Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Again, extrapolating the the laws of physics will likely be the same tomorrow as today is based on verifiable data. Assuming the existence of a god is based on what?
Where is the emotion in what I have said? Please point it out. I certainly hope you have not assumed emotion on my part because of the use of the 'baby step' simile in response to your 'leap' simile. I would think that most everyone, if not everyone, would readily understand the difference between 'barely a baby step' and a 'leap".
And extrapolation based on verifiable evidence is far, far more valid than one without. That you posit them to be equal simply baffles me.
"Again, extrapolating the the laws of physics will likely be the same tomorrow as today is based on verifiable data."
No it's not. It's based on historical observation and unsubstantiated conjecture.
Of course my position 'baffles' you it goes against your programming, it requires active thinking to understand. I've looked through all the other replies to my comments and they are all similar, some are even upset. It's not my fault, I'm just reporting facts.
1. There is no evidence of future events, there has never been evidence of future events
2. There is evidence of past events but there is no evidential link between these and future events (see point one)
3. Any connection between past and future events is therefore unsubstantiated
You are aware of statistics? If I throw a dice and get a 5, the odds of me getting a five next time do not change from the original throw, so I throw again and get another 5, the odds of me getting a third 5 on the next throw are the same, they do not change based on my past success. Well the odds of a successful scientific prediction do not change no matter how successful we have been in the past.
We create justification systems and use past success as a measure of future success, and yet there is no evidential link. This is an artefact of our linear thinking. This justification mechanism is called retroaction, it's a subconscious process that is deployed to manage our conscious thoughts and modify our responses to the environment. Just look at the replies I got, they are all using the same flawed reasoning and are all desperate to cling to the idea that an 'educated guess' (whatever that is supposed to be) is better than any other type of guess. Do you not see how ridiculous that is (see point one)?
We obfuscate the facts from ourselves because there are unpalatable, they do not fit with what we want to believe about science. Any justification system has to be unsubstantiated because there simply is no evidence of future events, therefore it makes no difference what we guess, whether we are aware of past events or of gut feelings - a guess is always just a guess.
I am astounded how simple facts can be so totally disregarded by people who claim to be rational.
WD
This is just wrong. The laws of physics are abstract systems that we impose on the natural world because they work. They won't cease to work in the minutes subsequent to this post. That's for certain.
"1. There is no evidence of future events, there has never been evidence of future events
2. There is evidence of past events but there is no evidential link between these and future events (see point one)
3. Any connection between past and future events is therefore unsubstantiated"
This is reductio ad absurdum. You're reducing complex evidences, physical processes and universal laws to "evidence of future events". Those things -- physical process, physical laws -- are not evidence of future events, they are evidences of the nature of the universe itself, including the dimension of time. Time exists as one dimension, part of spacetime, in the universe. That universe has fundamental laws that we can deduce from its very nature. The universe's nature is how it is, it is not going to change its fundamental nature just because humans perceive time as a linear concept and are thus unable to predict specific future events. What we know for certain is that yes, we can't currently predict future events, but that is no reason to assert that the universe's very nature will change so dramatically as to alter its own fundamental principles and thereby lead our physical laws to be useless.
"You are aware of statistics? If I throw a dice and get a 5, the odds of me getting a five next time do not change from the original throw, so I throw again and get another 5, the odds of me getting a third 5 on the next throw are the same, they do not change based on my past success. Well the odds of a successful scientific prediction do not change no matter how successful we have been in the past."
The dice and you -- all the energy and material that makes you up -- is subject to the circumstances of its being. That does not ever change nomatter what the probability calculations regarding repeat fives are.
"We create justification systems and use past success as a measure of future success, and yet there is no evidential link. This is an artefact of our linear thinking. This justification mechanism is called retroaction, it's a subconscious process that is deployed to manage our conscious thoughts and modify our responses to the environment. Just look at the replies I got, they are all using the same flawed reasoning and are all desperate to cling to the idea that an 'educated guess' (whatever that is supposed to be) is better than any other type of guess. Do you not see how ridiculous that is (see point one)?"
This is also false. There are substantial evidentiary links between past occurrence and future occurrence in the context of physical laws; our idea of "past" and "future" as regards the fundamental laws of the natural universe is the reason you can't see consistency between both. The universal laws don't change from one moment to the next. Time exists as one of the fundamentals of our universe. What you're saying is like saying "if we mightn't exist the way we do then what possible proof can we have that we can draw any solid conclusions from our current existence?"
Have you ever read the anthropic principle? Go read it.
"We obfuscate the facts from ourselves because there are unpalatable, they do not fit with what we want to believe about science. Any justification system has to be unsubstantiated because there simply is no evidence of future events, therefore it makes no difference what we guess, whether we are aware of past events or of gut feelings - a guess is always just a guess."
There is evidence that future exists for us, humans, in our current perceptional circumstances, with our current perceptional faculties. There is also irrefutable evidence therefore that future will not cease to exist. Time, again, is a fundamental of the natural universe. The laws surrounding it are explanations that rely on its consistency: its consistency is indisputable. Time, matter, gravity, energy, they exist and behave as they behave.
WilfDisney - "So without any proof whatsoever that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow you would state (based on your 'guess') that they will."
I never said that, suggested it, or even hinted that. So thanks for the strawman.
Then I misunderstood your post about my comment being a 'bridge too far'. I'm happy to accept the accusation of strawman if you are prepared to demonstrate my inference is wrong.
Would you state for the record that you do not believe the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow or retract your accusation of strawman.
Either would be fine.
WD
I will gladly take up the position that ALL available evidence supports the position that physics will be the SAME tomorrow as they are today, if you are willing to take the position that they will not be the same with no evidence that such is even likely or probable.
Why would I do that?
I have said all along that there is no evidence, if there is no evidence to support the former premise you present then there is no evidence to support the latter. Why would I adopt either position in the absence of fact, that's the sort of thing religions do.
WD
"Why would I do that?"
Because the position that the laws of physics, and the universe itself, could change as much to be unrecognizable tomorrow actually IS a positive claim. As such, I would like to see some evidence.
"I have said all along that there is no evidence, if there is no evidence to support the former premise you present then there is no evidence to support the latter. Why would I adopt either position in the absence of fact, that's the sort of thing religions do."
There is no evidence to support the former? Really? How about every single goddamned equation and experiment mankind has ever devised? Oh, those don't count, because reasons.You are simply WAY off base on this one. Every single piece of evidence we have, from the from biology to astrophysics, indicates that the laws of nature do not and never have changed. Meanwhile, you are telling us they can based on...? I can only assume you don't actually understand the concept of evidence, or you wouldn't have said something so insipid.
"So without any proof whatsoever that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow you would state (based on your 'guess') that they will."
A. The laws of physics have been the same as long as physicists have been around, and appear to have always been the same based on state and condition of the universe, and we have no reason to believe it will randomly change tomorrow for no apparent cause.
B. We understand a great deal about the fundamental forces of the universe, how they function, and even why they function that way to some degree. There are some things that could not change unless you fundamentally changed our universe, and since nothing appears to be able to do that at such a scale, there is little possibility of it happening.
C. Such solipsism is failed epistemology, that would rather have one ignore reality because it may not be real, than deal with it as it presents itself. It is the opposite of a methodology, it is an excuse to do or think nothing, and is frankly an insult to all actively intelligent beings on this planet.
Travis Hedglin - "C. Such solipsism is failed epistemology, that would rather have one ignore reality because it may not be real, than deal with it as it presents itself. It is the opposite of a methodology, it is an excuse to do or think nothing, and is frankly an insult to all actively intelligent beings on this planet."
It is even worse. His notion that past events do not provide clues about future events is refuted by babies; they only need to touch a hot stove once before they know what will happen if they do it again. Even earth worms can learn that to avoid certain areas where bad things have happened to them in the past. Anyone who took that philosophy seriously wouldn't last a day in the modern world. It is the talk of a crazy person, or a troll.
It is also in stark contradiction to our obvious ability to use accurate models of physics to do things reliably and safely in real life. If he drives a car, he is admitting that the physics are reliable and constant enough to trust ones own life on. This anti-intellectualism is retarded, and retarding, and will inevitably result in a mind incapable of empiricism and rational thought. Next up, he will tell us gravity doesn't exist and matter only attracts because we think it should, as postmodernism is slowly eroding peoples ability to realize that objective facts even exist at all! That is a special-ed type of magical thinking that should disturb us all.
This is unfounded abuse and you ought to be ashamed.
If you cannot partake in a reasoned debate like an adult then I'd appreciate you keep your irrelevant ranting to yourself, it only serves to illuminate your lack of intellectual sophistication.
WD
Are you suggesting the universe has a conscience?
I'm no troll. My opinion is developed from a well established philosophy. I have presented facts that so far, everyone has failed to counter. I am open to reasoned debate, I have yet to find anyone up to the task, just a lot of hyperbole and nonsense.
The quality of debate so far is akin to that of miffed Christians, frankly I'm disappointed.
If you think my facts are wrong then counter them, until you are willing or able to partake in a reasoned debate then I'd appreciate you keep your unjustified insults to yourself.
WD
Using reason, I disagree on all counts.
A. Observations from which we draw the conclusions of invariance have been around since we have been able to make enough observations to come to that conclusion, to be precise. There is no evidence that proves the laws of physics are perpetually invariant, the fact that we believe they are is a conclusion we have reached from our extremely insignificant (compared with the life span of the Universe) observations. The universe is always random, unless you are suggesting you have proof of predeterminism?
B. Is a completely circular argument. You cannot seriously suggest the fundamental nature of the Universe doesn't change because our understanding of it doesn't (which happens not to be true - standard model theory changes regularly).
C. I agree, but it is not me that is turning faith into reality. I have stated my facts, no one has refuted them. I have utilised scientific principle, identified where there is a lack of supporting evidence and pointed out where conclusions have been drawn without the support of empirical evidence. I stand by my opinion. I assert that it is those who cling to the unsubstantiated conjecture that are insulting intelligent beings.
Enough of your hyperbole, prove me wrong.
WD
"A. Observations from which we draw the conclusions of invariance have been around since we have been able to make enough observations to come to that conclusion, to be precise."
Even before invariance(Lorentz invariant, I hope not?), or uniformitarianism as some philosophers would call it, there were still people working out how the world works. Much of that work is still used today precisely because it still is correct, so things have not changed much since that time.
"There is no evidence that proves the laws of physics are perpetually invariant, the fact that we believe they are is a conclusion we have reached from our extremely insignificant (compared with the life span of the Universe) observations."
We have a snapshot(CMB) of the beginnings of this universe, guess what, it suggests that the laws of physics where the same then.
"The universe is always random, unless you are suggesting you have proof of predeterminism?"
Who told you the universe was random? We live in a causal universe, things don't happen for no reason. Provide evidence of something that happens without any cause. Good luck.
"B. Is a completely circular argument. You cannot seriously suggest the fundamental nature of the Universe doesn't change because our understanding of it doesn't (which happens not to be true - standard model theory changes regularly)."
Nope, you misunderstand the argument entirely. The universe is so predictable and reliable that we can use that reliability, you are doing so right now on your computer, but you claim that it is neither predictable or reliable. That makes you look rather silly, and the fact that you would even argue that it isn't reliable on a computer is a special kind of irony. One the rest of us find hilariously contradictory.
"C. I agree, but it is not me that is turning faith into reality. I have stated my facts, no one has refuted them. I have utilised scientific principle, identified where there is a lack of supporting evidence and pointed out where conclusions have been drawn without the support of empirical evidence. I stand by my opinion. I assert that it is those who cling to the unsubstantiated conjecture that are insulting intelligent beings."
You did no such thing. What does every piece of evidence we have gathered tell us about the reliability and predictability of the universe? I'll tell you. Every single piece of evidence indicates that universe is comprised of four fundamental forces, that those forces have been the same since the beginning, and that they will be the same tomorrow. They do not, however, indicate that anything that you have suggested is even possible.
"Enough of your hyperbole, prove me wrong."
Done, done, and done.
“Even before invariance(Lorentz invariant, I hope not?), or uniformitarianism as some philosophers would call it, there were still people working out how the world works. Much of that work is still used today precisely because it still is correct, so things have not changed much since that time.”
This is a fallacy. If I postulate that A is true because of X, Y and Z you cannot counter that with A is true because we have always believed A to be true, therefore it must be, that is the kind of argument religious people use. I reject this point.
“We have a snapshot(CMB) of the beginnings of this universe, guess what, it suggests that the laws of physics where the same then.”
CMB only shows us what the Universe was like once the temperature had dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen. Again, the laws of Physics may have been the same then, so what? You are committing the same fallacy as before, ‘A’ is not true tomorrow because it was true yesterday (or billions of years ago), to suggest it is if fallacious.
“Who told you the universe was random? We live in a causal universe, things don't happen for no reason. Provide evidence of something that happens without any cause. Good luck.”
I was given a hint by Heisenberg. The quantum slit experiment springs to mind as an event where we have observed effect before cause. The Uncertainty principle underpins single quantum event in the Universe. Luck is not required.
“Nope, you misunderstand the argument entirely. The universe is so predictable and reliable that we can use that reliability, you are doing so right now on your computer, but you claim that it is neither predictable or reliable. That makes you look rather silly, and the fact that you would even argue that it isn't reliable on a computer is a special kind of irony. One the rest of us find hilariously contradictory.”
I’m going to assume you have not ascertained the point I am making. I assert that there is no scientific evidence (empirical or otherwise) that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow and that we do not rely on evidence at all but we guess (or predict). It doesn’t matter how you justify that prediction, you can have all the historical information you want but at the point you ‘jump off’ (make that prediction) you are making a leap of faith. You openly accept that you rely on predictions. You have made my point for me perfectly. I’m sure the ‘rest’ will find your ability to shoot yourself in the foot (intellectually speaking) equally hilarious. Needless to say I don’t have to reject this point, because it is actually the point I’m making.
“What does every piece of evidence we have gathered tell us about the reliability and predictability of the universe? I'll tell you. Every single piece of evidence indicates that universe is comprised of four fundamental forces, that those forces have been the same since the beginning, and that they will be the same tomorrow. They do not, however, indicate that anything that you have suggested is even possible.”
An indication is not proof. I reject this point too. As I said, enough of your hyperbole, prove me wrong.
“Done, done, and done.”
It is interesting you feel you have ‘done’ it when all you have done is play fast and loose with the idea of proof. Don’t indicate or predict I’m wrong, show me the empirical evidence and prove me wrong. You cannot because there is no proof the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow and it makes no difference how much you regurgitate the same tired old fallacies I’ve seen time and time again – Science is a system of belief, and you cannot prove otherwise.
"This is a fallacy. If I postulate that A is true because of X, Y and Z you cannot counter that with A is true because we have always believed A to be true, therefore it must be, that is the kind of argument religious people use. I reject this point."
And:
"CMB only shows us what the Universe was like once the temperature had dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen. Again, the laws of Physics may have been the same then, so what? You are committing the same fallacy as before, ‘A’ is not true tomorrow because it was true yesterday (or billions of years ago), to suggest it is if fallacious."
This is part of the problem, you seem to think that the physics of the universe CAN change, despite the fact there is not a single conceivable mechanism by which it could do so. Your argument is like saying that electromagnetic cohesion could disappear tomorrow, for no apparent reason, which is the equivalent of proposing a magic spell. No, it is not fallacious to expect that I will exist five seconds from now because there is no valid reason to expect that I won't. In this instance you are making an extraordinary claim that the physics of our universe could fail tomorrow, without showing either how or why it is possible, and simply expecting us to accept it with no valid evidence or reasons. Now, I am going to make some basic predictions about tomorrow, and if they come to pass I expect you to crawl back here and admit that there is some constancy in the universe that can be relied upon.
1. The Earth will continue to rotate.
2. Gravity will continue to hold you to this planet.
3. You will continue holding a completely null perspective.
"I was given a hint by Heisenberg. The quantum slit experiment springs to mind as an event where we have observed effect before cause. The Uncertainty principle underpins single quantum event in the Universe. Luck is not required."
Good god people don't understand quantum physics. The uncertainty principle only deals with precision, as in we will never be able to accurately know the position and velocity of a particle at the same time. It doesn't mean that the actions of photons in a double-slit don't have a cause, only that we aren't able to quantify it because we can't calculate it without measuring it, and measuring always changes the speed and position and even state of the photon. Fundamentally there is still a cause, the emission of the photon and its subsequent measurement, it is not like something magicked the damn thing.
"I’m going to assume you have not ascertained the point I am making. I assert that there is no scientific evidence (empirical or otherwise) that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow and that we do not rely on evidence at all but we guess (or predict). It doesn’t matter how you justify that prediction, you can have all the historical information you want but at the point you ‘jump off’ (make that prediction) you are making a leap of faith. You openly accept that you rely on predictions. You have made my point for me perfectly. I’m sure the ‘rest’ will find your ability to shoot yourself in the foot (intellectually speaking) equally hilarious. Needless to say I don’t have to reject this point, because it is actually the point I’m making."
So, you are going to ignore the vast amount of evidence collected and verified throughout history because you BELIEVE the universe could simply change function for no good goddamn reason tomorrow? All that evidence doesn't count? We can't logically expect that we will exist a second from now? That is a daft argument. The only one of us with a hole in our feet is you, and it is more than one already. You are literally postulating that no one can make any sort of realistic predictions based on previous events, that is a position that has ZERO evidence, and we would not have even a single formula or theory if it were true.
You now have a burden, the burden of proving that physics aren't predictable or reliable, I expect you to meet that burden with actual evidence. Every single experiment ever devised is evidence that physics remains constant from one day to the next, so you have quite the mountain to climb, I look forward to seeing how you do it.
"An indication is not proof. I reject this point too. As I said, enough of your hyperbole, prove me wrong."
Now you are just being pedantic, "proof" in a realm outside of mathematics or logic is a colloquial use meaning evidence, you have now rejected the evidence because you didn't like the indication. Quit being a damn child.
"It is interesting you feel you have ‘done’ it when all you have done is play fast and loose with the idea of proof. Don’t indicate or predict I’m wrong, show me the empirical evidence and prove me wrong. You cannot because there is no proof the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow and it makes no difference how much you regurgitate the same tired old fallacies I’ve seen time and time again – Science is a system of belief, and you cannot prove otherwise."
The proof that physics will be the same tomorrow is the unavoidable fact that it is constant and has been for billions of years, and there is absolutely no mechanism by which it COULD change and constants that KEEP it from changing.
Do not get me wrong, I have no issue with science as a body of work, I find it the most reasonable explanation for things I am aware of. I have no issues with the body of observed data collected as an historical record, I have no problem with scientific predictions, they have worked so far, none of this is in dispute. The problem here is you are using information established using scientific prediction to prove scientific prediction is better than any other kind of prediction. Do you see the flaw in this approach? I would not accept this argument any more than I would accept a Christian using a Bible quote to demonstrate the truth of the Bible. It is a fallacy of recursion.
Going back to my statements,
1. There is no evidence of future events, there has never been evidence of future events
2. There is evidence of past events but there is no evidential link between these and future events (see point one)
3. Any connection between past and future events is therefore unsubstantiated
I still stand by this.
WD
"1. There is no evidence of future events, there has never been evidence of future events
2. There is evidence of past events but there is no evidential link between these and future events (see point one)
3. Any connection between past and future events is therefore unsubstantiated"
Here I will initiate you into a thought experiment:
A car that weighs 3,700 pounds is traveling at 30 MPH when it hits a wall, now pause, can we tell where and how force will be dispersed before it is? If we can, you are wrong.
WilfDisney:
"So without any proof whatsoever that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow you would state (based on your 'guess') that they will. This is a leap of faith no different to suggesting that a god exists."
The main problem here is that you are making a generalization fallacy about the meaning of 'guess'.
-One could make a well informed and educated guess about something(science)
Or
-One could make a blind faith 'guess' about something (religion)
"For me science is my chosen religion, but I'm happy to acknowledge that, are you?"
So you are happy to claim that science = religion?
Because if you consider all guesses the same, then that is what you are saying.
EG:
I can predict/ 'guess' that I will still have a PC in a few seconds(i might be wrong but it's unlikely that I will be).
I can believe/'guess' that I am being watched and cared for by an invisible father that does not give a shit about the woman being raped a few blocks away. He will send me to heaven when i die.
The difference in the 'guess' is quite evident.
One is based on evidence/facts the other is based on wishful thinking, emotions, bias and irrationality.
Claiming they are the same is just wrong.
There is no universe that you could be right.
Please check this, you definitely need it:
Distinguishing Between Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm
Thank you for the link but it's too simplistic to be of any use.
You might find this much more useful;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
Everything is based on bias. I have my biases you have yours, it is not reasonable to suggest any fact is not subject to bias. Wittgenstein said that the logic of facts cannot be represented.
Let's use the link you posted to examine my prepositions
1. There is no evidence of future events, there has never been evidence of future events
2. There is evidence of past events but there is no evidential link between these and future events (see point 1)
3. Any connection between past and future events is therefore unsubstantiated
Do you accept that point one is a fact? This is unqualified at this stage, we will get in to your qualifying criteria below.
Do you accept the first proposition in statement 2. 'There is evidence of past events'? I think we'd all agree that is a truth-statement or a fact. I then go on to say there is no evidential link between past and future events - if we accept point 1 to be true then this must also be true.
Statement 3 is where your distinction comes in. I say, 'Any connection between past and future events is therefore unsubstantiated.' you say it is substantiated by 'evidence/facts'. But we have established in point 1 & 2 that there is no evidence or facts?
Unless you can prove point 1 and 2 wrong then you cannot make the statement that one guess is any better than the other, it's does not stand to reason.
WD
WilfDisney - "science provides us with no empirical evidence of what will happen in the future"
VS
WilfDisney - "the odds of me getting a third 5 on the next throw are the same"
You tell us the probability of getting a dice result in the future based on what you have learned in the past, yet you tell us the past can't be used for evidence for the future. Trolling, trolling, trolling; rawhide!
That song now stuck in my head, Nyar. Thx a million. Although it does remind me of Rowdy Yates who was pretty damn hot.
Selective quoting is not big and it's not clever.
This is related to a point I was making about statistics, and the point I was making is that statistics do not change because of past results, exactly the opposite of the very selective quote you just posted.
If the best you can offer is to misrepresent my posts and cry 'troll' then there is no point me continuing to respond to you. Coupled with the retraction you have so far failed to make, I can only assume you have nothing more to add that is worthy of attention.
I have come across people like you before, presenting a point that is counter to your opinion does not make me a troll, defending myself against your pernicious brand of intellectual cowardice is my right and, again, does not make me a troll.
Cry troll as much as you like, I am no longer listening. A debate at this level is clearly beyond your capabilities, you had plenty of chances to be a decent and reasonable human being but you chose dispense with intellectual, reasonable debate and bully or cajole me into giving up, well to use the parlance of a modern idiom - FAIL. I will be interested to see what brand of idiot thinks this line of attack is worth following. (I see you have already attracted one)
I'm done with you.
WD
"...the point I was making is that statistics do not change because of past results..."
We are playing a game of poker, we are on the third hand, and two aces have already been used. Have the odds of getting an ace changed considering that the number of cards and obtainable aces has? Yes, your argument is retarded.
You are trying to separate individual events(same probability), with sets of events(differential probability), and that is false. We HAVE to deal with Stochastic problems usually using a Langevin equation. Your grasp of both physics, and probability, is troubling. Let me ask you a question, if you have a test with 95% accuracy for a illness affecting 1% of the population, what are the chances that a single given positive is true?
If you say 95% you need to go back to school.
First of all my son has a mental illness and I am deeply offended by your inappropriate use of the word 'retarded', a little intellectual maturity would do here.
Do not answer incorrectly for me then claim I 'need to go back to school'.
Unfortunately, that's typical of the appalling dishonesty I've learned I'm likely to encounter from people like you.
WD
WilfDisney - 'Unfortunately, that's typical of the appalling dishonesty I've learned I'm likely to encounter from people like you.'
Again, citing the past as an indication of the future; while you continue to argue against this practice.
"First of all my son has a mental illness and I am deeply offended by your inappropriate use of the word 'retarded', a little intellectual maturity would do here."
You're offended? So fucking what? Your literal inability to actually address a damn point is offensive to me, but you don't see me fucking whinging about it. You know what would be really intellectually mature, admitting that you don't realistically know what the hell you are talking about.
Secondly, a mental illness isn't the fucking same as mental retardation, and retardation isn't even in use by current standards. Hell, it hasn't been used since what, the DSM-III? We are on the DSM-5 now, and at worst we have "neurodevelopmental disorders", not fucking retardation. So if you find me offensive, I suggest you quit fucking finding me at all.
"Do not answer incorrectly for me then claim I 'need to go back to school'."
Let me guess, now you suddenly have be stricken so fucking stupid you don't know what "if" means.
"Unfortunately, that's typical of the appalling dishonesty I've learned I'm likely to encounter from people like you."
Look in a mirror, sunshine, I haven't lied a single time yet.
I am amused by your ranting.
Dishonesty is not all about lying, it's also about wilful omission and misrepresentation.
You used a cheap shot to score points off me and you know it. At least be man enough to admit it. You can 'sunshine' me all you like, it will not make me feel any different about the points you failed to make.
I'm not sure why you think using offensive language is going to convince me that you have anything other than fallacy and ill-conceived opinion to offer.
How about you argue the point and not the person?
WD
That is rich coming from the guy who didn't answer the damn question, whined about how it was "offensive", then proceeded to act like I didn't argue his point when I demolished it.
Pages