 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing
> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more
> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
this thread.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I gave an example of one physicist going so far
> off the rails it was flat nuts, because he "believed" in telepathy and
> psychic powers, and decided to test if the incidental flashes of light,
> produced by the body's own chemical reactions in cells, would provide a,
> "means to explain how some people could detect other people's thoughts."
Crazy experiments are ok... as long as you follow good scientific
procedures to test them!
It's a common problem with woo "science" that the experiments they
perform are extremely faulty. They fail to perform proper double
blind testing, they fail to have controls, they often use sample
sizes that are statistically too small, and they often engage in
confirmation and publication bias.
Publication bias is something that very easily misleads, and is
easily missed by the public.
It works like this: Perform many trials (preferably with small sample
sizes to maximize variation). Even if there is no correlation between
your hypothesis and the (alleged) phenomenon you are testing, just by
statistical probability a few of the trials will show a positive
correlation between them (while likewise a few will show a negative
correlation, and the rest will show no statistically significant
correlation). Discard all the trials except the ones that showed a
positive correlation, and publish those.
For example homeopaths do this all the time.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2014 15:55, Warp wrote:
> It works like this: Perform many trials (preferably with small sample
[Snip]
>
> For example homeopaths do this all the time.
If you have not read Ben Goldacre you might find his views interesting.
He is a real medical doctor who goes sub-orbital on that subject. :-D
http://www.badscience.net/
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/5/2014 7:55 AM, Warp wrote:
> It's a common problem with woo "science" that the experiments they
> perform are extremely faulty. They fail to perform proper double
> blind testing, they fail to have controls, they often use sample
> sizes that are statistically too small, and they often engage in
> confirmation and publication bias.
>
> Publication bias is something that very easily misleads, and is
> easily missed by the public.
>
Lets me honest here - publication bias means a) nearly everything ends
up behind a pay wall, or in a pop-sci mag, where they may not even get
the facts right, when they have real facts, and b) negative results, as
in, "We didn't find anything.", are ***never*** published where they can
be easily found, never mind where the public will see them. So, yeah,
bias... Kind of like how reading an old book on, "things to see, and
have fun at, in country X.", is a tad "biased" against the small war
that just broke out there, and the people shooting tourists who show up
to look at the attraction that was just blown up by rebels...
Its such a minor "bias".
And, its only getting worse as the publishers are pushing harder and
harder to make more money, by putting *everything* behind a pay wall,
permanently, instead of allowing it to be release via things like Pubmed.
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2014 08:34, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
>> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing
>> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
>> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more
>> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
>
> Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
> this thread.
>
Which part was confirmed? The bit where I got my Pilgrims confounded
with my Foundling?
Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-8-2014 21:57, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/08/2014 08:34, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
>>> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing
>>> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
>>> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more
>>> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
>>
>> Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
>> this thread.
>>
>
> Which part was confirmed? The bit where I got my Pilgrims confounded
> with my Foundling?
The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants. Besides, I guess
that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably. The
result is a weird societal concoction.
> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who knows.
We still have our own little bible belt though.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.08.2014 09:28, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 6-8-2014 21:57, Stephen wrote:
>> On 05/08/2014 08:34, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe fleeing
>>>> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
>>>> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a more
>>>> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
>>>
>>> Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
>>> this thread.
>>>
>>
>> Which part was confirmed? The bit where I got my Pilgrims confounded
>> with my Foundling?
>
> The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants. Besides, I guess
> that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
> century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably. The
> result is a weird societal concoction.
>
>> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
>
> Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who
> knows.
>
> We still have our own little bible belt though.
Same in Germany, too, as it seems.
In plenty of regions in Germany we have a tradition called
shooting competition with small-caliber or air rifles (but more
importantly for disposing of lots of beer, a task in which non-members
also help generously). The winner of those competitions is then declared
Now just a few days ago regional news reported of a case where a
(and, as was noticed only then, also the rules of that particular
christian faith.
So much for religious tolerance in Germany.
(It should be said though that there are other umbrella organizations
all.)
Edit: Just read up the latest news on this topic: The umbrella
organization in question, the "Bund der Historischen Deutschen
decided in this particular case to make an exception, and allow the
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2014 10:03, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.08.2014 09:28, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 6-8-2014 21:57, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2014 08:34, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 4-8-2014 18:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> We must remember that the Founding Fathers did not leave Europe
>>>>> fleeing
>>>>> religious intolerance. But to practice it.
>>>>> Then the south had a lot of Scottish protestants settling it and a
>>>>> more
>>>>> intolerant lot you would not meet in a month of Sundays.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, you confirm indeed to me what I have been musing about following
>>>> this thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which part was confirmed? The bit where I got my Pilgrims confounded
>>> with my Foundling?
>>
>> The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants. Besides, I guess
>> that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
>> century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably. The
>> result is a weird societal concoction.
>>
>>> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
>>
>> Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who
>> knows.
>>
>> We still have our own little bible belt though.
>
> Same in Germany, too, as it seems.
>
> In plenty of regions in Germany we have a tradition called
> shooting competition with small-caliber or air rifles (but more
> importantly for disposing of lots of beer, a task in which non-members
> also help generously). The winner of those competitions is then declared
Very quaint :-) I use to watch them on TV at their yearly parade.
[...]
> Edit: Just read up the latest news on this topic: The umbrella
> organization in question, the "Bund der Historischen Deutschen
> decided in this particular case to make an exception, and allow the
>
Yes it is indeed. It could be worse. The fact that there still is polio
in the Netherlands for instance is because of religious obscurantism in
certain (protestant) groups refusing vaccination.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2014 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants.
Okay.
> Besides, I guess
> that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
> century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably.
I would think, more on the protestant side. If history is anything to go
by. (I was christened a Catholic but brought up a Prody in a sectarian
society. I say protestant but it was the CoE, which was considered a bit
too close to Rome for most peoples liking.)
> The result is a weird societal concoction.
>
No arguments there. ;-)
>> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
>
> Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who
> knows.
>
Purgatory, not Hell, by comparison.
> We still have our own little bible belt though.
Don't we all. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-8-2014 15:14, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> The Founding Fathers /and/ the Scottish Protestants.
>
> Okay.
>
>> Besides, I guess
>> that the massive arrivals of Irish and Italian Catholics in the 19th
>> century again exacerbated the intolerance - on both sides probably.
>
> I would think, more on the protestant side. If history is anything to go
> by. (I was christened a Catholic but brought up a Prody in a sectarian
> society. I say protestant but it was the CoE, which was considered a bit
> too close to Rome for most peoples liking.)
Yes, You are right. I was brought up a Catholic and am glad I was,
rather than another creed. ;-P
>
>> The result is a weird societal concoction.
>>
>
> No arguments there. ;-)
>
>>> Even the Netherlands was not liberal enough for them.
>>
>> Indeed. And maybe they felt they were in the devil's own country, who
>> knows.
>>
>
> Purgatory, not Hell, by comparison.
It depends how /liberalism/ was interpreted...
>
>> We still have our own little bible belt though.
>
>
> Don't we all. :-)
I suppose so. As long as one does not have to live within ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
