>  Suppose you have 30 containers with 0.9 liters of water in each (totaling
> 27 liters). Put 0.1 liters into the first container, then take 0.1 liters
> from this solution, put it in the second container, then take 0.1 liters 
> of
> this solution, put it in the third container, and so on.

Where do you get 27 liters of water from that doesn't have a single molecule 
in it of the thing you are trying to dilute?

Better hope nobody has already tried it and thrown away the 10% solution 
into the sea :-)

Post a reply to this message

>  Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological 
> phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?

In most cases I suspect it is because the person just can't been bothered to 
research it, they have more important things in their life to worry about 
than whether some cool-sounding fad medicine is scientifically proven to 
work or not.  Hey they might not even realise there is such a thing as a 
scientific test.

I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and explained 
the science and the study results, they would believe you.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and explained
> the science and the study results, they would believe you.

I doubt it. If you could reason with people believing in such things, they
wouldn't believe in them in the first place.

Post a reply to this message

>> I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and 
>> explained
>> the science and the study results, they would believe you.
>
> I doubt it. If you could reason with people believing in such things, they
> wouldn't believe in them in the first place.

The thing is they just don't care about the science, they buy it because it 
seems cool, and don't even give a second thought to how it has been tested 
or what "30C" actually means.  Most people are reasonable once you explain 
things to them (of course there are exceptions, the "die hard" believers).

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological 
> > phenomenon
> > behind this kind of thinking?

> In most cases I suspect it is because the person just can't been bothered to 
> research it, they have more important things in their life to worry about 
> than whether some cool-sounding fad medicine is scientifically proven to 
> work or not.  Hey they might not even realise there is such a thing as a 
> scientific test.

  I specifically talked about people who keep believing in it even *after*
they have been told about the better tests. In other words, they refuse to
believe in the accuracy of the scientifical tests.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  Suppose you have 30 containers with 0.9 liters of water in each (totaling
> > 27 liters). Put 0.1 liters into the first container, then take 0.1 liters
> > from this solution, put it in the second container, then take 0.1 liters 
> > of
> > this solution, put it in the third container, and so on.

> Where do you get 27 liters of water from that doesn't have a single molecule 
> in it of the thing you are trying to dilute?

> Better hope nobody has already tried it and thrown away the 10% solution 
> into the sea :-)

  I'm sure homeopaths will argue something like the solution specifically
needing to be performed by "succussion" or else there will be no effect.
(Don't bother asking for the physical or chemical explanation for this.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26/03/2010 8:28 AM, Warp wrote:

>
>    I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
> people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
> people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some

[snip]

>    Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?
>

I think that we’re talking “religion” here. :-(

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sometimes this is called "over use". People are exposed, directly or 


That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will feel 
better.  If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe only 25 
will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine getting weaker. 
It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling togeher,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/26/2010 9:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sometimes this is called "over use". People are exposed, directly or
>
>
> That's not what I'm talking about.
>
> I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will
> feel better. If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe
> only 25 will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine
> getting weaker. It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.
>
Hmm. Ok, then the other argument is that in the last 10 years, or so, 
the amount of pure bullshit being sold has doubled, at least, even to 
the extent of them being sold in markets. The overall perception may 
have begun to be distorted, such that people are already taking products 
they do no realize *are* placebos, such as AirBorne, and having 
convinced themselves that those work, they have started "training" 
themselves to expect *any* fake product to work too.

In effect, its become like a meditative practice. Do it enough times and 
your brain starts to *expect* something to work, even when it doesn't. I 
wouldn't be surprised if this was highly common back when herbal 
remedies where the only ones available, and 99% of the contents of books 
on the subject where, as they still are, made up of guesses, false 
positives, and/or even contradictions between the real effect of some 
herbs (if you took enough), and what they have been recommended for.

If what you need a "cure" for is something controllable, like pain (and 
you can control that on a huge level, depending on skill, and possibly 
other factors), using a false source of cure, to help trick yourself 
into not feeling it, may actually be, for many people **as** effective 
as real medication. Then again, if you where my grandmother, just 
deciding not to feel the pain would be sufficient (she literally let 
them sew up her leg, without meds, at 80, after slashing it open almost 
all the way down the side, due to a condition that produces really thin 
skin). And that.. Is kind of a huge problem. Because people don't 
measure, and can't measure, their condition based on *if* they still 
have the condition, the measure it based on pain, or symptoms, and most 
of those things *can be* controlled mentally, without actually fixing 
the problem causing them. And, that makes it even *more* dangerous.

-- 
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

On 03/26/10 09:53, Darren New wrote:
> I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will
> feel better.  If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe
> only 25 will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine
> getting weaker. It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.

	Dan Ariely got an Ig Noble Prize for showing that expensive placebos
are more effective than cheap ones.

	Point being that a lot of other factors dictate the effectiveness of a
placebo. Some of those may be the reason for what you're describing.

-- 
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/26/10 01:28, Warp wrote:
>   I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
> people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
> people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
> flimsy circumstancial evidence of eyewitness testimony, and *keep believing*
> in it even after an enormously more comprehensive and accurate testing shows
> that the thing is bogus.

	Finland must be an awesome place to live.

	Seriously? You find it hard to believe? I suspect that if I want to
make big money in marketing, I'll have poor competitors where you are
(although perhaps you just limit your own exposure to ads).

	Don't separate evidence with claims completely. For most people, the
evidence they know for anything (including legitimate science) is via
claims.

>   Someone might believe that something works because someone claims that it
> worked on 10 people. Even if a scientifically accurate study is then performed
> repeatedly on 1000 people, and this test shows that it doesn't actually work,
> these people will *still* believe it works.

	How many of these people have been told about its failure on the 1000
people by *someone they trust*?

>   Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?

	Scientific rigor is abnormal. It's not innate. It needs to be taught,
and reinforced. Most people may learn it in school, but few apply what
they learn in school to their lives out of school.

-- 
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/25/10 01:08, scott wrote:
>>> accept that fact and try another medicine.  For someone to be using
>>> something on a child in the first place that has never been proven
>>> better than placebo, and then to refuse to try something else when it's
>>> not working, *that* is criminal.
>>
>> See my question to Stephen: How do you propose enforcing it?
> 
> Same way as any other child neglect crimes.  It either gets reported
> through family/friends/school to the authorities who investigate, or in
> the worst case the death of the child triggers the investigation.  Then
> you search for evidence they didn't search for appropriate medical care
> (very easy if they admit to it!), then it's up to a judge/jury to decide
> a punishment.

	I think you're missing my point. So what should the concerned
neighbors/friends report? That some parent is using a treatment that is
not certified by the FDA (in the US)? If so, you've suddenly
criminalized all herbal treatments, and any other treatment that may be
common elsewhere.

	The point being that it's hard to criminalize _just_ homeopathic
medicine. If you want to criminalize everything that is not approved by
some government body, I'd be dead set against it. There are too many
things that would get banned.
	
-- 
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/25/10 06:45, scott wrote:
>> MDs don't know everything. Sometimes they disagree. Sometimes it is
>> like a game of chance -
> 
> Sure, but I don't think any of those cases you mentioned are similar to
> the original story.

	Yes. So my question is: How do you draft the regulations to catch what
was in the original story and not what TC is describing?

	It's not irrelevant. He's describing a case where a parent opted no
treatment whatsoever for a condition the medical field seemed to think
warranted treatment. Should his father have been tried for it?

-- 
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/25/10 06:05, Warp wrote:
>   The danger with homeopathy is that it's an ideology which rides on
> people's tendency to mistrust authority and herd behavior. It's an ideology

	You could simply go a step further and blame a lot of authorities for
giving good reasons to mistrust them.
	
-- 
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	Point being that a lot of other factors dictate the effectiveness of a
> placebo. Some of those may be the reason for what you're describing.

Yep. I'd even guess that the fact that real medicine has become more 
effective can increase the placebo effect. It's much easier to believe that 
something can be cured nowadays than even 20 years ago, let alone 100.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling togeher,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>>  Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological 
>>> phenomenon
>>> behind this kind of thinking?
> 
>> In most cases I suspect it is because the person just can't been bothered to 
>> research it, they have more important things in their life to worry about 
>> than whether some cool-sounding fad medicine is scientifically proven to 
>> work or not.  Hey they might not even realise there is such a thing as a 
>> scientific test.
> 
>   I specifically talked about people who keep believing in it even *after*
> they have been told about the better tests. In other words, they refuse to
> believe in the accuracy of the scientifical tests.
> 

Information weighting, though I don't know what the psychological term
for it is.

For the same reason someone who thinks scientifically holds 10 studies
of 1000 people each in higher regard to 10 studies of 10 people total,
some people hold a study that is physically closer to them to be
important. 1000 people they do not know is not as important to them as
the one person it does work for. Or they do not not understand the math
involved once the sample size gets past a certain point.

There is also the fact that people have not evolved to think of every
other human on the same level. They consider their friends and family
more than someone they do not know; see Dunbar and any other
evolutionary psychology. So, 2 people they know had this medicine work.
10,000 people they do not know or never met did not. Since they weight
there friends and family over several thousands or millions of
strangers, the balance tilts towards believing in this stuff.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         Dan Ariely got an Ig Noble Prize for showing that expensive placebos
> are more effective than cheap ones.

  Also the authority of the person who gives the placebo to the patient has
an effect. It's much more effective if the placebo is given by the chief
physician of the hospital rather than a nurse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 03/26/10 01:28, Warp wrote:
> >   I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
> > people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
> > people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
> > flimsy circumstancial evidence of eyewitness testimony, and *keep believing*
> > in it even after an enormously more comprehensive and accurate testing shows
> > that the thing is bogus.

>         Finland must be an awesome place to live.

>         Seriously? You find it hard to believe?

  No, I find it hard to *understand*. Different thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 03/25/10 06:05, Warp wrote:
> >   The danger with homeopathy is that it's an ideology which rides on
> > people's tendency to mistrust authority and herd behavior. It's an ideology

>         You could simply go a step further and blame a lot of authorities for
> giving good reasons to mistrust them.

  In this case "authority" would be regular, official medical practice. What
have they done to earn people's mistrust? Why is quackery more trustworthy
in the eyes of many people?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 03/26/10 21:11, Darren New wrote:
> Yep. I'd even guess that the fact that real medicine has become more
> effective can increase the placebo effect. It's much easier to believe
> that something can be cured nowadays than even 20 years ago, let alone 100.

	Good point.

-- 
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?

Post a reply to this message

On 03/26/10 23:13, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> On 03/26/10 01:28, Warp wrote:
>>>   I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
>>> people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
>>> people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some
>>> flimsy circumstancial evidence of eyewitness testimony, and *keep believing*
>>> in it even after an enormously more comprehensive and accurate testing shows
>>> that the thing is bogus.
> 
>>         Finland must be an awesome place to live.
> 
>>         Seriously? You find it hard to believe?
> 
>   No, I find it hard to *understand*. Different thing.

	Perhaps you really meant hard to *explain*.

-- 
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?

Post a reply to this message

On 03/26/10 23:15, Warp wrote:
>>         You could simply go a step further and blame a lot of authorities for
>> giving good reasons to mistrust them.
> 
>   In this case "authority" would be regular, official medical practice. What
> have they done to earn people's mistrust? Why is quackery more trustworthy
> in the eyes of many people?

	Well, in the US, it wouldn't be doctors, but either the FDA, or the
medical research community, or both.

	I can't come up with reasons to distrust them, though. The FDA sucks
for food, but is probably quite good on medicine.

	I think the main problem with those folks, though, is that they easily
generalize from legitimately distrusting n groups in authority to
"Authorities always work for vested interests".

	The only difference between their stance and yours is that you're being
a bit more granular. (Which is not an irrelevant difference).

-- 
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4bac7025@news.povray.org...

>   I really can't understand why. It's like accurate scientifical testing
which
> is more extensive and more thorough is less convincing than a much smaller
> sample of inaccurate circumstancial evidence.
>
>   Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological
phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?

Proximity, authority, trust. A person may trust in his neighbour's,
coworker's or friend's anectodal evidence much more so than some faceless
professional's findings published on some impersonal journal. We are social
animals, and familiar faces breed trust, which makes sense in most
circumstances. For that matter, you would probably trust me more had I used
the alias "Jason" instead of "somebody".

And then there's the interest... It may be perceived (not wholly
unjustified) that medical professionals have numerous motives and interests,
and your well being may or may not be near the top of the list, while it's
harder to think that your aunt has any ulterior motives when she swears that
it was the herbal tea that cured her cancer.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/26/2010 7:23 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 03/25/10 01:08, scott wrote:
>>>> accept that fact and try another medicine.  For someone to be using
>>>> something on a child in the first place that has never been proven
>>>> better than placebo, and then to refuse to try something else when it's
>>>> not working, *that* is criminal.
>>>
>>> See my question to Stephen: How do you propose enforcing it?
>>
>> Same way as any other child neglect crimes.  It either gets reported
>> through family/friends/school to the authorities who investigate, or in
>> the worst case the death of the child triggers the investigation.  Then
>> you search for evidence they didn't search for appropriate medical care
>> (very easy if they admit to it!), then it's up to a judge/jury to decide
>> a punishment.
>
> 	I think you're missing my point. So what should the concerned
> neighbors/friends report? That some parent is using a treatment that is
> not certified by the FDA (in the US)? If so, you've suddenly
> criminalized all herbal treatments, and any other treatment that may be
> common elsewhere.
>
> 	The point being that it's hard to criminalize _just_ homeopathic
> medicine. If you want to criminalize everything that is not approved by
> some government body, I'd be dead set against it. There are too many
> things that would get banned.
> 	
Problem here is, the only reason these things are "not" covered by the 
FDA is because a) herbal remedies where wrongfully excluded, at the 
behest of people in the legislature, who argued, "if its natural, how 
harmful can it be", and, at the time, no one had a damn clue how 
blindingly stupid that was, and b) most of these things haven't killed 
enough people, in a legally provable way, to get them "reincluded". Some 
rare cases have been, and they are now covered by the FDA, and classes 
as actual drugs. The catch here is, even if they could be determined to 
be dangerous enough to be covered, they don't do anything themselves, so 
can't fall under "drugs". Its not the FDA that would be going after most 
of these, it would be other agencies, on the ***same*** basis that you 
don't sell someone products that do not *do* what you claim they do, 
contain what you promised, or otherwise provide what you said you where 
selling. Its "fraud", not "bad medicine". And, its fraud, whether you 
think some bozo digging up an old book in the library and trying it 
themselves does it or not. No one is going to arrest *them* for being 
stupid enough to try it. They damn well should arrest someone for making 
money off of **selling** it to someone, and lying about what it does in 
the process.

-- 
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

Here's the video I was thinking of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:58:06 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   Remember that the active ingredient is something that *causes* the
>> > symptoms, not something that *cures* them (for example in a
>> > homeopatic sleeping pill the active ingredient is usually caffeine).
>> > Hence taking this ingredient *away* from the water likewise takes the
>> > *symptoms* away from the person. The more of it you take away, the
>> > more effective the stuff is. It makes perfect sense.
> 
>> It's a load of codswallop.
> 
>   My text above was written in jest.

You apparently didn't see what I wrote at 2:41 PM after I posted the 
quoted text above.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:01:04 +0100, scott wrote:

>> It's a load of codswallop.  If I titrate caffeine to the point there's
>> none left in solution in the water, the water is *no different* than
>> taking water that's never been near caffeine.  It is chemically the
>> *same*.
> 
> I think these people believe there is something "beyond" basic
> chemistry, ie even when no active substance can be detected, it has
> somehow made its mark on the carrier substance (water, sugar etc).  And
> as is completely normal with human nature, they subconsciously interpret
> the results of a few very unscientific tests (eg my friends mum was
> cured by it) and conclude it works.

To borrow a line from A Few Good Men, "It doesn't matter what I believe, 
it only matters what I can prove!"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:17:52 -0700, somebody wrote:

>  anectodal evidence

Something of an oxymoron there; anecdotes do not make for (scientific) 
*evidence*.  This is something that I've had to explain to my own 
management a few times:  Two people saying a training course is bad (or 
good) isn't the basis for doing (or not doing) a rewrite of the course.  
A statistically large enough sample of those who have used the materials 
*is*.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>
>> Thank you. :-)
>>
>> Jim
> 
> :-D

Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in Utah, 
remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal government. 
<sigh>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 30/03/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>>
>>> Thank you. :-)
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> :-D
>
> Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in Utah,
> remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal government.
> <sigh>
>

Now if I could just work out what lawsuit you are talking about, because 
you live in Utah :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Here's the video I was thinking of:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

  I found a related video amusing: "Why Homeopathy Works and Makes Sense":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xedLd9djgyg

  Not surprisingly, it did not explain why homeopathy works or did it make
any sense...

  I also like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFxniaxj_Dk

  He says that:

  1) James Randi is offering 1 million dollars to anyone who can prove that
homeopathy works, but Randi "is the judge, jury and executioner" (clearly
implying that it's up to Randi himself to decide whether the million dollars
are awarded or not).

  It's curious how the charlatans always distort that point, even though
the James Randi Foundation makes it absolutely clear: There is *no* judging
process. Nobody, not Randi nor anybody else, goes through the results of the
experiment and decides whether it deserves the million dollars or not.

  The challenge works like this: The person who claims to be able to prove
homeopathy to work (or any supernatural thing) and the foundation both agree
on a test and the testing conditions. Then the person does the test, and if
the result is what was previously agreed, he gets the million dollars
*automatically*. No questions asked, no judgement, no people deciding whether
it deserves the million dollars or not. It's automatic.

  2) He has offered to Randi to demonstrate homeopathy on a double-blinded
test in order to win the million dollars, and he says that Randi agreed for
such a test to be performed. Then, rather than going and actually doing the
test, he just rambles about studies in literature. So basically he is saying
"I could do the test, but I don't have to because it has already been done
countless times". In other words, he is avoiding actually going there and
doing it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Something of an oxymoron there; anecdotes do not make for (scientific) 
> *evidence*.  This is something that I've had to explain to my own 
> management a few times:  Two people saying a training course is bad (or 
> good) isn't the basis for doing (or not doing) a rewrite of the course.  
> A statistically large enough sample of those who have used the materials 
> *is*.

  It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of evidence in
most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less the
same thing as anecdotal evidence.

  For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high regard,
up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of evidence in
> most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less the
> same thing as anecdotal evidence.

Uh, not really. The way it works in the USA is that if someone does a test, 
they have to testify what the test was. So the evidence is the policeman 
saying "I measured the skid marks and they were 12 feet long" followed by 
the scientist saying "if you are going 87MPH and slam on the brakes, your 
skid marks will be about 12 feet long."  (Followed by the other side saying 
"if the tire had blown out, the skid marks would be 12 feet long even if he 
was only going the legal speed limit at the time" perhaps.)

One can't just present the facts. Some *person* has to present the facts 
*and* testify that they are true, and then the jury has to decide whether to 
believe it or not.  You can't just show a photograph as evidence. You can 
show a photograph as evidence if you have the photographer come up and say 
"I took this photo and what's in the photo is what I saw when I took it, and 
the photo hasn't been doctored."

In science, the equivalent is peer review and replicated experiments. You 
don't really want to use that technique in a murder investigation. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> In science, the equivalent is peer review and replicated experiments. You
> don't really want to use that technique in a murder investigation. ;-)

10 dead in car crash. 10 more dead during the scene reconstruction.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/30/2010 10:00 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/03/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> :-D
>>
>> Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in Utah,
>> remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal government.
>> <sigh>
>>
>
> Now if I could just work out what lawsuit you are talking about, because
> you live in Utah :-P
>
Probably the stupid 14 state, "How dare you try to pass healthcare!", 
lawsuit, which basically attempts to argue that its an unconstitutional 
thing, you know.. unlike taxes, most other federal laws, and a dozen 
other things, which already exists, and operate on the same principle. 
Though, their biggest whine is about a clause that their own right wing 
morons "insisted" be added, the, "you have to buy this, or we will 
charge you a penalty", clause, called "individual mandate". Mind, it 
might be some other thing they are sueing over too. Some of the so 
called political leaders are not all that bright in some of these 
states. Comes from having 80% of the people those states being complete 
idiots, and the other 20% hanging on to their sanity, and some modicrum 
of hope for electing rational people, by their fingernails. lol

-- 
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

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:10:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>>   It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of
>>   evidence in
>> most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less
>> the same thing as anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Uh, not really. The way it works in the USA is that if someone does a
> test, they have to testify what the test was. So the evidence is the
> policeman saying "I measured the skid marks and they were 12 feet long"
> followed by the scientist saying "if you are going 87MPH and slam on the
> brakes, your skid marks will be about 12 feet long."  (Followed by the
> other side saying "if the tire had blown out, the skid marks would be 12
> feet long even if he was only going the legal speed limit at the time"
> perhaps.)
> 
> One can't just present the facts. Some *person* has to present the facts
> *and* testify that they are true, and then the jury has to decide
> whether to believe it or not.  You can't just show a photograph as
> evidence. You can show a photograph as evidence if you have the
> photographer come up and say "I took this photo and what's in the photo
> is what I saw when I took it, and the photo hasn't been doctored."
> 
> In science, the equivalent is peer review and replicated experiments.
> You don't really want to use that technique in a murder investigation.
> ;-)

Well said, Darren.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:54:09 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Something of an oxymoron there; anecdotes do not make for (scientific)
>> *evidence*.  This is something that I've had to explain to my own
>> management a few times:  Two people saying a training course is bad (or
>> good) isn't the basis for doing (or not doing) a rewrite of the course.
>> A statistically large enough sample of those who have used the
>> materials *is*.
> 
>   It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of evidence
>   in
> most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less the
> same thing as anecdotal evidence.

I think that's a perceptual thing, honestly.  ie, eyewitness testimony is 
perceived to be the highest form of evidence, but the reality is that 
it's not.

That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one 
eyewitness produces a differing set of events.  Who do you believe if 
they both can't be right?

What is the highest form of evidence is something that can be proven to 
be true.  An eyewitness can say that a suspect did shoot a victim, but if 
there's no weapon, no gunshot residue on the suspect's hands/clothes, and 
a rock solid alibi for the suspect not being at the scene of the crime 
(say, they were in jail at the time), then clearly the eyewitness 
testimony isn't evidence of anything other than that the eyewitness isn't 
credible.

>   For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high
>   regard,
> up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.

I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:00:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 30/03/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> :-D
>>
>> Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in
>> Utah, remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal
>> government. <sigh>
>>
>>
> Now if I could just work out what lawsuit you are talking about, because
> you live in Utah :-P

What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal 
government for passing the healthcare legislation.

This is the same state government that recently passed a law that 
essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an accident 
that causes the death of her unborn child can be held criminally 
responsible for the death of that unborn child.  (This came about because 
of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a miscarriage 
intentionally by causing an accident.)

It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/30/2010 1:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:00:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:54:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/03/2010 8:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:19:40 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But welcome to the caring part of the World, America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> :-D
>>>
>>> Now if I could just work out how to prevent my tax dollars (I'm in
>>> Utah, remember) from being used in the lawsuit against the federal
>>> government.<sigh>
>>>
>>>
>> Now if I could just work out what lawsuit you are talking about, because
>> you live in Utah :-P
>
> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>
Course.. One of the other 14 is doing one better than that. They 
"passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually 
identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing 
the same thing. Lot of serious stupid right now from the right. One only 
hopes that the effect will be less violent, but otherwise similar, to 
certain French nobility's babble about starving people and eating cake.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Uh, not really. The way it works in the USA is that if someone does a test, 
> they have to testify what the test was. So the evidence is the policeman 
> saying "I measured the skid marks and they were 12 feet long" followed by 
> the scientist saying "if you are going 87MPH and slam on the brakes, your 
> skid marks will be about 12 feet long."  (Followed by the other side saying 
> "if the tire had blown out, the skid marks would be 12 feet long even if he 
> was only going the legal speed limit at the time" perhaps.)

  That doesn't sound like eyewitness testimony. That sound like a policeman
testifying what he did.

  Eyewitness testimony is more like: "Is the man you saw exiting the building
in this court room? Could you point him out?" "Yes, he is the defendant."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one 
> eyewitness produces a differing set of events.  Who do you believe if 
> they both can't be right?

  That makes it easy. The problems start when two eyewitnesses give the
same testimony... which happens to be wrong.

> >   For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high
> >   regard,
> > up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.

> I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)

  I said "most people", not "courts of law".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   That doesn't sound like eyewitness testimony. That sound like a policeman
> testifying what he did.

Yes.  It's still "eyewitness" rather than "physical tests."  It's a 
description of the physical tests the cop performed, is what I was trying to 
say.

>   Eyewitness testimony is more like: "Is the man you saw exiting the building
> in this court room? Could you point him out?" "Yes, he is the defendant."

Yes.  Of course,  you have to evaluate the credibility of the witness. If 
one person says "I saw George leaving the building" and another says "George 
was with me in a different city all day", how do you resolve that 
scientifically?  That's what expert witnesses are for.  "Yes, this person 
*did* die because of a blow to the head, and not drowning, even though we 
found the victim floating in the lake." Is that a fact or an opinion?

When something only happens once, anecdote is all you have.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually 
> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing 
> the same thing. 

Nothing wrong with that.

No more than saying a cop is allowed to handcuff me but my neighbor is not.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:17:43 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one
>> eyewitness produces a differing set of events.  Who do you believe if
>> they both can't be right?
> 
>   That makes it easy. The problems start when two eyewitnesses give the
> same testimony... which happens to be wrong.

Then it's the lawyer's job to prove that the eyewitnesses are wrong.  And 
that does happen quite often.

Real court in the US isn't like you see on TV.  I enjoy watching Law & 
Order, for example, but I have actually sat on a jury as well - and it's 
nowhere near as exciting as the TV shows make it out to be.

The drug trial that I sat on the jury for, for example, the lead of the 
SWAT team that broke down the door told us what he saw upon entering the 
house and what happened.  He was a professional witness, though, and as a 
trained observer, his version of what happened would naturally be given 
more weight unless his credibility was impeached (and it wasn't, though 
the newbie defense lawyer tried to).  The defendant didn't take the stand 
(because it turned out he was actually guilty - even the defense lawyer 
knew it - and if he'd been put on the stand, the prosecution would've 
shredded him).

>> >   For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high
>> >   regard,
>> > up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.
> 
>> I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)
> 
>   I said "most people", not "courts of law".

That's a fair point, and I had assumed you meant "in court" because 
that's most often what I think of when I hear about "eyewitness 
reports" (I don't spend a lot of time watching the news myself, so that 
may be what more people think about than just "court").

And I would agree that "most people" do tend to give an unreasonable 
amount of weight to anecdotal evidence - I deal with that on a daily 
basis.  One person writing an e-mail complaining about a course can have 
more effect than statistical data that shows that the course is actually 
quite good.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:08:49 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Course.. One of the other 14 is doing one better than that. They
> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
> the same thing. Lot of serious stupid right now from the right. One only
> hopes that the effect will be less violent, but otherwise similar, to
> certain French nobility's babble about starving people and eating cake.

That's crazy. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>
> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an accident
> that causes the death of her unborn child can be held criminally
> responsible for the death of that unborn child.  (This came about because
> of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a miscarriage
> intentionally by causing an accident.)
>

Bloody Ada!

> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>

Go for it!

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:50:46 -0400, Warp wrote:

>  I found a related video amusing: "Why Homeopathy Works and Makes
>  Sense":
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xedLd9djgyg
> 
>   Not surprisingly, it did not explain why homeopathy works or did it
>   make
> any sense...

My $DEITY, I think I lost IQ points listening to this.  Somehow 
"nanodoses" are the same as "ultra-low frequency waves"....WHAT?

>   I also like this one:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFxniaxj_Dk
> 
>   He says that:

One of the funnier things I've seen recently. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:46:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
>> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>>
>> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
>> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an
>> accident that causes the death of her unborn child can be held
>> criminally responsible for the death of that unborn child.  (This came
>> about because of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a
>> miscarriage intentionally by causing an accident.)
>>
>>
> Bloody Ada!

Yeah, I know - both on the accusation (and if true, that should carry a 
stiff penalty IMHO) and on the extrapolation.

>> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>>
> Go for it!

Probably another year before we can - Ken's still finishing up school, 
with luck will graduate in the spring (depends on his credit load).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/30/2010 3:01 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
>> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
>> the same thing.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> No more than saying a cop is allowed to handcuff me but my neighbor is not.
>
Uh.. No, this is more like, "The cop in my town can do it, but I don't 
want them damn Highway Patrol people laying a hand on me." The point is, 
the man protesting the government reform is the same one who instituted 
the near identical thing in his own state. And he isn't the only one. 
Can't remember which one, but they recently *elected* a Tea Party moron, 
who promised to go after the current bill, while his own state has one 
which is universal, which this one isn't even close to being.

But, that isn't some of the craziest out there. There is actually one 
state which just passed a law that a) attempts to deny the federal 
government from interfering with investigations of hate crimes in their 
state, and b) excludes a specific set of definitions for that, in their 
own law, so that they can continue to discriminate. The absolutely 
hilarious thing is, they intended to erase the part of the law that 
covered gay people, so that churches could "continue to tell the truth 
about the gay agenda...". Ooooh! Only one problem. The morons wrote the 
law wrong, and instead of repealing the new law that covered gay 
bashing, they repealed the portion of their state law covering, 
"Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or religion." Apparently.. 
they are real damn good at hating them gays, but not so good at keeping 
track of ***numbers***, which are used to refer to the subclauses that 
cover a specific definition of the crimes.

In other words, its **still** illegal to bash gays, but no longer 
illegal there to bash and/or discriminate against Jews, Christians, 
women, men, blacks, hispanics, indians, or ***anything else***. But, you 
can't do it against gay people, since that part of the law is still in 
effect. lol

We are dealing with serious morons here.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The point is, 
> the man protesting the government reform is the same one who instituted 
> the near identical thing in his own state.

You *do* understand that we have a federal constitution, right?  Are you 
aware of why you pay local property taxes but not federal property taxes?

But sure, I guess if you lump everyone in as "the government" it might make 
sense to complain. That's just not how it works here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message