Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: A board about running a board

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 162216 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31700
Here's another one related to this thread... A couple years ago borealis said something to the effect that my straw floor was dangerous and that it would catch on fire if hot coals fell on it. I suspected that this was just propaganda motivated by the fact that Borealis doesn't like me so she tries to make me look stupid. But how do I tell for sure if it's propaganda or not? Again... As you have stated... By observation. Well what's the best way to observe in this case? Well by pouring live coals directly onto the straw floor, that's how. And guess what happened? Virtually nothing. The floor did not catch on fire. So Borealis statement was pure propaganda, nothing more. Proven so by observation.
I see. It's also totally fine to have your chimney exit inside your attic.
Certainly, if you want to be a martyr. And that's a major aspect of Bluffy's victimhood.

Tbf, I doubt he seriously wants to go up in flames with his home, and he does have some urge toward self-preservation. Notably, he took advice to reduce cresote production and produce more heat, and eventually moved his chimney (I think).

If you've never encountered a serious chimney fire, or even a little one, you might be less inclined to take them seriously - after all, most people assume such a fire would be confined to a fireproof chimney.

However, if you've seen blue flamelets spurting between chimney bricks in your kitchen while the whole thing is roaring like a freight train, and shortly after go outdoors to view the 2 metre tall pillar of flame emerging above your roof, the issue of creosote and chimney safety takes on a whole new urgency.*

*So lucky. VFD having their monthly meeting less than a km. away, house once belonged to mother of fire chief, so he knew exactly where it was. That was 30 years ago. Very vivid memory.
My daughter was up in the mountains on a ski trip with friends, staying in a very nice cabin, an A-Frame. Sometime during the night, those on the upper floors smelled smoke, and woke everyone. They barely escaped with their pajamas on and some blankets, the cabin was gone before the fire department got there.  The problem, creosote in the flue and an inadequate separation of the flue from the structure.

Sure, excess creosote in the flue is not really common, though it happens often enough, but usually the separation, either air space or non-flammable construction intervenes. So, no worries. Just go to sleep. It's all OK. The flames are your fate in hell.

Glad your daughter and friends got out.

There was some comedy to be had during the fire I mentioned. The house was very old and the brick chimney just as old, with a cracked and crumbling clay flue. It had an old kitchen cookstove. I heard the noise first, and was only awake because I was waiting for someone on the west coast to be home from work so I could phone them. I went to see what the noise was, checked the firebox - nothing but a few embers there - looked up and saw the flames. Ran to the stairs and bellowed for my sleeping housemates, went back and dialed the VFD. We all got outside - it was midwinter, moonlit and calm, with a hard shiny crust on the snow. One of my housemates lost his mind, ran back in and came out with a glass pitcher full of water, promptly lost his balance and slid on his back, pitcher in hand, about 20m down the steep hill behind the house.

Excess creosote in flues is common enough when people don't know how to burn firewood. They are either afraid of a big hot fire or they think they are 'saving wood' and burn too slow and cool, or burn green wood.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31701
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.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31702
The energy required to make Dave look stupid is small enough to require MIT level of expertise to measure.
No energy at all is required, it's spontaneous. Self-energizing.

So, you're saying his stupidity has reached critical mass.
A walk through the ocean of most mens souls would scarcely get your feet wet.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31703
The energy required to make Dave look stupid is small enough to require MIT level of expertise to measure.
No energy at all is required, it's spontaneous. Self-energizing.

So, you're saying his stupidity has reached critical mass.
No, and it probably never will. Too much reality in the environment.

Such absorb both idioarks and stupidons.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31704
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?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31705
And by the way, this hypothesis was already well supported for other animals with other ranchers, such as with cows and sheep, I just hadn't known of anybody doing it with dairy goats before I did it myself.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31706
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

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31707
Cliff notes please? And how does this apply to my Dairy goats?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31708
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.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31709
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.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31710
No. You are not.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31711
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.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31712
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?
Get your milk tested at the local AG extension.
Dave Hawkins on 11-23-2015, The  poor boy is easily triggered: 
Also it doesn't help that you are a woman ... I've had some bad experiences with super controlling manipulative women in my life and I now react really strongly to that.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31713
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.
I'll try to put it in terms that you might understand.

Because you don't measure or record anything, you giant doofus.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31714
Or compare anything with anything.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31715
Dave, if you don't read that whole thing, at least read this part, because I think it highlights one of the most important things you don't do that causes people to say you suck at science:
Quote
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.
This is the polar opposite of your approach. Your approach is to look exclusively for things that could make you right.* What you should be looking for are things that could make you wrong.


*(Really, you tend to look for anything, even the smallest detail, you can even interpret as making you right, even if your interpretation is way off base, and latch onto that as proof without even considering anything else.)

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31716
Or compare anything with anything.
I was trying to keep it simple. Baby steps. We are dealing with a high speed mind running circles around something.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31717
OK:

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

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31718
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.
  • Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 01:16:03 PM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31719
I have measured. I have compared. Anything else I'm missing?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31720
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 have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31721
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.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31722
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.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31723
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.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31724
I do not provide commercial grain, but my goats do ingest a fair number of seeds because I allow my grass is to become mature. My rotational system benefits my pasture as well as my goats and I've explained all this in the past. Other owners in my area do not have this type of pasture benefit because there is no rotation and rest.