|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2007 : 18:38:11 [Permalink]
|
| No problem, thanks for the well reasoned responses, JUST DONT CALL US BRIGHTS! Yuck! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/14/2007 : 20:20:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
So, to summarize:
Dave pretty much gives up on the Ocala incident... |
Because I don't feel like filing FOIA requests right now and haven't yet seen my first $19,230.77 paycheck.| He defines UAP as a historical science, which, even after reading Massimo Pigliucci, confuses me. |
You've just gotta ask yourself what kind of experiments could be done here-and-now. Few? Then it's going to be historical.| Dave's ISSUAP hires various behavioral scientists to study how and why people experience "fantasy". |
No. I want to study why people prefer fantasy to reality, specifically focusing on why people seem to reject mundane explanations for UAP in favor of fantastical explanations involving little gray men and other woo.| Dave postulates a method of predicting future data by focusing on historical data, which I fear may severely test his professional staff. More to come here, I trust. |
We can make no scientific predictions of any sort without using data that's already been gathered (past tense). All scientific experiments seek to confirm or refute the predictions made based upon old data. All scientific experiments generate new data (because if it wasn't new data, the experiment need not have been done since we'd already have that data). I postulated nothing out-of-the-ordinary for any scientific research on any subject. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 00:28:31 [Permalink]
|
Big Papa Smurf.....
Dims? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 02:05:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
We can make no scientific predictions of any sort without using data that's already been gathered (past tense). All scientific experiments seek to confirm or refute the predictions made based upon old data. All scientific experiments generate new data (because if it wasn't new data, the experiment need not have been done since we'd already have that data). I postulated nothing out-of-the-ordinary for any scientific research on any subject.
I understood you to mean that you could predict from historical data, with certainty, the actual data that would result from the experimentation that was yet be done (future tense) to confirm (or refute) the predictions based on old data. I felt that perhaps that was the function of the experimentation part of the process, not the prediction part.
How do you predict data from experimentation that has not yet taken place? Is that the hypothesis phase of the SM? Does my error lie in assuming that you meant predict with certainty?
All scientific experiments generate new data (because if it wasn't new data, the experiment need not have been done since we'd already have that data).
If an experiment is undertaken to confirm or refute historical data, and successfully confirms such data, wasn't that experiment necessary to establish that the new data is one and the same as the old data we already had? Is that not why experiments are sometimes repeated over and over?
You see, although your communication skills are excellent, they are no match for my lack of comprehension. Please give me a point or two for effort as well as tenacity. Forget the style, thats where hubris really begins. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 11:57:33 [Permalink]
|
Oh, Dave.....
Unfortunately, you are remarkably naive concerning common practice in establishing executive compensation. You will be paid monthly, not weekly. This will be to preserve as much as possible of the Foundations's capital base interest earning capacity. However, you will ask to be paid daily, your billionaire boss will offer to pay you on a five-year cycle.
After long negotiation involving semiweekly and two-and-a-half-year proposals, you will prevail and following an offer of annual compensation (if accepted, your billionaire boss intends to file for bankrupcy on the 364th day of the fiscal year), you win a pyrrhic victory and agree to monthly compensation. This you will elect to defer in some arcane manner in order to escape taxation (see below).
Do not forget that after Federal, state, and local taxes, FICA, and countless other deductions that you have to hire a CPA to decipher, your take-home will probably be well under fifty thousand a month - perhaps a paltry 35 or 40K. Hardly worth it. I just raised the ante to the million we don't have to pay Randi because of his skepticitus. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 09/15/2007 : 11:57:40 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck, I still haven't pulled enough time out of my <ahem> to answer your request for a method. I cannot promise that I will get to it, but eventually I may. So instead, I will answer your questions to Dave W.Originally posted by bngbuck
I understood you to mean that you could predict from historical data, with certainty, the actual data that would result from the experimentation that was yet be done (future tense) to confirm (or refute) the predictions based on old data. I felt that perhaps that was the function of the experimentation part of the process, not the prediction part. |
Umm...sortof. There are very few things that can be predicted "with certainty" (outside of quantum mechanics, which I sometimes think is so phenomenally successful only because it predicts probabilities). It is, however, a fundamental part of all science to predict the outcome of an experiment prior to starting. If the experiment confirms your predictions, your hypothesis is closer to becoming a theory; if the experiment does not confirm your predictions, you either modify or trash your hypothesis or theory. | How do you predict data from experimentation that has not yet taken place? Is that the hypothesis phase of the SM? Does my error lie in assuming that you meant predict with certainty? |
I think that is exactly where you are mistaken. | If an experiment is undertaken to confirm or refute historical data, and successfully confirms such data, wasn't that experiment necessary to establish that the new data is one and the same as the old data we already had? Is that not why experiments are sometimes repeated over and over? |
Sometimes. The new experiment is more useful to show that your experimentation methods are similar enough to produce the same results. Then you can continue and conduct your new experiment. It is vitally important, however, to retain the ability to repeat previous experiments; otherwise, there might be some unknown or unsuspected variable causing differing results that may never be found. | You see, although your communication skills are excellent, they are no match for my lack of comprehension. Please give me a point or two for effort as well as tenacity. Forget the style, thats where hubris really begins. |
I often feel that way myself.  |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 13:09:38 [Permalink]
|
Boron.....
You said:
Sometimes. The new experiment is more useful to show that your experimentation methods are similar enough to produce the same results.
Dave said:
All scientific experiments generate new data (because if it wasn't new data, the experiment need not have been done since we'd already have that data).
Maybe Dave can sort this out?
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 21:08:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Boron.....
You said:
Sometimes. The new experiment is more useful to show that your experimentation methods are similar enough to produce the same results.
Dave said:
All scientific experiments generate new data (because if it wasn't new data, the experiment need not have been done since we'd already have that data).
Maybe Dave can sort this out? |
There is no contradiction here. One very common reason for repeating old experiments is to ensure the data from the next experiment (the one that counts) is relevant. So it is useless to repeat old experiments for the sake of repeating an old experiment; however, it is vitally important to repeat old experiments to validate the new data gathered in the real experiment. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 22:35:35 [Permalink]
|
This should have been easy.
We have a bunch of observations (old data) that we wish to explain, so we formulate a hypothesis to do so.
We create an experiment to verify the hypothesis. That experiment must generate new data, or we would already have the data to confirm or disconfirm our hypothesis.
I left off any thoughts of re-confirmation and/or old experiments redone for teaching purposes (who here has distilled wood?), because I was talking about why we do experiments in the first place.
As for the prediction part, a hypothesis is a prediction. "If we do this experiment - and my hypothesis is correct - then we should see these results." No serious scientist does an experiment without a good idea of what the results should be if the hypothesis being tested is correct. Otherwise, how would she know whether the hypothesis was confirmed? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2007 : 10:47:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Thanks for your exasperated but tolerant reply to my little conundrum of circumlocision (that's Yiddish for incisive circular expression).
Your well-phrased reductio ad comprehensio explanation has finally reached the dim recesses of the tiny bone cave in which my embrionic brain resides.
I'm looking forward to the next 79 years. I may take up English as a method of articulation.... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 21:28:03 [Permalink]
|
Dave W......
Sunshine and butterflies, eh?
"This should have been easy" Grump, grump, harraumph!
Anyway, the postman cometh and he rings twice. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 07:03:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Anyway, the postman cometh and he rings twice.
|
Hey, I say that one in a theater setting two years ago in London with Val Kilmer playing the lead role!
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 11:53:17 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
Yes, I read the book back in the thirties. It generated four movies, the latest about twenty years ago with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange.
Dave will get the double entendre' involving authors James Cain and Eugene O'Neill. It is rather convoluted. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2007 : 20:29:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck over at Skepticality
I want opinion on why the subject has "legs" and has had for almost sixty years. |
I don't recall if you put your question in such simple terms over here, bngbuck, but I don't recall it.
You really are looking for an explanation from psychologists, sociologists and/or behaviorists. Skeptics don't necessarily have any particular training in this regard, as most of the time the question of interest is whether a particular claim of fact is true or not, and not why it might be seen as true. Not being able to read minds, it's a lot more difficult to pin down the motivators for having out-of-the-mainstream beliefs. Certainly sometimes it's important to understand the behavior (like with the IDists' political agenda), but the reason for (for example) someone's insistence that Nessie exists is usually going to be quite difficult to learn without spending years getting to know the person. The reasons why the UAP phenomenon "has legs" are numerous, diverse and largely personal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Brights' opinions of select UFO sightings P.S.
