>it's a scientific paper >incredibly clumsy prose

> came here to bitch about it
>>>/trash/

>>8213007
>It's a scientific paper
>Justifies neonatal genital cutting
>Claims no loss of sensitivity occurs after circumcision, going against basic logic

Published scientific paper != authoritative.

>>8213012
authority = fallacy

>>8213011
>came here
>implying I am not always here

>>8213016
fallacy fallacy

>>8213067
fallacy fallacy fallacy

>>8213007
>it's a 4chan comment
>animuu pic
>incredibly clumsy prose
>only green arrows
>no charts
>no full data

>>8213012
>my "common sense" beliefs trump empirical facts!

>>8213075
>empirical facts
>not knowing what words mean
>cutting off all of the penis aside from a small stump at the base incurs no sensitivity loss.

>>8213087
There he goes again
>There he goes!
He's making claims again
>There he goes!
He's not supporting them
>There he goes!
His beliefs are always truuuuuuuuuuue

>>8213091
Having a foreskin makes you a decent judge of what it would be to not have one, but the inverse is not the case.

Either the brain has the inputs, or it doesn't. Neurogenesis and plasticity likely won't correct for this, nor can they emulate the signal patterns they'd otherwise receive. Certainly you don't believe after cutting off your fingers that your hands are just as sensitive.

>a graph has 8 data points
>only 6 points are reported in a table and mentioned in the text
>the other 2 completely disappear

>>8213096
>Certainly you don't believe after cutting off your fingers that your hands are just as sensitive.
My hand felt pretty sensitive after I cut my finger

>>8213110
What would the finger feel like if you cut it off though?

>>8213112
I would assume my hand would feel very painful after I cut my finger off

>>8213113
What about the finger?

>>8213096
>My beliefs trump science! Just look at this brilliant analogy I made up!
The evidence systematically shows there is no decrease in sensitivity, despite your "common sense"

http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)30172-7/pdf

>>8213125
I'm not going to bother reading the paper because it isn't even possible. Sorry.

If you cut off a finger, the sensory capacity of your hand as a whole is lessened. If you amputate a foreskin, the sensitivity of the penis as a whole is lessened. That's how machines work.

>>8213125
>>8213130
Also. It's a meta-analysis, which makes it even less meaningful. Of 2500+ studies, they selected only 36 for inclusion? How convenient and fortunate that they would pick out these "high quality" 36 studies from the rest of the noise...

>>8213130
>I'm not going to bother reading the paper because it isn't even possible. Sorry.
Textbook delusional ideology. You can't even attempt to face facts, let alone argue against them.


>If you cut off a finger, the sensory capacity of your hand as a whole is lessened.
If this is true, then circumcision cannot be like cutting off a finger, as circumcision does not reduce the sensitivity of the penis. You can't "reason" your way around empirical facts. The only thing that the conflict between the facts and your reasoning shows is that your reasoning is wrong.

>>8213137
So you're saying that the foreskin contains no sensory nerves.

>>8213136
>Also. It's a meta-analysis, which makes it even less meaningful.
i.e. "more and better data is LESS true"
t. raving lunatic

>>8213142
>So you're saying that the foreskin contains no sensory nerves.
Are you illiterate? I'm saying that the evidence shows that circumcision does not reduce sensitivity. That's it. That's a fact you'll just have to deal with.

>>8213146
>t. raving lunatic
Fucking kek

>>8213146
ie, meta-analysis can be skewed through inclusion criteria to say whatever you'd like. Intentionally, or subconsciously.

>>8213147
So you're saying that there's no relationship between sensory nerves and sensitivity?
Perhaps you're saying it's all in the brain?

How does the evidence show this very abstract conclusion, when a rational, mechanical approach starkly disagrees.

>>8213016
>>8213067
Neither are formal fallacies.

>>8213157
Your point?

>>8213155
How is it skewed?

And you have not presented even a single study that supports what you claim. Why are you on the science board if you are just going to ignore science.

>>8213155
>So you're saying that there's no relationship between sensory nerves and sensitivity?
No, you idiot. Are you incapable of arguing honestly?

>>8213136
If you actually read the paper you'll see that those 36 studies were the only ones that had original data. Using multiple studies with the same data would be adhering the results.

>justifying jewish ritual mutilation
oh come on you all.

>>8213172
I could link myriad studies evaluating penile anatomy and innervation, but it would be left wanting. Because apparently sensory nerves have no relation to sensitivity.

>>8213179
Then your claims are left logically disjointed.

>>8213188
I didn't read it. It doesn't really matter anyway, there's no good methodology to evaluate this as far as -perception- goes, so we're better left to fall back on what we know about human bodily function. Logically, the claim doesn't make sense, and it includes no reason why it should.

Besides. I have a foreskin, so these claims run counter to empirical data.

>>8213195
How is male genital mutilation ever going to end if we still have people like this kicking around?

Perhaps the evolution will happen in mothers, but I doubt it.

>>8213091
/sci/ fatale

>>8213007
shit girl

File: 1468814295854.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>implying even if the supposed benefits of male genital mutilation were true that it would justify the violation of bodily autonomy

>>8213333
I think this is where we inject a bit of reality into the discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjUCR44qZLE

File: disdain-for-pleibs.jpg (26KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 250x250px

>reading mathematics paper
>build up clunky formalisms
>finally reach main theorem statement
>"the proof is in a forthcoming paper"

>>8213351
>reading mathematics paper
>calculate Harnack inequality on page one
>spend the rest of the paper doing random shit for dat sweet publication karma

>>8213007
>The paper looks interesting but it's all in broken English, fucked up typesetting, and is otherwise impossible to follow.

File: 1468530450565.jpg (8KB, 244x207px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 244x207px

>>8213147
So, if I don't have sensitivity I'll last longer on the bed!
Hooray!

>>8213207
I suggest you get off the science board if you can't deal with reality. Putting your fingers in your ears and having a tantrum impress no one.

>>8213007
It's a patent disguised as publication

>More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
>Science
http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

Errors with fMRI analyses:
expected: 5%
found: 70%
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.abstract

>>8213351
>read mathematics paper
>spends whole page explaining how there is proof
>last sentence is there is proof
>there are no more pages
>the author died

>>8213125
>tfw fondling my foreskin as we speak
>It's a good feel
>tfw precum lubricates underneath the foreskin for a smooth glide across my penis head

Skinlets claim they have no sensitivity loss. Kek.

>>8213467
>Thinks he knows anything about reality
>Hides behind false empiricism

>p-value

>>8214042
>She was impressed by my p-value.

>>8214036
>I haven't read it but it's false

>>8213007
Someone should really start to make writing papers that are somewhat accessible part of research culture. Atm especially in physics the goal seems to be to write papers in the most obscure and secretive way possible in order to impressive people with how many things the author deems "trivial".

>This is the result. I won't print two steps of my calculation in order to save several hours of time for everyone who has to work through this paper, as that would reveal that the whole idea is actually rather simple. Instead I only print the final result. As an exercise I leave three symbols unexplained. It will be your task to find out what they could possibly mean by looking through every single reference I gave. You will probably send an e-mail to me and then two others until I finally respond two months later. I will be impolite, but not in an offensive way. I will answer only two and a half of your five questions as my English is not that good, so I chose to ignore the questions I didn't fully understand to avoid embarrassment.

Jesus fuck, that's probably the worst part about research.

>>8214081
>TL;DR I'm in high school and am disappointed when I can't understand big boy physics.

>>8214074
It can be nothing other than false.

>>8214081
Not really, though. If you want accessible, you read a textbook, a review paper, or visit a lecture. Most papers represent something (or should, at least) that is beyond the state-of-art, and since very few people have the time to write 50 pages just for people who aren't familiar with the field, a concise variant has to suffice.

>>8214104
It's not about 50 pages, it's literally about a few lines here and there just not to waste the time of half the department (or even make remarks that are actually meaningful). I've worked through a lot of papers with my colleagues and it's often really hard not to think that it was purposefully written in an inaccessible way. It's not like people release two papers a week, it's usually a long process and I don't see how people seem to think that giving just a few hints or not somehow makes any difference.

Also, if you think there's always a lecture, textbook or whatever around to help me with some paper that was submitted two weeks ago, then you are mistaken. Very often the paper is everything you have and then all you can do is contact the author for more information. Also don't get me wrong, most of the people I contacted so far are very nice people, especially if they happen to be part of your collaboration, but once in a while you meet some real cuntface who thinks his time is too important to help.

>>8214093
t. NEET

>>8214081
To some extent I agree with this, but how many papers have you written?

It's incredibly hard to not get bogged down in minutiae that obscure the central point if you insist on including *every* possible detail that could be of interest to someone.

Plus sometimes it's good practice to derive things for oneself.

>>8214100
>I haven't read it but it MUST be false
It's like I don't even have to respond

>>8214181
As long as you don't circumcise your children, and break the cycle, it doesn't really matter what you do.

>>8213007
>It's a primary research math paper
>It's literally unreadable to undergraduates

90%+ of math writing is impenetrable until you're partway through your third year unless you're reading ahead.

>>8214199
Thats true in most fields...engineering included

>>8214221
nah not really engineering. I know since I often read engineering papers even though it's not my field.

>>8213157
The fallacy fallacy is.

>>8214221
>Thats true in most fields
That's simply not true for most other scientific fields. I know of others taking biology/chemistry who are assigned to read primary research to present at their seminars.

>>8214224
Idk. The utility of things like Kalman filters, SLAM algos, and basic fluids seems like at least second or third year.
I mean you could read them, but you're not gonna get as much out of it.

>>8214239
Most engineering stuff I encounter is readily accessible to someone who knows a little calculus and linear algebra. I'm sure there are a few examples in specific subfields that are exceptions, but I'm talking by and large.

Mathematics papers, on the other hand... not so much

[math] \color{Green}{>it's~not~written~in~ \LaTeX} [/math]
into the trash it goes

File: backinmyday-byandlarge.jpg (35KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 350x500px

>>8214257
>I'm talking by and large
we don't talk that way any more, Grandpa

>>8214292
get offa my lawn!

>>8214186
I'm going to just because it seems to tick you lunatics off.

>>8213113
You're a big guy

>>8213130
>I'm not going to bother reading the paper because it isn't even possible. Sorry.


/sci/ - Science and Math

>>8214419
You'd say the same thing if I told you relativity was bullshit and linked some shoddy meta-analysis. Or said eyes having any relation to human sight had been "debunked", and linked some nonsense.

The foreskin produces sensation, get over it. The sooner garbage papers like that stop making their way into the literature, the better.

>>8214398
>Circumcision fad finally manages to fizzle out and blow over
>"Dad, why did you circumcise me? A lot of people knew better then."
"Oh, you know. There were these guys on 4chan and I just had to show them how it was. That's why I had part of your penis amputated."
"Oh."

>>8213068
Fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy!

>>8216498
FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY!!!

>>8215380
I wasn't siding for or against circumcision, I was merely taking a jab at your complete dismissal of an opposing argument, without actually tackling it

I had to get circumcised because otherwise my dick would have fallen off.

I'm not even kidding.

>>8216903
Probably you've never seen how circumcision conversations pan out. There is no "tackling it". The best approach is to highlight why it's logically faulty and throw it out immediately.

>>8213007
I hope you are not falling for the appeal to fancy and beauty fallacy. That is so common to do in anything that is published that it's ridiculous. And it does push away some skilled people from science.

>>8213007

so don't read it