Texas towers tweren’t in Texas.

They weren’t lying or exaggerating- it really was a mess. Don’t get your panties in a bunch.

@@ripwednesdayadams It really was surprising language. I assume the field of history has a different approach. My field (statistics) strongly discourages language of this type when discussing methodology. We certainly still do it, but when we do it tends to greatly weaken the effectiveness of the presentation. I think I get what she was going for but it definitely prejudices the rest of the discussion. I certainly allow that since this is her field of expertise she can defend those statements in detail, but to someone outside the field it really does seem to reinforce the narrative that the soft sciences are filled with performative rituals of ideological purity.

@@drewhardin3992 How about acquainting yourself with Gödel's incompleteness theorems before striking a pose of high rigour? _soft sciences_ term itself is not only colloquial, needlessly pejorative and surprising language from someone who strives for objectivity, but objectively wrong because of the above mentioned Gödel

@@bosnbruce5837 I am aware of the results of the theorems. They are interesting because they put limits on what you can use mathematical rigour to formally prove. That doesn't invalidate the usefulness of mathematical proofs in general. In practice it just means at some point you have to accept axioms as your foundation and go with it. This problem was already accepted long ago in statistics, which is built upon the Kolmogorov axioms. As for the 'soft sciences', I sometimes less pejoratively refer to the fields as quasi-scientific. The reason is because they can only perform at best quasi-experimental designs. We sometimes use quasi-experimental designs at work and they are notoriously problematic to work with, requiring far more assumptions than would be desired. Historical studies in particular are limited to retrospective studies which are even more limited. From a perspective of analysis these types of methods have real problems with false positive rates in particular since they simply can't remove most of the confounders.

@@bosnbruce5837 To address your specific points more clearly. Your argument about Godel's Theorem is a bit tangential but I suspect you were more offended by my use of 'soft sciences'. That really was unnecessarily dismissive language on my part. I actually really enjoy the study of history, but when I read the attempts to perform proper statistical analysis on historical data the limits of the field from a methodology perspective are fairly real. The 'hard' sciences are very flawed areas, but they generally benefit from being able to do work with stronger experimental and analytical methods. The difficulty of trying to draw conclusions in fields such as anthropology or history is the inability to remove all the confounding variables through solid experimental methods. You have to make a lot of assumptions (such as retrospective propensity analysis or causal inference models) to draw conclusions. And these tend to really draw a lot of wrong conclusions. It is just the difficulty of the fields.

It only took them a few years to realize they had to make changers for virtually all of the formats, including Columbia's 33 RPM format, and both companies were making records and machines at both speeds. A rare example of both competing formats winning their "format wars".

Thanks!

I don’t think you understand what that word means. It starts at 8:30.

I didn't know KZbin had chat room's 🤣🤣🤣

Make America Great Again 💪🏻🇺🇸