Luc Turpin

The Iowa shocker! Harris leading Trump 47-44% in red state Iowa https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-tops-trump-latest-iowa-poll-marking-turnaround-des-moines-register-survey-2024-11-03/

No, no, no, not slow vote counting Maricopa County again! A Clinton-Trump or Biden-Trump finish on when a final verdict is available? The latter appears more probable than the former.

I admit that I am getting caught up in trying to read tea leaves and chicken entrails, and it passes the time until we'll know when we know.

Early Voting Trends in Some Key Battleground States Apart from actual poling, early voting trends may be helpful in giving us a slight insight into what might be actually playing out in this 2024 U.S. election. Here is a bit of information that may or may not be revealing anything. Note: Grant you that this is as good as holding up a crystal ball to the light, but fun to do. General New voters in many of the seven closest battlegrounds exceeds the 2020 margin. Pennsylvania Warning signs for Trump – more women have voted early than men in the 2024 election, and registered Democrats aged over 65 have so far also outvoted Republicans in the same age group – Politico https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-bad-news-pennsylvania-early-voting-harris-1978491 Female Democrats dominate new voter numbers https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/early-voting-data-shows-new-voters-group-swing-election-rcna178187 Gorgia Early voting usually favours Democrats – 4 Million early voters in comparison to 2.7 Million in 2020. https://sos.ga.gov/news/georgia-voters-break-4-million-votes-during-early-voting-period Michigan 41% of registered voters have already voted. 13% are first time voters. Modeling suggest Democratic women are slightly outpacing Republican women while Republican men are nearly doubling the number of new Democratic men. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/election-results-and-data/voter-participation-dashboard Arizona Male republicans lead the way in new voters voting early https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/early-voting-data-shows-new-voters-group-swing-election-rcna178187 Nevada Of the more than 542,000 early in person voters, 45.5% were Republicans, and 27.7% were Democrats. Of 483,171 mail ballots received as of Friday, 40.2% were sent by Democrats, 30.3% by Republicans, and 29.4% by others. https://nevadacurrent.com/2024/11/02/as-early-in-person-voting-ends-democrats-are-left-with-a-lot-of-work-to-do/

I hope that you are right in stating that numbers would paint a different picture than percentages. I really do not want another four years of Trump, even if I am not an American citizen. "Compared to the same point in 2020, early turnout is lower in 36 states this year, and higher in 3 states, where data are available." same source Again, I hope that cherry picking is the case here and that Harris has a real run at it. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/23/politics/early-voting-trends-2024-2020-visuals-dg/index.html

Might the following two charts not bode well for the Harris camp? More Republicans, less Democrats and more older people are voting early in 2024 than in 2020. Source - CNN

A few key statistics. Abortion is legal in Canada through all nine months of pregnancy, nevertheless no providers except hospitals offer care beyond 23 weeks. 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, while less than 1% beyond 21+ weeks. Reasons for late-stage abortions are: fetus gravely or fatally impaired; woman’s life or physical health at risk; abusive relationship; children or young teens unaware of pregnancy or in denial. I contend that this statistical picture reflects the position of a majority of Canadians on abortion. Having one is acceptable in an early term pregnancy while proceeding with one for a non-medical reason afterward, much less acceptable. I also contend that there would be a more robust discussion over a late-stage termination in the case of an abusive relationship and in children or young teens as the fetus would be viable then. I am almost certain that adoption would be brought into light as a substitute for abortion.

Right on both counts

Canada's version of Trump is called Pierre Poilievre, but with no nuke button. If an election was held today, the race would not even be close as Poilievre's Conservative Party commands a 22 points lead in poling over the next closest rival, Trudeau's Liberal; currently the party in power. Pickups adorn Canadian flags, implying that they are the only true patriots. Most with such adornments go faster than everyone else, do not signal and cut into lineups. They behave as if they are right and the rest of us are knuckleheads. Altruism at its finest hour.

My pet worry is not a future smarter dictator, but more immediately, Trump starting a war with China, and Russia being pulled into it. You see, the politics of fear also has its grip on me.

Why does Trump even have a following? Because emotions and fear drive human behaviour. No one understands this better than Trump. I want Elon to pull 2 trillion out of the U.S. economy and see how that goes. And a cell phone is a too powerful tool for most of us.

We would not be contemplating quantum mechanical processes if classical ones were satisfactory at uncovering how the brain works. Circumstancal ; nothing conclusive; still fishing for answers https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.110.024402 https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/99/101 https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/ I remain sceptical that QM can address all of the issues of the mind-brain conundrum.

I committed to cease and desist on bias.

I disagree. There are such assumptions made in science and the implications are significant. However, I cannot demonstrate it, so I shall heed Dim's advice and just end the discussion. Listening and heeding your call by ending this one.

So, let’s be more precise. When acknowledged, most biases are managed in science with the exception of the non-empirical ones such as reductionism, determinism, causality, materialism, etc. They are basic assumptions that are made about how the world operates which then permeates the whole of science. They affect what topic to study in science, how hypotheses and experiments are set up; they play as well a role in the evaluation of evidence and interpretation of results. They are assumptions that need to be contended with when doing science, but in most cases are not. And there is no empirical way of managing them as they, again, are of a non-empirical empirical nature. It basically states that even our eyes and brains can easily be deceived in thinking something that is not and that context matters. An example of context at play was given above when I stated that non-empirical assumptions are being made and then brought along while doing science and affecting outcome. The Zipf's law thing appears to be also an indication that context might be at play in the elaboration of three different sets of physics equations. Did I, at any time, explicitly or implicitly, mention religion or spiritualism in any of my posts on bias? Saying that there is bias in science is not directing the discussion towards any notion of religiosity or spiritualism. Contending that basic assumptions are being made and then brought along while doing science is also not that. And of "we're not having any part of it. Is it bias?" I would answer that yes it is and .....legitimate.

I will try and be more specific. When bias threatens objectivity it is bad. When bias is acknowledged and mitigated with no effect on outcome, it can become indiferent. When bias is purposefully used to determine or not, or manipulate an outcome, then it is good. I hope less platitude this time. Obviously agree,

I concede that I have not demonstrated this kind of bias in science. However, the possibility of the results of the study showing such bias was originally introduced by the authors, not by myself. Notwithstanding, I grant that it was a reflection from the authors and of myself that it could be, not that it was. A second read of the paper combined with Genady's comment were required for me to come to this realization. To be clear, I am not stating that there isn't any of this kind of bias at work in science, but that at this point in time, I cannot demonstrate it. Also, I do not agree with your final statement that it is as "yet another unsupported claim of bias". There are studies out there claiming bias in science, but bringing them up on this platform is construed as cherry picking. Caught between a damned if you do rock and a damned if you don't hard place. As an end note, there is bias in science, there are many kinds of biases interacting with science, the cumulative effect of all of these biases on science is unknown, and claiming no effect is foolish. There only remains doubt as to the significance of the impact of bias on science. Upon reading studies about it, I suspect a high degree of impact, but concede again, that I cannot as yet demonstrate it. All that I can do is bring up studies or authors that have a like minded impression of the situation. Finaly, as long as there will be people at play in the scientific process, there will be bias in it.

Valid point!

So, how equations are written down has no effect on how we think of and process physics? The introductory text of the article accompanying the paper states: "A strange pattern running through the equations of physics may reveal something fundamental about the universe or could be a sign that human brains are biased to ignore more complex explanations of reality – or both." Upon reading the article and paper a second time, if equations of physics are not revealing something fundamental about the universe, than what else is at play here other than bias? What could explain that all three sets of equations would follow a same pattern? Other than bias? A bias caused by the way human brains work and that entices us to ignore more complex explanations of reality is still a bias; and an important one. The use of one form of language over another or the preferential use of some symbols over others is a form of implicit bias, is it not?

Hope that it is helpful The brain relies on shortcuts all the time. We use what we’ve learned from our environment to make quick assumptions about whom to trust, how to behave, what to say. But shortcuts can sometimes lead us astray. You can’t always trust your brain. Our eyes play tricks on us. Our minds fill in the gaps of what we think we see. But is that actually what’s there? Check out the two blue circles. They look like different sizes. But look again! A new perspective shows what they really are: two identical circles. Now check out these two squares—A and B. They look like different colors. A is darker than B, right? But look again! A new perspective shows what they really are: two identical squares. Two groups of circles appear on screen. The blue circle in the left group is surrounded with larger purple circles, where as the blue circle on the right is surrounded with smaller circles. The blue circle on the left appears to be smaller than the blue circle on the right. Two lines are drawn between the two circles, revealing that they are in fact the same size. The circles fade off screen. A checkerboard appears on screen and a cylinder casts a shadow on the checkerboard. Two of the squares are highlighted. Square A is surrounded with squares that are lighter color, where as square B is surrounded with squares that are darker color. Square A appears to be darker than square B. A line is drawn between the two squares, revealing that they are the same color. Still don't believe your eyes? These visual illusions work because the surrounding context of an image shapes what we see. Context is so powerful because it sets up our expectations of what we might see. And once we have that expectation, we can’t see it any other way! Titchener Circles Illusion When the center blue circle is surrounded by big pink circles, the center blue circle looks smaller than when it is surrounded by small pink circles. Checkered Shadow Illusion When the “A” and “B” squares are surrounded by a checkerboard pattern, our mind fills in the blanks and sees the “A” and “B” squares as different colors. Mindbugs are engrained patterns of thought that lead to errors in how we perceive, remember, reason, and make decisions. Dr. Mahzarin R. Banaji, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University Listen In From Mindbugs to Bias Transcript Bias is a process and builds over a lifetime. Familiarity Babies quickly learn to prefer people from familiar groups. A baby might prefer a face that matches the gender or race of their primary caregiver. At just a few hours old, newborn infants already prefer listening to a language that they heard in the womb over an unfamiliar language. Similarity Toddlers notice similarities and differences across groups defined by language, gender, or race, and they start to more clearly separate people along these dimensions. The adults around them fill in “value gaps” by subtly communicating about the kinds of people that are safe or smart. This teaches children whom they should approach and avoid. Belonging With further learning, children figure out who they are in the world. They learn the meaning of their own race, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, and more. As a result, they also come to feel belonging, preferring their in-groups (“us”), and perhaps expressing negative attitudes toward out-groups (“them”). Confirming The process of building and maintaining bias continues into adulthood. Throughout our lives, we use confirmation bias to see only what we expect to see in our environment. We take in only the examples that align with our preexisting notions and stereotypes. We discard the counter-examples that would challenge these world views. Implicit bias is like the smog that hangs over a community. It becomes the air people breathe. Shankar Vedantam, Journalist Listen In Practice Makes Perfect Transcript Get Inside Your Head. What about my brain? Is there bias there too? The amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex make up the control panel for bias. The amygdala fires up for our fears, the hippocampus records our memories, and the prefrontal cortex controls our ability to reason and reconsider. What part of the brain do you think is responsible for each reaction? What part of your brain is working here? You see a man walk into a fancy glass building. He’s carrying a briefcase and wearing an expensive suit. Six months later, you see another fancy glass building and assume, “that must be filled with men with briefcases and expensive suits.” Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It's the hippocampus! This organ is the brain’s memory bank. The hippocampus notes the associations we make and reminds us of them later on. In this case, it creates a connection (in fact, a stereotype) between fancy glass buildings and men with briefcases. What part of your brain is working here? You’re deeply afraid of snakes. Suddenly, a snake slithers into the room. Your mind makes a snap judgment, immediately sending the message: “Fright! Fear! Flee!” You run and jump on a nearby table to avoid the snake. Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It’s the amygdala! This is the “fear center” of the human brain. Fully developed just before a full-term baby’s birth, the amygdala sparks many of our emotions, fears, and impulse reactions. What part of your brain is working here? That snake is still in the room. Your amygdala has registered fear and the hippocampus reminded you to be afraid of snakes. You begin to calm down and realize that you don’t have to panic! The snake is across the room and, now that you see it more clearly, it doesn’t look so scary after all. Is it the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, or amygdala? It’s the prefrontal cortex (PFC)! This is where the brain settles things. We can use our PFC to reason through different perspectives, weigh pros and cons, or even revise our previous assumptions about things and people. Bias is in our brains and baked into our environments from early in childhood. But having bias does not mean that we are destined to be bad people. Those same brain processes can sometimes be used for good. As humans, we can recognize both what we have in common and what we hold as unique differences. Listen in on a conversation between a young scientist and a celebrated philosopher to learn about the nature of our biases and identities. Dr. Tessa Charlesworth, a psychologist at Harvard, and Dr. Kwame Appiah, an emeritus professor and author, share their thoughts here. Next SectionBias IRL*(*in real life) Bias is a process initiated even before we are born. It is a process of learning about the structures and associations embedded in the world around us. But what actually are those structures in the world? Where is bias in real life? This link was given with the original article that I posted; it was at the very end of the article.

I keep saying bias, because the co-authors (Andrei Constantin, Deaglan Bartlett, Harry Desmond, Pedro G. Ferreira) allege that it is. And it is the unintentional kind brought about by how our brains work (again not mine introducing the subject, but the authors). The kind that is "baked-into" our way of perceiving and thinking; similar in general terms, but not precicely this: https://biasinsideus.si.edu/online-exhibition/the-science-of-bias Without notice, familiarity, similarity, belonging and confirming all play a role in the way science is done.

Maybe you are right that I am the only person who reads it as I do. I am not trying to attack science or scientists, most of the time, but wonder based on an outsider's perspective if there is not an over abundance of confidence in science, and this is my perception of you, swansont and most members participating in discussions with me; that you might have an over confidence in science. To me, questioning even the foundations of science is sound and healthy, not destructive. I think I do answer questions, but might not be giving the answer that is expected. There is joy in finding patterns. And when patterns replicate, then there is even more joy in the endeavour, because this could mean that we might be on to something. I don't think that it is as simple as that. Scientists cling to theories even when experimentation does not match. I presented a study that may be an indication of bias in science. I presented it for discussion purpose. To elicit a discussion; not to say that I am right and most of you are wrong. And I am not repeatedly throwing "bias" against the wall and hoping something sticks. I am however uncovering studies that seem to indicate more bias in science than acknowledged and want to share it, again for discussion purposes. Disconcerting in the sense that it may imply a more pervasive presence of bias. The provided study implies that it is the marking of patterns of bias.

Not a loaded question. Are you not a bit worried about the cumulative effect of what you stated in your post, plus other biases not stated, on science? In my last response to you, I had not the least intention of attacking you or anyone. I do not even know where you get that. I am not even attacking science. The only thing that I am doing is questioning, only questioning whether or not we are too confidence in the shielding of science from the effects of biases. That is it. No other intention. I am not even looking for an argument, but for a discussion. That is even more disconcerting. I like patterns; they possibly imply meaning or not! The article talks about human brains, so the introduction is not mine. No, the introduction of bias is not necessarily wrong, but only a demonstration that some interpretation of results is occuring, which might be a right or wrong interpretation of results. I tried to show support through a logical statement, but apparently this is insufficient. I do not want it to be or not be the way that I want it to be. The results of the study that I referenced seems to show bias. Whether it is or not showing bias is up for debate. And if I wanted it to be a certain way, then yes it would be a form of bias.

Do you not believe that science would be better off without bias? Why does it matter is dependent on the impact bias has on science. If it is a minor impact, then I agree with both you and swansont that it does not matter much. But if the impact is major, then it matters as we would no longer be as confident as we are about the validity of results. A single cut or death by a thousand cuts. It's the cumulative affect that bothers me. One scientific finding used as a precursor to another finding then used as a foundation for another finding. There is also the cumulative effect of various types of biases culminating into possibly more influence than one would expect of biases over science. I agree on this one that the links were to say the least very disappointing. I am trying to correct this, with no luck so far. Agree, should have said "might" expect instead of expect. That all three sets of mathematical equations follow the same pattern and that this pattern is found in linguistics is to say the least, confounding. No, no, not arguing deep meaning on this one, but that there "might" be biases brought about by how human brains work. That a law borne out of linguistics be possibly applicable to physics "might" imply that the former has some sort of sway over the latter. Physics should be all about the laws of nature, not about the laws of language. Zipf's law possibly applying to physics might be yet another example of bias seeping into science.

The timeline for post was merely mentioned to show that all of us are more dismissive of ideas that run counter to our belief system than ideas that do not. It's human nature. That there is bias in science is irrefutable. What is at stake here is whether or not the "warping" effect of bias has made understanding how nature behaves indistinguishable from its real occurrence. I provided yet another example of how bias might immerse itself in the scientific process, that is all that I have done. And I also share many of your concerns and have too not been able to fully access the article. The quote was taken from here "“You might expect that this [distribution] would differ quite significantly between the three different sets of equations because they come from different places,” says team member Deaglan Bartlett at Sorbonne University in France, but to their surprise, that wasn’t the case. Instead, all three sets seemed to fit the same pattern. That wasn’t true when applying the same analysis to randomly generated mathematical expressions." I reiterate, it is expected that three different sets of equations coming from different places should show no pattern. Then comes next the question of why something shows up if it does show up?