as NonZeroSum said or will face a permanent ban. Either you're lying to us and trolling us, or you can do the simple thing that has been required of you.
There will be no more arguing from you about how prisons don't exist. You're wasting time and ensuring that you will be banned by demonstrating that you're willing to spend hours typing responses but will not be honest enough to just visit the facility and talk to some people to explore your conspiracy theory.

You have only two more chances to visit the prison and provide evidence. I suggest you do not wait until the last weekend in case something else comes up.

[teo123]

No you don't, given your terrible track record.

So, how can it possibly be that somebody who has published social science papers understands how social sciences work less than an average person?

Peer-review in social sciences doesn't count as much as peer-review in the natural sciences. We've been over this.

When have we been over this? In my opinion, peer review counts for much more in social sciences than in natural sciences because pretty much the only way to tell whether a social science theory is correct is to see whether it's coherent with accepted laws of social sciences. What do we mean when we say correct etymology? Is etymology that English "day" and Latin "dies" are related correct? It's not because it contradicts an already proven law of linguistics, the Grimm's Law. In natural sciences, peer review is not as necessary.

Teo wrote a paper -> Teo is wrong almost 100% of the time -> The paper is probably wrong too.

Well, I used to be wrong almost 100% of the time, so I worked hard to improve myself. And now I am one of few people who have published both papers about linguistics and papers about computer science.

Yeah, that's WHY social science papers are easier to publish. There isn't always a rigorous consensus.

Maybe. Maybe not. Because, just like it's harder in social sciences to tell apart complete nonsense, it's also harder to recognize the truth. And the editors may decide not to publish anything but obvious truth.

I don't think so, given your track record of misunderstanding things to an insane degree.

Well, I was an idiot a few years ago, so I worked on not being an idiot.

Again, they're assumptions. They may be right, but even if they are, they shouldn't be believed without any good reason or evidence.

Well, the fact that the vast majority of social scientists believe those assumptions are true strongly suggests they are indeed true, right?

it's probably just censored in your country.

If it's possible to censor, it's not reliable information.

You can't just arbitrarily decide what can't be decided by empirical evidence.

It's not arbitrary, though it might seem arbitrary to somebody who doesn't know. The formula for Lorentz's Force needs to be determined empirically, Newton's axioms don't predict it. In contrast, the formula for the centrifugal force is not an empirical matter, it follows from the Newton's axioms and is true in any possible world where Newton's axioms apply.

When it's so easy to confirm something exists empirically you should realize that either the theory which predicts it doesn't exist is wrong or your understanding of that theory is wrong.

The theory that the Earth is round predicts the horizon will fall down as you climb. That seems transparently wrong... but it actually isn't.

[Red]

So, how can it possibly be that somebody who has published social science papers understands how social sciences work less than an average person?

I'm referring to science in general. It's low standards wherever you live.

When have we been over this?

Many times, this is another example of you refusing to learn.

Well, I used to be wrong almost 100% of the time, so I worked hard to improve myself.

No, it's not 'used to be' because you still are.

Maybe. Maybe not. Because, just like it's harder in social sciences to tell apart complete nonsense, it's also harder to recognize the truth. And the editors may decide not to publish anything but obvious truth.

Teo... please just shut up.

Well, I was an idiot a few years ago, so I worked on not being an idiot.

You've been making progress in the opposite direction.

Well, the fact that the vast majority of social scientists believe those assumptions are true strongly suggests they are indeed true, right?

No, it suggests it's a strong hypothesis. One you've misunderstood.

If it's possible to censor, it's not reliable information.

No, it's because your government is very good at covering up corruption.

It's not arbitrary

Yes it is, based on your whim whether you want something to be true or not.

[teo123]

I'm referring to science in general.

Why? We are talking particularly about social sciences here. Whether or not jails exist has nothing to do with physics, chemistry or biology.

No, it's not 'used to be' because you still are.

You can never tell that reliably. People thinking you are wrong isn't a sign you are wrong, just like it isn't a sign you are right.

Teo... please just shut up.

Why? So that the perspective of somebody who actually knows something about social sciences (has published social science papers) doesn't get heard on the forum?

You've been making progress in the opposite direction.

How is that even possible?

No, it suggests it's a strong hypothesis.

What's the difference between a strong hypothesis and a probably true hypothesis?

No, it's because your government is very good at covering up corruption.

You are criticizing me for asserting conspiracies, and now you are doing that.

Yes it is, based on your whim whether you want something to be true or not.

No. For example, I want my linguistic hypotheses to be as certain as possible. However, it's not possible to deduce by reason alone that "Issa" meant "spring" in Illyrian. It's, unfortunately, just an empirical matter. But, the existence of prisons doesn't appear to be an empirical issue.

[Red]

Why? We are talking particularly about social sciences here. Whether or not jails exist has nothing to do with physics, chemistry or biology.

Yet you haven't used social sciences to disprove their existence.

Are you going to go to your local jail and provide us with the evidence you were there?

No, it's not 'used to be' because you still are.

You can never tell that reliably. People thinking you are wrong isn't a sign you are wrong, just like it isn't a sign you are right.

No, I meant you're still an idiot.

Why? So that the perspective of somebody who actually knows something about social sciences (has published social science papers) doesn't get heard on the forum?

"I'm being oppressed!!!!"

No, it's just that you have zero idea what you're talking about.

How is that even possible?

No clue, yet you managed to do it. Good job.

What's the difference between a strong hypothesis and a probably true hypothesis?

Nothing, but since it's still a hypothesis (in the social sciences no less) it should be taken with some skepticism.

You are criticizing me for asserting conspiracies, and now you are doing that.

No, it's because it's true. The fact that you think it's a conspiracy is evidence of that.

No. For example, I want my linguistic hypotheses to be as certain as possible. However, it's not possible to deduce by reason alone that "Issa" meant "spring" in Illyrian. It's, unfortunately, just an empirical matter. But, the existence of prisons doesn't appear to be an empirical issue.

NonZeroSum has shown you how it can be empirically proven, yet you're too biased or dishonest to admit it.

[brimstoneSalad]

When it's so easy to confirm something exists empirically you should realize that either the theory which predicts it doesn't exist is wrong or your understanding of that theory is wrong.

The theory that the Earth is round predicts the horizon will fall down as you climb. That seems transparently wrong... but it actually isn't.

What is your point? Are you agreeing with me?

If you expect to be able to visibly tell that the horizon has fallen by climbing onto your roof then you have misunderstood the globe model and its predictions which would tell you that the change at that distance should be too small to register with the naked eye. That's a case of understanding of theory being wrong.

In either case, it's easy to confirm the Earth is not flat through tests like that and others (with perhaps a very tall building and some kind of laser instrumentation), so either the flat-Earth "theory" is wrong, or our understanding of it is wrong (and it doesn't make those false predictions).

Teo, are you planning to visit the prison or not? This may be your last chance to do so.

[teo123]

Yet you haven't used social sciences to disprove their existence.

But I have. I showed how their non-existence follows from the basic principles of social sciences.

Are you going to go to your local jail and provide us with the evidence you were there?

I will. Hopefully the guards will allow me to take a selfie in which they are visible on the entrance.

No, I meant you're still an idiot.

Or, it could be that I am now significantly smarter than you and that you now can't understand me.

No, it's just that you have zero idea what you're talking about.

Or, it could be that you have no idea what you are talking about and you fail to recognize genuine competence in others.

No clue, yet you managed to do it. Good job.

Sometimes I also feel like I know less than I knew before, but I take from granted that's impossible.

Nothing, but since it's still a hypothesis (in the social sciences no less) it should be taken with some skepticism.

What do you think hypothesis means? Just because something is called hypothetical doesn't mean it's doubted by most scientists in the field. Proto-Indo-European is called hypothetical language, but that doesn't mean there is any serious linguist doubting its existence.

No, it's because it's true. The fact that you think it's a conspiracy is evidence of that.

Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever.

NonZeroSum has shown you how it can be empirically proven, yet you're too biased or dishonest to admit it.

The value of pi can be approximated empirically, that doesn't mean it should be. It's possible to calculate the value of pi a-priori (it's the same in all possible worlds where the Euclid's 5th Postulate, equivalent to the Pythagorean Theorem, is true), and it should be calculated that way.

That's a case of understanding of theory being wrong.

Well, it can be interpreted that way, actually.

In either case, it's easy to confirm the Earth is not flat through tests like that and others (with perhaps a very tall building and some kind of laser instrumentation), so either the flat-Earth "theory" is wrong, or our understanding of it is wrong (and it doesn't make those false predictions).

Obviously, the Flat-Earth Theory makes no clear predictions about the horizon, it doesn't explain how there is a horizon in the first place.

Teo, are you planning to visit the prison or not?

Yes, I am. Do you think it's wise to tell the guards I doubt prisons exist? Do you think it's legal?

By the way, @brimstoneSalad, what do you think about my idea that Vladimir Putin isn't his real name?

"Vladimir" can be read as "ruler of the world" or "peaceful ruler", both readings seeming rather ironic for one of the most powerful people in the world.
James Mallory suggested in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, that Teuta(na), the name of a famous Illyrian queen, as it is written in historical sources, wasn't actually her real name, but a title meaning something like "mistress of the people" (from the root *tewt). Well, by that logic, "Vladimir" probably isn't Vladimir Putin's real name either, right?

@Red said he agrees with me on that:

Having read your arguments, I now don't think that Vladimir is his real name! Well done Teo, you've convinced me!