 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
