Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational:  :whyyou:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pingu

1
I have measured. I have compared. Anything else I'm missing?

How did you measure?  Where are your measurements? What things did you compare?
Hew measured the aliveness of his goats and he started with 2 and still has 2. He compared that aliveness with deadness and determined that his seemed much more alive than dead,

And he got some quantities of milk.
2
I have measured. I have compared. Anything else I'm missing?

How did you measure?  Where are your measurements? What things did you compare?
I measured milk production. I've listed it here in detail by month. Mainly I compared the Health and Welfare and happiness of my goats with goats I've had in the past and with goats I know of in my area. Mine are in perfect health, have a good body condition, get pregnant and kid normally, have good milk production, and don't require any kind of medications whatsoever. Everyone else in my area complains of problems with parasites unless they medicate. They also give vaccinations I suppose as a preventative. I myself had a goat died on me one time and I have no idea why. I just chalked it up to some sort of sickness related to the traditional ways of keeping goats.
you really are hopeless
3
I have measured. I have compared. Anything else I'm missing?
Where are your records?

What were your SOM baseline values?

Where are your biodiversity records? What metrics are you using to measure biodiversity?

Over what interval?  How frequently are you making these measurements?

How are you tracking milk protein content over time?

Dave. You need these thigs to back up the claims you have made in this thread. You don't seem to understand why they are important. This is why people say that you suck at science.

One of the reasons.  The suckage is large.  It contains multitudes.
4
I have measured. I have compared. Anything else I'm missing?

How did you measure?  Where are your measurements? What things did you compare?
5
OK:

Measure and Compare.  And assume that the two things are the same unless they are clearly different.

Actually scratch that second part.  It only applies if you are TRYING  to show that they are DIFFERENT.  If you are TRYING to show that they are the SAME, then it's more complicated.

You are right Ben Fred.  Objective measurements are a place to start.
6
OK:

Measure and Compare.  And assume that the two things are the same unless they are clearly different.

8
How in that entire discussion did you never manage to grasp the fact, no matter how many times it was pointed out, that any proposed constant rate of population growth for the entirety of human history is bonkers because population growth is not fucking constant?

He never even got to square one on that.
9
No thanks. I think i am doing good science, but if you think I'm not, I'm interested to hear why you think that.

Here you go:

Quote
I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science.  In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people.  During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now.  So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land.  They're doing everything right.  The form is perfect.  It looks exactly the way it looked before.  But it doesn't work.  No airplanes land.  So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing.  But it would he just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system.  It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones.  But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science.  That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation.  It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly.  It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards.  For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.  You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it.  If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.  There is also a more subtle problem.  When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
10
I've given you cliff notes AND extracts from that lecture numerous times.  You ignore them every time.  If you want to know what it says, read it.
11
You asked me how I would spot propaganda. I told you. I even gave you a concrete example from my very own experience. Now I'd like to hear you give a coherent response instead of falling victim to the mountainous clouds of squid ink being dispensed right now.

I don't think you did.  You don't seem to have a concept corresponding to "methodology".  Whenever you are asked how you do things, you respond with what you did.


yes I realize that but unfortunately I don't have the financial resources to increase N to 10 or 100 or 1000 or to do all these other rigorous things that you want me to do. But that does not mean that I'm not doing science. This is why I keep saying that you have too narrow a definition of science.

You can do science with an N of 1.  Just not the way you are doing it.
Well I stated my hypothesis - Dairy goats can live normal healthy lives and produce plenty of Milk + 2 kids per year on forage alone, no grain and no medications. I've been testing my hypothesis for the past two years and my hypothesis seems to be well supported. What else do you want me to do?

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

12
You asked me how I would spot propaganda. I told you. I even gave you a concrete example from my very own experience. Now I'd like to hear you give a coherent response instead of falling victim to the mountainous clouds of squid ink being dispensed right now.

I don't think you did.  You don't seem to have a concept corresponding to "methodology".  Whenever you are asked how you do things, you respond with what you did.


yes I realize that but unfortunately I don't have the financial resources to increase N to 10 or 100 or 1000 or to do all these other rigorous things that you want me to do. But that does not mean that I'm not doing science. This is why I keep saying that you have too narrow a definition of science.

You can do science with an N of 1.  Just not the way you are doing it.
13
Chimney fires used to be so common.  In my (small) home town, whenever we heard the fire engine us kids would all troop over to take a look.  We always hoped it would be a "proper" fire (not "just a chimney") but the chimney fires were still worth running across town to see.  The fun part was the flames shooting out of the chimney pot.

And the fire hoses of course.

Where i actually grew up, most people used coal for fuel, and bootleg coal at that, so it was often full of slag and hard to burn. Chimney fires were very common, as the slow burning backyard pit coal was notorious for producing literal streams of liquid creosote.

Same here - well, not usually bootleg coal as far as I know, but all heating was coal (or sometime coke - we had a coke-fired Aga in the kitchen).  So lots of chimney fires  aka lum fires, or "lummies".  As in Lang may yer lum reek.

And of course, Edinburgh's nickname was Auld Reekie.

Oh look, they still have lummies in Kelso:

http://www.firescotland.gov.uk/news-campaigns/news/2016/02/safety-appeal-after-chimney-fire-in-kelso.aspx

I know one of the firemen  :smug:

14
It's his whole YEC technique in microcosm. Derek Ager said that geology is CATASTROPHIC! Yes, Dave, but he said lots of non-global catastrophes not one big catastrophe. I don't care about what else he said.  He probably just didn't want to be disinvited from the octohatter sherry parties.  The point is that he said that geology is CATASTROPHIC.
15
Chimney fires used to be so common.  In my (small) home town, whenever we heard the fire engine us kids would all troop over to take a look.  We always hoped it would be a "proper" fire (not "just a chimney") but the chimney fires were still worth running across town to see.  The fun part was the flames shooting out of the chimney pot.

And the fire hoses of course.
16
Ok. How about just explaining how to spot propaganda. Are there any tell tale signs that you're experiencing propaganda? Easy ways to recognize it?
I'll give you an example related to the topic of this thread. Commercial grain and dairy goats.  Almost everyone I know who owns Dairy goats says that you have to give them grain to keep them healthy. Propaganda? Or truth? How do we tell? By observation, just as you stated. Well guess what my observations have been over the past two years? They have been that this idea about Dairy goats and Grains is a myth. Propaganda. And it makes sense because grain is something you have to BUY which of course makes it in the interest of the people who sell it to promote the myth. See how that works?
I'm not really sure you've isolated the only important factor through that sort of logic. I mean, milk production is one of those pretty observable sorts of things. BTW, are your milk goats the type where the tips of their tails is bald(ish)?
I didn't say I have isolated the only important factor. I said that I've determined the "dairy goats need grain" schtick to be a myth. And I did so by observation, which includes observation of milk output.

What observations would have been evidence, in your view, that dairy goats do need grain (or at least more protein than you are giving them)?
17
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is. Just like you don't understand what reductionism is. And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.
jesus christ if you tried to use the word "emergence" in a sentence it would have to do with horse cock.

It would be interesting to see if Dave could use the word "emergence" in a sentence.
18
I mean technically he did imply a process through the examples he gave. Basically...
1. Take a claim.
2. "Test" that claim with an n=1 anecdote with no controls, repetition, or any other aspect of actual science.
3. Take whatever results from that anecdote as gospel truth.

(Unspoken corollary to step 3: If the anecdote doesn't show what Dave already believes, handwave it away.)

I guess.  But that's "method" rather than "methodology".  I think that Testy was asking for something more general than a specific instance of: I observed this and I concluded that.  For instance, one of the things that tend to make me aware that a salesperson is dodgy is when answers to diametrically opposite questions are both "yes" - it's lightweight AND has plenty of body; it's a powerful medicine AND has no side effects. 

Same with how I test whether something is likely to be true - things like independent corroboration; corroboration by people with a vested interest in finding the opposite; replication under diverse conditions; blind-rating; random assignment; null hypothesis testing; all those boring octohattery methods of minimising the chance you are kidding yourself.



19
You asked me how I would spot propaganda. I told you. I even gave you a concrete example from my very own experience. Now I'd like to hear you give a coherent response instead of falling victim to the mountainous clouds of squid ink being dispensed right now.

I don't think you did.  You don't seem to have a concept corresponding to "methodology".  Whenever you are asked how you do things, you respond with what you did.

20
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.

no it's not. It's just that you don't understand what an actual quote mine is.

Oh but I do.

It's taking words someone wrote out of context and using them to make a point that is opposite to the one they were actually making, or the view that they actually hold.  You do it all the time.

Or just, as is often the case with you, because you don't want to engage with the point being made.

Just like you don't understand what reductionism is.

Oh but I do.

And I'm tempted to say just as you don't know what science is

And again, I do.  You are the one that is out of step here, Dave.  You fit data to models.  Scientists fit models to data.

but that would be going a bit too far because I think you do understand some aspects of science it's just that your view of science is far too narrow.

I exclude cargo-cult science.  Which means I exclude what you do.
21
And in whose interest is it to promulgate the "propaganda" that straw is flammable?
Who - other than haters here - is pushing that insidious lie?
Borealis. To try to make me look stupid and her smart.

No.  You look stupid because you ARE stupid.  While it's true that people tend to look smarter than you when they point that out, that's epiphenomenal.  People point it out partly because it's a DISCUSSION board, and partly, in this case, because we don't actually want you to die in a fire.
22
Or are you going to take the position that I am required to acknowledge and engage every argument that is raised here?

Certainly if you respond to a post, it would be normal to respond to the argument made in that post.
23
I find it extraordinary that Dave, who knows perfectly well that he often selects small extracts from other people's posts, without using the quote function, thus breaking the link to the original, and often not even bothering to quote correctly - indeed sometimes placing words they did not write, and actually putting them in quotation marks - has the nerve to accuse me of "quotemining" by quoting only part of his post (using the quote function btw) - and "implying" something he did not write, even though the context DOES in fact, imply it, and even though in any case, I implied no such thing - I  simply asked him to compare the same metric as he was citing for Trump's period office to Obama's.

To which he replied

Don't know. Don't care.

Then accused me of dishonesty when I provided some data.

The hypocrisy is meter-blowing.
25
My criticism was that you don't read as well as you think you do. And that seems to be correct in light of your comment here...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Dave?  You continually get busted posting articles that don't mean what you thing they do!
You back yourself into a corner, like the supplementary feed needed by dairy goats, and what do you do?
You stagger in and post a passage that's three font sizes larger, which talks about the dietary needs of hair sheep.

Less than a few hours after Pingu carefully explained, multiple times, why dairy goats need extra protein.

I wonder often where you would find yourself in a standard reading test?  Sixth or seventh grade?

She's wrong.  And I have personally proven she's wrong with my own dairy goat operation.  She sucks at science.  She's arrogant.  She's a sophisticated liar.  You should quit looking to her for guidance.  She's a blind guide.  She should be fired from her post at her university.  She probably got the post in the first place for reasons other than being good at real science.

And you said you weren't a bitter man?

And so transparent. Is directly insulted by man who often deeply insults him - reacts by flinging poo at woman who has often tried to help him understand things and only recently has been mildly sarcastic at him.
I've told him to fuck off a few times.  I don't like baseless accusations of dishonesty and whatever he thinks of me as a  scientist, the idea that I only got my job because of some positive discrimination thing is offensive to all women.  I got it in the normal way, i.e largely on the basis of my research output about which Dave knows fuck all.