I just heard the stupid comment of the week.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Thursday, July 27, 2006 08:48
VIEWED: 9073
PAGE 9 of 11
EmmaRigby:
Quote:Mathematically, it's best solved with tit for tat - you mirror the other's actions. Over time, like with evolution, it results in an optimum for both.
I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?
Kill him, immediately.
Then cook and eat HIM.
Better one survive than neither.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There is a joke about a biologist, physicist, and mathematician riding a train into Scotland. They see a black sheep out on a pasture. The biologist exclaims, "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black." The physicist corrects, "Well, actually, at least one sheep in Scotland is black." The mathematician refines, "No, at least one sheep in Scotland is black, on at least one side."
I interpret data very conservatively, like the mathematician. If I say at least one sheep in Scotland is black, I like to qualify it with, "assuming sheep in Scotland are the same color on both sides." It is nice to have assumptions clearly defined--it increases falsifiability, which is the hallmark of good science.
BTW, I appreciate talking to you Emma. You're the first person in a long, long time I've met here who can discuss this topic with both conviction, logic, and respect. Thanks.
I object! I would never make such a sweeping statement with such a small sample size! Didn't you see me torture the English language earlier to avoid giving a definite answer as to whether the sky is blue?!
You are right that people should not jump to conclusions on inconclusive or contradictory data. But surely policy descisions should be based on our educated guess at this moment in time and possibly modified in the future as the understanding/ accuracy of predictions increases. Doing nothing to curtail pollution because the concientious of those in the scientific community refuse to be pressured into giving a difinitive answer, to me, like saying "We have found something that looks like a tumour in your body. We don't have the equipment to be sure so we're going to wait a couple of years to see what happens. It might all work out or it might be too late by then but we can't operat now on uncertain data, it would be expensive and painful." Dammit, I'd want that operation! (Sorry, I do love my metaphores!!)
Thanks for the compliment, I always try to remain calm (hint hint) when arguing a point. If someone shouts and swears and calls me a poopy head (or some such) I am not really going to be more inclined to take their arguements seriously!
___________________
Hissssssssss!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, and I rather enjoyed it too. All right, we can substitute biologist for ummm....climate scientist? Hehe.
Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I object! I would never make such a sweeping statement with such a small sample size! Didn't you see me torture the English language earlier to avoid giving a definite answer as to whether the sky is blue?!
I always say science and medicine don't mix either. We hold up drugs for eons and eons to scientifically "prove" that they are effective before we let patients try them. Meanwhile, patients are clamoring, please shouldn't it be my choice if I want to accept the risks of the drug? At the same time, traditional medicines tested by hundred or thousands of years of use (with no patents or profits) are pooh-poohed by "scientists" as being unproven. It's all crazy. People should be able to take whatever medicines they want, whether they have been subjected to double blind placebo controlled trials or not. Provided they are given all available info and risks up front.
With your tumor analogy, it is the same thing. An experienced clinician interprets his observations (be it with symptom description or technological assay) that you have a tumor. This is not "science" per se. This is, well, really an art based on technology and the accumulated experience of the profession. We should just practice the art in the best interests of the patient and dispense with the pretense of conducting science, which serves knowledge and precision, and NOT the patient.
I guess what I am saying is science has been bastardized and its standards corrupted to make it easier and faster for policies to be "based in science." I would rather see science returned to a slow and painstakingly precise process, and stop saying our decisions have gone through the scientific wringer when they haven't.
It is perfectly ok to make decisions that are not scientific. I see 3 people leave a restaurant vomiting. I don't have scientific proof that the restaurant caused the illness, but I can certainly choose not to eat there. I don't have scientific proof that smoking causes cancer, but I can choose not to smoke. And so forth. It doesn't make our choices less valid. In fact, I don't think true science is ever sure enough about anything to validate a policy. It isn't how science works.
In my humble opinion.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OH !Then I got it your post all wrong!
Well, they don't have an apology icon, so how's about this?
No worries and No apologies necessary. but kisses... I'll take 'em
I can see how it could've been taken the other way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah I know, children, small animals and any others not able to defend themselves perhaps, but as far as I'm concerned I'm well aware that all AQ's threats are merely hot air.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yo Citizen, you know that me and AU rarely see eye to eye here, but I don't see him as being a senseless violence-type. I think you're getting worked up over something that ain't gonna go down.
Embrace your Shaolin side, my brother. Don't let him get to ya like that.
Unofficial moderator Chrisisall
Cowards and bullies only go for those they know they can beat.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um..it were a joke.
Sorry if I confusticated things. Gotta remember to stick the sarcasm/facetious warning label on stuff.
Or were you joking about my joking?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by stinkingrose:
Um..it were a joke.
Sorry if I confusticated things. Gotta remember to stick the sarcasm/facetious warning label on stuff.
Or were you joking about my joking?
Is this directed at me? I think so, since I responded to your comment and since I got an e-mail saying you replied to mine. I'm not sure, though, so if you didn't mean me, just ignore this post!
If you do mean me, I did think you seriously read that somewhere, but I also found your comment humorous. Does that make sense? Probably not. Anyway, looking back and rereading, it's pretty clear you were joking. I'm not sure where my mind was that day... I'm not this dumb all the time, I promise.
*****
"I'm a leaf on the wind..." - Wash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damn I love you guys!
You're amazing!
This is actually 2 separate threads! I've been watching several people end up engaging in a calm reasoned discussion of scientific principles, the reliability of data, and how to best weasel word your findings to get published without ruffling feathers so your funding does not stop (physics widow here) "while..AND AT THE SAME TIME" (to quote Gonzo the Great)ignoring the flame war that has erupted by the people who started the thread in the first place. Are any of you parents?
Remind me not to hit the boards without bringing marshmallows from now on. S'mores for everyone!
You may now resume calling each other poopy head, boys.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by stinkingrose:
Damn I love you guys!
You're amazing!
This is actually 2 separate threads! I've been watching several people end up engaging in a calm reasoned discussion of scientific principles, the reliability of data, and how to best weasel word your findings to get published without ruffling feathers so your funding does not stop (physics widow here) "while..AND AT THE SAME TIME" (to quote Gonzo the Great)ignoring the flame war that has erupted by the people who started the thread in the first place. Are any of you parents?
Remind me not to hit the boards without bringing marshmallows from now on. S'mores for everyone!
You may now resume calling each other poopy head, boys.
What's a good scientific debate without a bit of poop flinging?! It happens at all of the best conferences, it's just as the letters accrue after your name you find more loquatious ways of calling your learned colleagues poopy head.___________________
Hissssssssss!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME