Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • "it's a goddamn massage board" for Christ sakes.

Topic: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims (Read 743 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #50
From this statement it seems that Jon does not agree that a modern sloth is "analogous" to the Shasta sloth.

Ok

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #51
How about dealing with the FACTS of the carbon 14 of the samples Dave?  Good to see you at least acknowledge them as FACTS, though I would call them DATA.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #52
By Pingu's standards, NOTHING is a fact.

She's just dispensing squid ink.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #53
This is why I changed my question from "do you agree that these are facts?" to " do you agree with these statements?" ( however the fuck you want to label them )

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #54
 Griping about how to label them is just squid ink.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #55
 And I think I know why you dispense so much squid ink... It is your only safe refuge.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #56
Bottom line, Dave, 4 of your "facts" are just you taking us through your logic of baselessly assuming extinct sloths had the same pooping habits as modern sloths and using that baseless assumption to come up with a bullshit number for what you personally want to consider a "plausible" amount of sloth shit in a plausible amount of time. You won't have a reasonable list of facts until you eliminate those.

ETA: And make some other changes too, but eliminating those is a necessary first step.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #57
By Pingu's standards, NOTHING is a fact.

She's just dispensing squid ink.

Well, as I explained clearly, Dave, "fact" is not, in my view, a terribly useful word in science.  That's why we tend to use "data" and "model" more frequently than "fact".  It's not squid ink, it's actually a key point that you don't get about science.  In science we we have data - what we are given - and models - potential ways of understanding the data.

When a model fits data really really well, and is really really well-replicated, informally, we call it a "fact".  But all "facts" are provisional in science, because they are all fundamentally models of reality and therefore subject to falsification.

So the measured amount of carbon 14 in a sample is not a "fact" but an estimate.  Although it may be a "fact" that someone made that estimate.

Same with radiocarbon dates.  Those are estimates which initially were based on a certain assumption, then adjusted when that assumption was found to be a less good model than a slightly more complex model.  And by "less good model" I mean it fitted new DATA less well.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #58
And I think I know why you dispense so much squid ink... It is your only safe refuge.

No, that would be you.

In this case sloth poop, but it serves the same function  - protecting you from exposure to the radiocarbon calibration data.
Griping about how to label them is just squid ink.

Not griping.  Just explaining my approach to "facts" - to regard all "facts" as provisional, even if some can be safely treated as certainties for all practical purposes.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #59
NON-FACT:  "it is not an established fact that modern sloths have the same defecation habits as the extinct Shasta ground sloth"
wtf kind of convoluted bullshit is this?

It is a "NON-FACT" that X is not "an established fact" ?

where X = "modern sloths have the same defecation habits as the extinct Shasta ground sloth ?

Yeah, actually,  "that modern sloths have the same defecation habits as the Shasta ground sloth" is NOT "an established fact"

Therefore it is a FACT, not a NON-FACT, that "it is not an established fact that modern sloths have the same defecation habits as the extinct Shasta ground sloth"

jesus christ.
Talk about squid ink
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #60
This is why I changed my question from "do you agree that these are facts?" to " do you agree with these statements?" ( however the fuck you want to label them )

Yes, I know you did.  And I responded.

I agree with some of them.  Not with others.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #61
And I think I know why you dispense so much squid ink... It is your only safe refuge.
:ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #62
For example ...

FACT:  Long and Company did in fact determine  carbon-14 levels of poop samples

NON-FACT:  The age estimates based on these carbon-14 levels is not established as a fact

FACT:   Most of the poop in unit a is from an extinct Shasta ground sloth

NON-FACT:  it is not an established fact that modern sloths have the same defecation habits as the extinct Shasta ground sloth
You're not the one to determine whether or not some statement is a fact or not. Indeed, I agree with Pingu about the use of the term "fact" being reserved for data and/or conclusions that are well documented and supported and generally accepted as valid.  

An example of the former usage, data, would be as you state, Long et al did take samples and had them tested for 14C content. It is a fact they did so and did obtain 14C/12C ratios.
An example of the latter usage, conclusions that are well documented and supported and generally accepted as valid would be the age estimates obtained from those 14C/12C ratio results. That you personally do not accept radiocarbon dating as valid and accurate is of no more concern than there are other kooks out there that don't accept the Earth is a spheroid or that it doesn't orbit the sun. For all intents and purposes, the scientific community accepts radiocarbon dating as valid and accurate.

However, you do get your last example correct, it is not a fact that modern sloths (which species, there are 6) either can or do provide any insight regarding any aspect of the sloths that used Rampart Cave. The modern sloths are small, arboreal, live in the tropics, shit little pellets and eat a specific diet of tropical vegetation while the Rampart Cave sloths are large (about 30 to 40 times the size of the modern sloths), terrestrial, lived in a Sonoran Desert climate, shit large dung balls and ate arid climate vegetation. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect there is any similarity of behavior between the two examples other than from pure coincidence or common traits of most mammals.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #63
Yup.

Dave: all those sloth poo samples have radiocarbon dates, from which you can readily infer their 14C:12C ratios (at least to within the a calibration curve adjustment).

So how old are they in Brown years?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #64
The modern sloths are small, arboreal, live in the tropics, shit little pellets and eat a specific diet of tropical vegetation while the Rampart Cave sloths are large (about 30 to 40 times the size of the modern sloths), terrestrial, lived in a Sonoran Desert climate, shit large dung balls and ate arid climate vegetation. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect there is any similarity of behavior between the two examples other than from pure coincidence or common traits of most mammals.
Brown's incorrect use of "pellets" to describe the Shasta poop makes me wonder if he was picturing modern sloths. Or if he was trying to trick the gullible rubes into picturing modern sloths.

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #65
There's only one person that has dealt honestly with my list of facts and that is JonF.

Bullshit.

Quote
   He actually agrees with all of them...

Nope.

2) has always been wrong until your later post.
  • Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 01:36:39 PM by JonF
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #66
Yeah I was a little unclear on Jon's meaning at first ... now I think I understand ...

He want to change one of my sentences to the following ...

"2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits some extant animal that we can establish as analogous."

Fine by me.
Took you long enough. Now you can start trying to establish some extant animal as analogous. Good luck with that. Closest living relative is not sufficient.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #67
...
Are we in agreement on these points?
So now that your list of "facts" has been thoroughly vetted, and areas of agreement/disagreement established, what do you propose to do with it?  :dunno:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #68
Yeah I was a little unclear on Jon's meaning at first ... now I think I understand ...

He want to change one of my sentences to the following ...

"2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits some extant animal that we can establish as analogous."

Fine by me.
Took you long enough. Now you can start trying to establish some extant animal as analogous. Good luck with that. Closest living relative is not sufficient.

Which would be pointless.  Some things are not actually determinable on the basis of the evidence it is possible to have.  And, notoriously, that includes the behaviour of extinct populations.  Which is why evolutionary psychology gets such schtick.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #69
From this statement it seems that Jon does not agree that a modern sloth is analogous to the Shasta ground sloth.
From the many posts so far nobody agrees that a modern sloth is analogous to the Shasta ground sloth, for good and sufficient reasons that have been posted many times.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #70
Yeah I was a little unclear on Jon's meaning at first ... now I think I understand ...

He want to change one of my sentences to the following ...

"2) Two ways to study the pooping habits of an extinct sloth would be (a) study the poop itself and (b) study the pooping habits some extant animal that we can establish as analogous."

Fine by me.
Took you long enough. Now you can start trying to establish some extant animal as analogous. Good luck with that. Closest living relative is not sufficient.
Which would be pointless.  Some things are not actually determinable on the basis of the evidence it is possible to have.  And, notoriously, that includes the behaviour of extinct populations.  Which is why evolutionary psychology gets such schtick.
Oh, I know and agree. But Davie-doodles will never admit it because that would be admitting that sloth poopies are not a test of Brown's model and all this sidetracking has no point other than avoiding the real tests which it's already failed.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #71
...
Are we in agreement on these points?
So now that your list of "facts" has been thoroughly vetted, and areas of agreement/disagreement established, what do you propose to do with it?  :dunno:
Show it to my son for one thing.  It's no small accomplishment to get a bunch of  highly educated Darwin fanatics to agree with me on anything.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #72
...
Are we in agreement on these points?
So now that your list of "facts" has been thoroughly vetted, and areas of agreement/disagreement established, what do you propose to do with it?  :dunno:
Show it to my son for one thing.  It's no small accomplishment to get a bunch of  highly educated Darwin fanatics to agree with me on anything.

Even if we all agree that what "facts" you actually listed are largely irrelevant to the thread you started.  I guess you could call that an accomplishment.

btw the only "fanatic" here is you, Dave. 
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #73
... Darwin fanatics ...
::)

For a brief moment today, it seemed like you were actually going to make an effort to try to "be scientific", to restrict yourself to "FACTS ONLY".
And maybe you did try, as hard as you are capable of.
But it turns out you just can't.
Your idea of a "scientific discussion" never lasts for more than an exchange or two before it turns into a competitive cheerleading competition for you, with you slinging content-free bravado like this.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #74
All you other people apparently need some help in determining what is a fact and what is not a fact.
Apparently you need to grow some balls and actually address our responses.

But you won't. All fluff and no muscle, as usual. Par for the 11-year course.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.