|
Post by goz on Jan 13, 2019 1:21:18 GMT
Back by popular demand.
There are so many this week, however this is my contender, by PlanetArlon, who was trying to deny that medical technology had advanced to the stage of doing heart lung transplants. ( because, you know, …..'fake science that does not accord with his own quasi scientific Creationist viewpoint)
also with a requirement for a pic of the event or it didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 13, 2019 1:40:15 GMT
Wait, so does he seriously think heart transplants don't actually exist?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 13, 2019 1:47:50 GMT
This thread means nothing without a link.
And you can quote that next week if you want.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 13, 2019 1:52:07 GMT
Wait, so does he seriously think heart transplants don't actually exist? You would have to ask him, however basically.....yes.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 13, 2019 1:55:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 13, 2019 2:39:15 GMT
gozzy
Touchy aren't we?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 13, 2019 2:45:43 GMT
Maybe we should appreciate goz more. Someone's got to be the court buffoon, and it might as well be her.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 13, 2019 6:14:31 GMT
Arlon has produced a classic that even the boldest of theists might find indigestible:
"No real scientist would dare deny my scientific claims for fear of losing his or her job."
~ Arlon10
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 13, 2019 6:23:57 GMT
Arlon has produced a classic that even the boldest of theists might find indigestible: "No real scientist would dare deny my scientific claims for fear of losing his or her job."~ Arlon10 Yeah, that's a good one! It would, however be shame if Arlon was the only star of this thread, however he has really said a lot of weird crap lately.( I mean more than usual)
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jan 13, 2019 9:52:26 GMT
I wonder if they record these things nowadays in case they accidentally put a bag of potatoes inside the patient’s chest.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jan 13, 2019 9:55:28 GMT
Was she being touchy or snappy?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 13, 2019 11:07:59 GMT
Wait, so does he seriously think heart transplants don't actually exist? On his thread, "The Real Frankenstein" he said: "I have always had difficulty accepting the science of heart transplants."
I asked him, "Exactly what do you mean?"
He replied: "I saw a video of a hip replacement on a PBS television documentary and it was very convincing. The videos of heart transplants I've seen on the internet seem cheesy and easily faked."
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 13, 2019 12:03:19 GMT
Back by popular demand. There are so many this week, however this is my contender, by PlanetArlon, who was trying to deny that medical technology had advanced to the stage of doing heart lung transplants. ( because, you know, …..'fake science that does not accord with his own quasi scientific Creationist viewpoint) also with a requirement for a pic of the event or it didn't happen. Do I have to remind you that Donald Trump is president of the United States and that I opposed it from the very start? How then is it I am only source of wonderment? I should think the world is full of surprise and bewilderment. You ought to thank me for making this board so interesting it tops that.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 13, 2019 12:13:37 GMT
Do I have to remind you that Donald Trump is president of the United States and that I opposed it from the very start? How then is it I am only source of wonderment? Does Donald Trump post on this board?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 13, 2019 12:56:14 GMT
Arlon has produced a classic that even the boldest of theists might find indigestible: "No real scientist would dare deny my scientific claims for fear of losing his or her job."~ Arlon10 Are you familiar with the "bell curve"? It is more technically called the "normal curve." y=(1/(standard deviation * square root (2pi))) * e^-(((x - mean)^2)/2 x standard deviation ^2) Note : Standard deviation = square root ((sum((x-avg(x))^2))/n) It's called the bell curve because it is shaped somewhat like a bell being high in the middle. From there on either side it slopes more sharply down. Then as you approach the edges it slopes more slowly out. It can be a fair description of a trait like heights of people. Most people will have a height that is in or very near the middle height of the data. As you approach the edges the number people who have that height will decrease until you get to the edges where there are extremely few people who are that very tall or very short. Of course real life is almost always more complicated as different areas of the world have different "normal" height, but the math can be useful as long a it is understood to be very roughly approximate and not ceteris paribus. Sometimes you can fine tune it by just using people from one area of the world for example Japan. It is almost never possible with statistical analysis to fine tune the data very far though. There are simply too many unknown variables. Why did I mention all this? I have a point to make about the edges of the bell curve on intelligence. Intelligence as often measured appears to follow the bell curve closely enough. That is that most people have a level of intelligence that is at or near average intelligence. There are extremely intelligent people on the right edge, but they are extremely few. There are people on the left edge that are extremely challenged by things requiring intelligence. They too are extremely few. And finally here is my point, you, being in the middle, often mistake people on the right edge for people on the left edge. A person who is much more intelligent than you will appear to you like a person is who far less intelligent. You get the edges mixed up. You do that a lot. This was known well before Dunning Kruger, which is more about the left edge. Suppose a person like me who has been measured to have a very high intelligence visits this discussion. I know that doesn't seem very likely, but suppose by some curfuffle it happens. You are likely to believe the person is on the left edge of the curve rather than the right. I come here and actually know and use debating terms, definitions, and formulas correctly yet a number of you refuse to believe I could be right when you don't understand it yourself as much as you believe. So I forgive you. It's what happens. It is amusing in way like watching a litter of puppies.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 13, 2019 13:07:31 GMT
Wait, so does he seriously think heart transplants don't actually exist? On his thread, "The Real Frankenstein" he said: "I have always had difficulty accepting the science of heart transplants."
I asked him, "Exactly what do you mean?"
He replied: "I saw a video of a hip replacement on a PBS television documentary and it was very convincing. The videos of heart transplants I've seen on the internet seem cheesy and easily faked."
Truth be told. Maybe you should be a journalist.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 13, 2019 13:11:43 GMT
Arlon has produced a classic that even the boldest of theists might find indigestible: "No real scientist would dare deny my scientific claims for fear of losing his or her job."~ Arlon10 Are you familiar with the "bell curve"? It is more technically called the "normal curve." y=(1/(standard deviation * square root (2pi))) * e^-(((x - mean)^2)/2 x standard deviation ^2) Note : Standard deviation = square root ((sum((x-avg(x))^2))/n) It's called the bell curve because it is shaped somewhat like a bell being high in the middle. From there on either side it slopes more sharply down. Then as you approach the edges it slopes more slowly out. It can be a fair description of a trait like heights of people. Most people will have a height that is in or very near the middle height of the data. As you approach the edges the number people who have that height will decrease until you get to the edges where there are extremely few people who are that very tall or very short. Of course real life is almost always more complicated as different areas of the world have different "normal" height, but the math can be useful as long a it is understood to be very roughly approximate and not ceteris paribus. Sometimes you can fine tune it by just using people from one area of the world for example Japan. It is almost never possible with statistical analysis to fine tune the data very far though. There are simply too many unknown variables. Why did I mention all this? I have a point to make about the edges of the bell curve on intelligence. Intelligence as often measured appears to follow the bell curve closely enough. That is that most people have a level of intelligence that is at or near average intelligence. There are extremely intelligent people on the right edge, but they are extremely few. There are people on the left edge that are extremely challenged by things requiring intelligence. They too are extremely few. And finally here is my point, you, being in the middle, often mistake people on the right edge for people on the left edge. A person who is much more intelligent than you will appear to you like a person is who far less intelligent. You get the edges mixed up. You do that a lot. This was known well before Dunning Kruger, which is more about the left edge. Suppose a person like me who has been measured to have a very high intelligence visits this discussion. I know that doesn't seem very likely, but suppose by some curfuffle it happens. You are likely to believe the person is on the left edge of the curve rather than the right. I come here and actually know and use debating terms, definitions, and formulas correctly yet a number of you refuse to believe I could be right when you don't understand it yourself as much as you believe. So I forgive you. It's what happens. It is amusing in way like watching a litter of puppies. Lots of words to say very little about statistical retribution. In fact nothing that people who studied statistics didn't already know. To stop your paragraph from being just a word salad, all you need to to is provide evidence for the bolded claim. Can you do it? I guess the probability of you doing it is as high as the probability of presenting scientific evidence that will overturn Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Meaning: Close to zero.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 13, 2019 13:25:28 GMT
Are you familiar with the "bell curve"? It is more technically called the "normal curve." y=(1/(standard deviation * square root (2pi))) * e^-(((x - mean)^2)/2 x standard deviation ^2) Note : Standard deviation = square root ((sum((x-avg(x))^2))/n) It's called the bell curve because it is shaped somewhat like a bell being high in the middle. From there on either side it slopes more sharply down. Then as you approach the edges it slopes more slowly out. It can be a fair description of a trait like heights of people. Most people will have a height that is in or very near the middle height of the data. As you approach the edges the number people who have that height will decrease until you get to the edges where there are extremely few people who are that very tall or very short. Of course real life is almost always more complicated as different areas of the world have different "normal" height, but the math can be useful as long a it is understood to be very roughly approximate and not ceteris paribus. Sometimes you can fine tune it by just using people from one area of the world for example Japan. It is almost never possible with statistical analysis to fine tune the data very far though. There are simply too many unknown variables. Why did I mention all this? I have a point to make about the edges of the bell curve on intelligence. Intelligence as often measured appears to follow the bell curve closely enough. That is that most people have a level of intelligence that is at or near average intelligence. There are extremely intelligent people on the right edge, but they are extremely few. There are people on the left edge that are extremely challenged by things requiring intelligence. They too are extremely few. And finally here is my point, you, being in the middle, often mistake people on the right edge for people on the left edge. A person who is much more intelligent than you will appear to you like a person is who far less intelligent. You get the edges mixed up. You do that a lot. This was known well before Dunning Kruger, which is more about the left edge. Suppose a person like me who has been measured to have a very high intelligence visits this discussion. I know that doesn't seem very likely, but suppose by some curfuffle it happens. You are likely to believe the person is on the left edge of the curve rather than the right. I come here and actually know and use debating terms, definitions, and formulas correctly yet a number of you refuse to believe I could be right when you don't understand it yourself as much as you believe. So I forgive you. It's what happens. It is amusing in way like watching a litter of puppies. Lots of words to say very little about statistical retribution. In fact nothing that people who studied statistics didn't already know. To stop your paragraph from being just a word salad, all you need to to is provide evidence for the bolded claim. Can you do it? I guess the probability of you doing it is as high as the probability of presenting scientific evidence that will overturn Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Meaning: Close to zero. Are you really not aware of examples? They are most of what this board discusses. Dunning Kruger is a roughly similar thing. Notice a phenomena that enforces your delusions. There are "so many" people not on either end of the bell curve. That makes it particularly difficult to persuade you that you are wrong. You believe your majority is the result of higher intelligence rather than middle intelligence, an obvious failure to understand normal distributions.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 13, 2019 13:44:36 GMT
Lots of words to say very little about statistical retribution. In fact nothing that people who studied statistics didn't already know. To stop your paragraph from being just a word salad, all you need to to is provide evidence for the bolded claim. Can you do it? Are you really not aware of examples? They are most of what this board discusses. Dunning Kruger is a roughly similar thing. I'm aware of Dunning-Kruger. But so far I have failed to notice that effect in Aj_June . Notice a phenomena that enforces your delusions. There are "so many" people not on either end of the bell curve. False. There is exactly one person not on either end of the bell curve. That would be the person with exact median intelligence. All other people in the world are on one end of the bell curve. Unless by "end" you don't mean "side". EDIT: You may have meant "tail end" when you were saying "end". In that case, I apologize. English is my third language.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 13, 2019 21:42:12 GMT
Are you really not aware of examples? They are most of what this board discusses. Dunning Kruger is a roughly similar thing. I'm aware of Dunning-Kruger. But so far I have failed to notice that effect in Aj_June . Notice a phenomena that enforces your delusions. There are "so many" people not on either end of the bell curve. False. There is exactly one person not on either end of the bell curve. That would be the person with exact median intelligence. All other people in the world are on one end of the bell curve. Unless by "end" you don't mean "side". EDIT: You may have meant "tail end" when you were saying "end". In that case, I apologize. English is my third language. Because English is not your first language, I apologize and have taken extra care to be clear. I suspect you're trying to be too "geometrical." 1. There is not necessarily "exactly one" person at any point on a normal distribution curve. Any number of people might have the same height, for example 5 feet 9 inches. Now if you complain that there must be some slight difference so that only one of them represents a point on the curve, you are probably right, but not necessarily right. Whether you are right is irrelevant since the means of measurement has limitations of precision. In actual practice with real data there will likely be hundreds of cases with the "same" measure, at least as far as the precision available goes. 2. I'm sorry, "edge" can be misleading in the context I used it. I did not mean an edge that has no width dimension like a line has no width dimension in geometry. For example if we say the bowl is on the "edge" of the table that can mean that it will stay there a very long time, whereas by your meaning of "edge" it would fall off immediately from the molecular movement above absolute zero temperature. So "edge" can and often does have a width dimension toward the interior of the object. I used it in that sense. 3. A normal curve is not a set of data. A set of data might have a graphical representation more or less similar to a normal curve, but the normal curve itself is a theoretical model devoid of data. The theoretical model has no "edge" in a geometrical sense because it goes on forever in either direction.
|
|