SI
SI
discoversearch

 Strategies & Market Trends | The Financial Collapse of 2001 and Beyond


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Follies who wrote (87143)2/12/2012 11:17:03 PM
From: Joseph Silent
2 Recommendations   of 107650
 
Do you disagree with the statements? Do you think the eruption is not a certainty?

Let's focus on the second: Do you think the eruption is not a certainty?

Here is the story.

A = {event that place X will erupt}

MQ, in his usual put-down style, attacked a simple post I made about karma. This is a subject he knows nothing about. Having pointed that out, and explaining why I could say, with probability 1, that the sun will rise tomorrow (without using science or technology), it became necessary to show that MQ has trouble even where science is concerned.

1. MQ says event A is highly likely, and P(A) = 1, in the same breath. Like MQ, one of those statements is redundant.

2. MQ has not shown us how he arrived at either clause.

3. MQ, apparently, can start anywhere and arrive anywhere. You can do this only if your mouth is larger than your head.

Now take the first: Do you disagree with the statements?

It is not my nature to agree or disagree. I do not attack people even when I know they are wrong, let alone toss around things I know little or nothing about. Now do you suppose MQ has any such constraints? :)

Whether place X erupts or not has nothing to do with how MQ decided it probably will and will in the same breath.


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Follies who wrote (87145)2/12/2012 11:35:19 PM
From: Joseph Silent
4 Recommendations   of 107650
 
In one simple and honest statement you have deftly explained

why freedom and education are both invaluable, and for some the choice is not easy. In many ways, it does not matter ....... because honesty is more important than either.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Joseph Silent who wrote (87146)2/12/2012 11:45:58 PM
From: Follies
2 Recommendations   of 107650
 
>>It is not my nature to agree or disagree. I do not attack people even when I know they are wrong

That seems to be exactly what your nature is.

I don't get your point. MQ made two statements, one of which completely subsumes the other, and MQ admits to that.

You don't say whether you agree or disagree with the statements, that does appear to be your nature, yet you insist on Knowing how he arrived at either statement.

You are right that my beliefs about whether the sun will rise tomorrow have nothing to do with whether the sun will actually rise, but that doesn't change my belief in the slightest. Now you could argue that I haveNt explained how I came to that belief, and since I haven't and won't you can chose to believe the opposite, that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Since we live in parallel universes we may both be right.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Follies who wrote (87143)2/13/2012 12:07:39 AM
From: Maurice Winn
2 Recommendations   of 107650
 
Thanks for unlurking. I know people are reading and thinking for themselves, but it's nice to have reality drop out of the aether. I'm fairly long in the tooth and have dealt with literally thousands of people over many years and when they come along with approaches like the Silencer, I know they are not really interested in thinking, discussing or reasoning, let alone learning something. So there's no point in me continuing with him [and it's obviously a him].

I didn't think it took highly concentrated reading to get my point on the eruption probability. The person who said "a billion years" is obviously not even reading, let alone thinking, and definitely ignorant [about that situation]. You obviously understood what I wrote and are curious about it. The Silencer just wants to score some silly points.

Meanwhile The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming have snow on Rome and a huge freeze across Europe. I should calculate probabilities for 2020 refreeze of Little Ice Age proportions or full-scale Reglaciation. At present it's more of a guess than a bet. I'm actually betting on Taupo's eruption [or one of the othe locations along the eruption zone out to White Island, such as Matata]. I wouldn't invest in high latitude places due to the risk of refreeze and have not yet bought tracts of Australia or Africa, but I'm thinking about it. San Diego region might be good as a speculative investment as hordes move south.

I absolutely would NOT buy anything in Taupo area and am reluctant to spend more than the odd night there. I do drive through it [if there are not continuous earthquakes at the time]. I do depend on the electricity supplies from the Waikato River, which would all cease, but disruption is not life-threatening to me, nor of great economic consequence.

People think Christchurch earthquakes have been a problem. That's nothing compared with what will happen when Taupo goes up. The earthquake in Wellington will also make Christchurch look minor. That's an event that will happen. The question is when. Wellington is all hills so that's going to be a lot more fun than Christchurch, which is all flat.

Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Follies who wrote (87148)2/13/2012 12:09:13 AM
From: Joseph Silent
5 Recommendations   of 107650
 
That seems to be exactly what your nature is.

To you perhaps, because you have chosen not to understand events from the start. MQ has a pattern, as bart has recognized.

I don't get your point. MQ made two statements, one of which completely subsumes the other, and MQ admits to that.

MQ took some time to recognize the blunder, and even so, still put on his best weasel suit.

Suppose MQ says "It is highly likely it will rain next week in Bora Bora", followed by "it is certain to rain next week in Bora Bora".

Both you and the National Enquirer may be interested in polling all the people on the face of the earth to determine how many agree and how many disagree. Let's say that, through standard sampling methodology, your sample gives you a probability estimate of 0.9. What does that number tell you? Will it rain? Will it not rain? Can you answer that question for me?

By asking me if I agree or disagree, you are doing this National Enquirer poll. Suppose I said I agree with
probability .9, or 0.99. What does it have to do with whether there is an eruption or not?

Whether this has to do with rain in Bora Bora, or an eruption in place X, your first task as a scientist is to establish methodology. Not opinion!

Forgive me if I don't care about invented opinion. I'd like to know how you got there. What if you ran around in your underwear at midnight and decided there would be an eruption only if you rammed into a tree, and no eruption otherwise? That would not be good for you or for the scientific method. You may love opinion. Science does not, except in special cases.

All this is independent of whether the event does or does not occur.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (87149)2/13/2012 12:14:58 AM
From: Joseph Silent
1 Recommendation   of 107650
 
I should calculate probabilities for 2020 refreeze of Little Ice Age proportions


LOL!

As the saying goes ..... there are three types of mathematicians ---

those who can count, and those who can't!

:)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: carranza2 who wrote (87132)2/13/2012 12:18:29 AM
From: Arran Yuan
   of 107650
 
Good refreshment read, thanks.

Fully participated or not, it is what it is; forced or willingly everyone has to bear the consequences.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Follies who wrote (87145)2/13/2012 1:39:01 AM
From: elmatador
5 Recommendations   of 107650
 
It was this type of encouragement that turned MQ into what he is today. When I was educating by kicking him out of the thread, everybody was saying but he is so funny and such.

Like that small kid who everybody finds funny when he sticks his tongue out at the age of three. Then he becomes a spoiled brat, no one traces back to that funny thing.

People here would flock to the BBR thread with him siding with him and supporting.

Now today see what he becomes. Gaga.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Follies who wrote (87143)2/13/2012 1:43:39 AM
From: elmatador
5 Recommendations   of 107650
 
Follies, JS means Descartes. Someone who wants to discuss certainty should better have read Descartes. That is the level of the discussion he wanted.

I don't believe you are a MQ and you really want to read a discussion that makes sense.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: elmatador2/13/2012 1:59:34 AM
   of 107650
 
Beef and water. Cattle Breeding Herd. Year-over-year percentage change. The shortage is being felt at meatpacking plants and large feedlots, where industry giants such as Cargill Inc. fatten cattle before slaughter.

Still, ranchers to the north aren't sure about whether to take on greater numbers of cattle. Not only is planting corn typically more profitable, but ranchers are wary of permanently adding cows from the southern Plains to their herds since the animals are bred for a warmer climate and tend to be smaller than those typically raised in the Midwest.

...
The issue of water demand also looms large, even if drought conditions ease. In the southwestern corner of Texas, ranchers can earn more money by selling water to city dwellers than by raising cattle, said Char Miller, a professor of environmental analysis at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif..
online.wsj.com


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.