|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 3, 2018 11:32:13 GMT
2. You haven't shown those other factors are a factor at all. You also seem to be pretending as if clinical trials aren't a thing, as if doctors randomly decided to start dosing people with radiation for shits and giggles even though there wasn't any evidence it did anything. You're the one suggesting that all or at least some medical treatments are no better than witch doctors; I'd say the burden is on you to prove that. That's my point. You haven't shown that medical treatments are a factor at all. At least not by showing cancer deaths decrease by less than two percent per year. I wouldn't count here the number of factors that change by more than two percent per year because there are too many. That is the reason that the change in cancer death rates is "statistically insignificant." There is no reason to believe medical treatments are the cause of improvements so very minuscule. Having the mind of a small child and believing in science is not the same as understanding these sound and logical mathematical concepts. I'm proving as much as I need quite well here.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 3, 2018 12:21:59 GMT
2. You haven't shown those other factors are a factor at all. You also seem to be pretending as if clinical trials aren't a thing, as if doctors randomly decided to start dosing people with radiation for shits and giggles even though there wasn't any evidence it did anything. You're the one suggesting that all or at least some medical treatments are no better than witch doctors; I'd say the burden is on you to prove that. That's my point. You haven't shown that medical treatments are a factor at all. At least not by showing cancer deaths decrease by less than two percent per year. I wouldn't count here the number of factors that change by more than two percent per year because there are too many. That is the reason that the change in cancer death rates is "statistically insignificant." There is no reason to believe medical treatments are the cause of improvements so very minuscule. Having the mind of a small child and believing in science is not the same as understanding these sound and logical mathematical concepts. I'm proving as much as I need quite well here. Stop misusing mathematical terminology such as "statistical significance". You have no idea what it means or how it's determined and you're just making a complete fool of yourself. If you insist on claiming your misuse of the term is the correct usage then show that the p-value is </= .05 or show why this particular example should have an alpha defined differently than .05 then show that the p-value is less than or equal to that defined alpha.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 3, 2018 12:48:05 GMT
That's my point. You haven't shown that medical treatments are a factor at all. At least not by showing cancer deaths decrease by less than two percent per year. I wouldn't count here the number of factors that change by more than two percent per year because there are too many. That is the reason that the change in cancer death rates is "statistically insignificant." There is no reason to believe medical treatments are the cause of improvements so very minuscule. Having the mind of a small child and believing in science is not the same as understanding these sound and logical mathematical concepts. I'm proving as much as I need quite well here. Stop misusing mathematical terminology such as "statistical significance". You have no idea what it means or how it's determined and you're just making a complete fool of yourself. If you insist on claiming your misuse of the term is the correct usage then show that the p-value is </= .05 or show why this particular example should have an alpha defined differently than .05 then show that the p-value is less than or equal to that defined alpha. I'm going to reveal a secret about debate you probably don't know. It is different from science, but not much. In science people prove things with their own data. In debate it is more effective to prove things with your opponent's data when and where that is possible. Science doesn't have opponents. What I have accomplished here is that you are trying use a change of about one per cent per year to suggest significant improvements against cancer. This saves me the great trouble of verifying my own data, we are using yours. I don't have to argue about the qualifications or biases of the people who collected my data. At least not with you since you collected it. One of the reasons you're so happy to use your (my) data is that you believe it makes your case. I'm content to allow you to go on believing it makes your case as long as the data itself, if not your analysis, is correct. If the news were different, if food quality and freshness were down five percent, and less strenuous jobs were down (strenuous job were up) five percent, and comfortable conditions down (exposure to foul weather was up) five percent and the cancer death rate improved (fewer cancer deaths) by one percent, that could indicate improvements in medical treatments were significant. The news is not different.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 3, 2018 12:49:54 GMT
Stop misusing mathematical terminology such as "statistical significance". You have no idea what it means or how it's determined and you're just making a complete fool of yourself. If you insist on claiming your misuse of the term is the correct usage then show that the p-value is </= .05 or show why this particular example should have an alpha defined differently than .05 then show that the p-value is less than or equal to that defined alpha. I'm going to reveal a secret about debate you probably don't know. It is different from science, but not much. In science people prove things with their own data. In debate it is more effective to prove things with your opponent's data when and where that is possible. Science doesn't have opponents. What I have accomplished here is that you are trying use a change of about one per cent per year to suggest significant improvements against cancer. This saves me the great trouble of verifying my own data, we are using yours. I don't have to argue about the qualifications or biases of the people who collected my data. At least not with you since you collected it. One of the reasons you're so happy to use your (my) data is that you believe it makes your case. I'm content to allow you to go on believing it makes your case as long as the data itself, if not your analysis, is correct. If the news were different, if food quality and freshness were down five percent, and less strenuous jobs were down (strenuous job were up) five percent, and comfortable conditions down (exposure to foul weather was up) five percent and the cancer death rate improved (fewer cancer deaths) by one percent, that could indicate improvements in medical treatments were significant. The news is not different. That was a lot of words just to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 3, 2018 13:10:15 GMT
I'm going to reveal a secret about debate you probably don't know. It is different from science, but not much. In science people prove things with their own data. In debate it is more effective to prove things with your opponent's data when and where that is possible. Science doesn't have opponents. What I have accomplished here is that you are trying use a change of about one per cent per year to suggest significant improvements against cancer. This saves me the great trouble of verifying my own data, we are using yours. I don't have to argue about the qualifications or biases of the people who collected my data. At least not with you since you collected it. One of the reasons you're so happy to use your (my) data is that you believe it makes your case. I'm content to allow you to go on believing it makes your case as long as the data itself, if not your analysis, is correct. If the news were different, if food quality and freshness were down five percent, and less strenuous jobs were down (strenuous job were up) five percent, and comfortable conditions down (exposure to foul weather was up) five percent and the cancer death rate improved (fewer cancer deaths) by one percent, that could indicate improvements in medical treatments were significant. The news is not different. That was a lot of words just to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. We can't all be Johnny Cash. I don't talk unless I know what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 3, 2018 13:13:00 GMT
That was a lot of words just to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. We can't all be Johnny Cash. I don't talk unless I know what I'm talking about. You're the first person I've ever known who intentionally refrains from ever speaking.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 3, 2018 13:20:32 GMT
2. You haven't shown those other factors are a factor at all. You also seem to be pretending as if clinical trials aren't a thing, as if doctors randomly decided to start dosing people with radiation for shits and giggles even though there wasn't any evidence it did anything. You're the one suggesting that all or at least some medical treatments are no better than witch doctors; I'd say the burden is on you to prove that. ...There is no reason to believe medical treatments are the cause of improvements so very minuscule. Since Cash has taken up the issue of statistical significance, I'll just reiterate this question that you ignored: Answer this question with honesty and integrity, Arlon: if you happen to get cancer, are you going to seek treatment from medical professionals? How about if you have a heart attack: what would you do?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 3, 2018 13:23:18 GMT
We can't all be Johnny Cash. I don't talk unless I know what I'm talking about. You're the first person I've ever known who intentionally refrains from ever speaking. It's a pity you don't get out more. Maybe read chapter 56 of the Tao Te Ching.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 3, 2018 13:25:57 GMT
You're the first person I've ever known who intentionally refrains from ever speaking. It's a pity you don't get out more. Maybe read chapter 56 of the Tao Te Ching. Still no explanation of your misuse of "statistical significance"?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 3, 2018 13:30:44 GMT
...There is no reason to believe medical treatments are the cause of improvements so very minuscule. Since Cash has taken up the issue of statistical significance, I'll just reiterate this question that you ignored: Answer this question with honesty and integrity, Arlon: if you happen to get cancer, are you going to seek treatment from medical professionals? How about if you have a heart attack: what would you do? I have medicare, I think. I'm not sure what else. If it appears I need medical treatment and I can afford it I might get it or not after weighing the costs against the likelihood of success. If I cannot afford it I would refuse it, no troublesome decision necessary. Weren't you supposed to be the one so big on logic?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 3, 2018 13:35:08 GMT
It's a pity you don't get out more. Maybe read chapter 56 of the Tao Te Ching. Still no explanation of your misuse of "statistical significance"? That would be your misuse, not mine. In a "general" case five percent (your number) or less is not statistically significant. Two percent is less than five percent, so I'm right it is not significant. In a special case where two percent is statistically significant it would be necessary to somehow eliminate all those other factors I mentioned, which you clearly did not.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 3, 2018 13:41:54 GMT
Still no explanation of your misuse of "statistical significance"? That would be your misuse, not mine. In a "general" case five percent (your number) or less is not statistically significant. Two percent is less than five percent, so I'm right it is not significant. In a special case where two percent is statistically significant it would be necessary to somehow eliminate all those other factors I mentioned, which you clearly did not. So you don't know the difference between a total percentage and a rate of change? Well okay then.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 3, 2018 14:06:27 GMT
That would be your misuse, not mine. In a "general" case five percent (your number) or less is not statistically significant. Two percent is less than five percent, so I'm right it is not significant. In a special case where two percent is statistically significant it would be necessary to somehow eliminate all those other factors I mentioned, which you clearly did not. So you don't know the difference between a total percentage and a rate of change? Well okay then. What I know and what you think I know are not the same thing. I think you'd have more success with the Tao Te Ching, but I don't you any better than you know me.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Feb 3, 2018 14:09:11 GMT
So you don't know the difference between a total percentage and a rate of change? Well okay then. What I know and what you think I know are not the same thing. I think you'd have more success with the Tao Te Ching, but I don't you any better than you know me. So you still have no explanation for your misuse of "statistical significance"? What's the holdup?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 15:35:38 GMT
That would be your misuse, not mine. In a "general" case five percent (your number) or less is not statistically significant. Two percent is less than five percent, so I'm right it is not significant. In a special case where two percent is statistically significant it would be necessary to somehow eliminate all those other factors I mentioned, which you clearly did not. So you don't know the difference between a total percentage and a rate of change? Well okay then. Ever hear of a Cargo Cult religion? Natives on some of the islands the US military used in World War II benefitted greatly from the military presence - soldiers would give them food, medical care, they would take cast off materials for construction, etc. Years after the military left, or so it's claimed, people returned to the islands to find that the natives had built airfields complete with buildings, control towers, even wooden models of aircraft on the runways. Apparently they hoped that by imitating the actions of their mysterious benefactors, it would cause them to return and donate things to the locals again. Whenever I see Arlon talking about anything, I'm reminded of that story. It's like he has observed science and math and history and, well, everything, from a distance... and gained just enough superficial understanding of it to kind of reproduce the outlines of it. All whilst getting the actual substance completely and totally wrong, every single time. Cargo cult knowledge. It's really quite impressive.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 3, 2018 17:20:40 GMT
Since Cash has taken up the issue of statistical significance, I'll just reiterate this question that you ignored: Answer this question with honesty and integrity, Arlon: if you happen to get cancer, are you going to seek treatment from medical professionals? How about if you have a heart attack: what would you do? I have medicare, I think. I'm not sure what else. If it appears I need medical treatment and I can afford it I might get it or not after weighing the costs against the likelihood of success. If I cannot afford it I would refuse it, no troublesome decision necessary. Weren't you supposed to be the one so big on logic? Well now how are you going to determine the likelihood of success if, according to you, there's no evidence that medical treatment has any affect on cancer? Why would you even consider medical treatment at all as opposed to... eating cleaner food, or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 3, 2018 19:49:18 GMT
Proving relativity involves speeds and energies well beyond practical resources. Completely wrong again as usual. The first practical experiment to detect relativistic mass increase was done in 1900. In fact it predated Einstein's publication of the special theory of relativity. Kaufmann's experiments
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 1:56:41 GMT
Proving relativity involves speeds and energies well beyond practical resources. More cargo cult science pronouncements. The first experiments demonstrating relativistic mass increases were done with beta radiation sources and electrical and magnetic fields. It's the kind of equipment a high school could afford. A skilled electrical type could probably knock most of it up in his garage.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 4, 2018 2:45:25 GMT
2. Life is just a complex of non-life material, which we know can combine on its own. Life from non-life is a rational extrapolation from how non-life behaves. Is the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts? I've never really understood what that phrase is supposed to mean. If it means that the parts are able to combine to do things that the parts can't do alone, then sure, but that doesn't require anything supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 4, 2018 5:41:21 GMT
I've never really understood what that phrase is supposed to mean. If it means that the parts are able to combine to do things that the parts can't do alone, then sure, but that doesn't require anything supernatural. I can build a mountain of non-life material, but all I would have is a mountain of non-life material. What does it require to become life? For starters, you need the non-life material to work together to reproduce. Combine pentose, a phosphate group and a nitrogenous base and you get RNA or DNA; voila!
|
|