POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Molecular biology : Re: Molecular biology Server Time
4 Sep 2024 05:20:59 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Molecular biology  
From: Patrick Elliott
Date: 29 Jan 2011 22:56:49
Message: <4d44e181$1@news.povray.org>
On 1/29/2011 12:58 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2011 10:54 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I kind of agree with Darren here - this kind of citation is similar to
>>>> the citations some people use to "disprove" global climate change.
>>>
>>> Or, to put it another way, "the plural of anecdote is not data."
>>>
>> And the rebuttal of a plausible theory is to present an alternate
>> theory, not just claim that it can't be right.
>
> I'm not saying it *can't* be right. I'm saying that there are too many
> variables to likely know with precision that you *are* right, especially
> given other studies that show the opposite.
>
Well, that is kind of the whole problem with this sort of thing. Its not 
like a nice clean experiment, where you can control *every* variable. 
Even the studies are not based on adequate data, since they can't 
control for variables either. All you can do is take aggregate results, 
check your predictions against what you see going on, and, more to the 
point, actually recognize that those other variables are there. I would 
argue that a lot of the studies, possibly on both sides, happily ignore 
the existence of variables (like, for example, a ready stock pile of 
weapons from some place that makes them in large numbers), in favor of 
only looking at the ones that support the conclusion they want, which in 
the case of gun advocates is.. pretty much not going to allow for, "What 
if they where not available to the criminals either, because we keep 
selling them?" Its not even on the radar.

Heck, the idea that their may be like 50 times as many people out there 
who *never* got gun training, safety training, or any kind of anything, 
before buying one, only even ever comes up when either a) defending 
their own possession of one, or b) talking about how things *should* be. 
Should isn't the same as *is*. You need to work for the former, the 
later happens all on its own, and doesn't give a damn what you *want* to 
be true. Yet, the arguments are often hedged with, "Well, if we made 
sure more people where properly trained!" 1) it won't bloody matter, in 
the case of the nuts, if you don't bother, notice, or recognize, the 
ones that are nuts (certain thing with a coupla airplanes proved that 
one..) and 2) until/unless you actually implement it, you might as well 
wish the sky was green and pigs flew, because you liked green, and liked 
bacon so much you wished it could be hunted like ducks.

We know we could reduce, or remove, the number of guns out there. We 
*don't* know if training will do any good. You get a lot of idiots, for 
example, after all, teaching "martial arts" to people for "defense", 
which includes actually killing/injuring the attacker, even after you 
have disarmed them, and rendered them a non threat. This is assault 
and/or murder, even if you started out by defending yourself. Training 
may... lets just say, vary in its effect. :p

We do not know if everyone having one is a good thing, though that was 
*precisely* the way things where in the old west, and you could, often, 
only tell the bad guys from the good guys by whether or not the 
locals/courts decided you belonged on the end of, or rigging, the rope, 
hardly a prime example of the "good" that every idiot in sight being 
armed would produce.

And so on. And, the claims that "studies" say you are better off armed 
take as little, or less, of *any* of the stuff into account that studies 
saying guns are not a good thing do.

Pick what can predictably work (even if its not practical to go all the 
way and just stop making guns), or what is pure guess work, in the hope 
the other studies are more correct? Well.. Oddly enough, when ever 
something serious enough comes along, even the advocates for gun 
ownership go, "Ah, well.. Maybe we can limit things, just this one time, 
again..." Doesn't imply a real big certainty about all those "other" 
studies saying its a good thing to have them around imo.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.