30 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt may have been what your whole discussion was about! I have been
Actually that is exactly what the whole discussion was about. Statistical methods are precisely that: weighting data that you do not know the validity of. When enough data points in one direction, it is statistically improbable that it is wrong even though you may never know whether it is or isn't wrong.
For example:
I wish to measure the depth of a l ...[text shortened]... st conceivable, whereas an error of 100m makes 3. so improbable as to be considered impossible.
having the discussion about what you do not know could change how
you view what you think you do know.
I agree with your example on the lake and would accept the data and
the results, since I can verify each method as true or false even by
the estreme action of draining the lake and looking at it, yet that
is not possible with time and the distant past, as some point you
simply cannot verify by recorded history anything, than you are left
with assumptions that may or may not be true.
Kelly
30 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by serigadoIt does not matter if the data is wrong, okay you got me!
aaaaaaaaaaa
you drive me crazy.
IT doesn't matter if the data is wrong. Data IS wrong, we know it. That's why statistics was invented. There's a distribution for how wrong the data is, and according to the recollected data we can find the error bars for each sample. If we only pick one sample it's very difficult to be precise on its specific timedate. I re deep wrong. Strangely, 99% seem to agree with it. 1% are religious fundamentalists.
How 'wrong' can it be before it does matter to you? You want me to
accept your conclusions as factual if within a certain percentage, and
I've already told you it is quite possible you are correct, but I don't
know for a fact you are within the percentage you claim, you could be
off. If you want a truthful statement you should say according to our
statistics which we invented we think/believe , that I could always
accept as a truthful statement. Since if your statistics are wrong even
grossly wrong the truth of your beliefs or what you think is true is
covered. That takes care of the complaint I have with you or anyone
else simply saying what you think is true about the distant past is a
factual event.
Kelly
30 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ, you should stop for a while. You're embarrassing yourself. Rather than continuing to badger us with these silly questions, why don't you learn some very basic statistics (just a few hours of study)? At this time, you can't reasonably critique his position because you have such a woefully indigent understanding of it.
It does not matter if the data is wrong, okay you got me!
How 'wrong' can it be before it does matter to you? You want me to
accept your conclusions as factual if within a certain percentage, and
I've already told you it is quite possible you are correct, but I don't
know for a fact you are within the percentage you claim, you could be
off. If you wa ...[text shortened]... else simply saying what you think is true about the distant past is a
factual event.
Kelly
30 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay1) Draining the lake would almost certainly affect the lake bottom and thereby change the depth of the lake.
I agree with your example on the lake and would accept the data and
the results, since I can verify each method as true or false even by
the estreme action of draining the lake and looking at it, yet that
is not possible with time and the distant past, as some point you
simply cannot verify by recorded history anything, than you are left
with assumptions that may or may not be true.
Kelly
2) If we had a time machine and protective gear we could travel back a few billion years and show you that the Earth was there.
Point: While it is logically possible to verify both the age of the Earth and the depth of the lake directly, either one is beyond our capability at this time. Accepting one measure and rejecting the other based solely upon the mistaken belief that we can directly verify the one you accept is flawed.
30 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Sargent CarpfaceActually, apart form the quiet period between the 23rd and today (just shy of 1 week), this thread has not been static for more than 4 days over the last 2 or 3 months.
Oh my gosh, this fourm ended like 2 months ago. Who rose it from the dead?
Sorry to be pedantic.
And it was aardvarkhome who resurrected it, if you want to lay blame.
--- Penguin
31 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayhm... you didn't really understand what I posted? I don't ask you to accept my conclusions as factual, didn't you understand?
It does not matter if the data is wrong, okay you got me!
How 'wrong' can it be before it does matter to you? You want me to
accept your conclusions as factual if within a certain percentage, and
I've already told you it is quite possible you are correct, but I don't
know for a fact you are within the percentage you claim, you could be
off. If you wa ...[text shortened]... else simply saying what you think is true about the distant past is a
factual event.
Kelly
Percetange doesn't matter! What matters it's interval errors!!! You don't really get the meaning! It's not a "truthful statement"... it's reasoning and statistics! Statistics can't be wrong, you don't have an idea what you are saying... you are making a ridiculous figure of yourself....... What you say doesn't make ANY sense, and even YOU can't perceive it! And you try to make arguments out of your refuted point of view. Can't you see???
31 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you will accept something as fact simply because it is verifiable, and not because it has been verified? So if someone invents a time machine you will accept the age of the earth even if nobody ever actually uses the time machine?
I agree with your example on the lake and would accept the data and
the results, since I can verify each method as true or false even by
the estreme action of draining the lake and looking at it, yet that
is not possible with time and the distant past, as some point you
simply cannot verify by recorded history anything, than you are left
with assumptions that may or may not be true.
Kelly
Are you possibly saying that if we cannot know the age of the earth then it does not have an age? That the statement:
The earth is 6 billion years +/- 2 billion.
has no truth value?
But then again you say 'may or may not be true'.
31 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust forget it. He can't be bothered to find out anything for himself. He's only interested in knocking people down with facile arguments
So you will accept something as fact simply because it is verifiable, and [b]not because it has been verified? So if someone invents a time machine you will accept the age of the earth even if nobody ever actually uses the time machine?
Are you possibly saying that if we cannot know the age of the earth then it does not have an age? That the statem ...[text shortened]... on years +/- 2 billion.
has no truth value?
But then again you say 'may or may not be true'.[/b]
31 Oct 07
Originally posted by PenguinMwha hahahahahaha (evil scientist laugh)
Actually, apart form the quiet period between the 23rd and today (just shy of 1 week), this thread has not been static for more than 4 days over the last 2 or 3 months.
Sorry to be pedantic.
And it was aardvarkhome who resurrected it, if you want to lay blame.
--- Penguin
I looked in for the first time in ages and saw Kelly up to his usual tactics. You will notice that he still hasn't replied to me
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is the point isn't it, what is verifiable and what isn't?
So you will accept something as fact simply because it is verifiable, and [b]not because it has been verified? So if someone invents a time machine you will accept the age of the earth even if nobody ever actually uses the time machine?
Are you possibly saying that if we cannot know the age of the earth then it does not have an age? That the statem ...[text shortened]... on years +/- 2 billion.
has no truth value?
But then again you say 'may or may not be true'.[/b]
You have test "X" that tells you (item A) is a billion years old, this for
you is varification? I have been saying all along you could be right,
I don't know, but I also do not see how you can tell me you know
that test "X" is enough, even if you have test "Y" that somewhat
agrees or agrees with test "X" if "Y" only thought true because of
"X" you have nothing but assumptions.
Kelly
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by serigadoStatistics cannot be wrong, but they can be missleading, for the
hm... you didn't really understand what I posted? I don't ask you to accept my conclusions as factual, didn't you understand?
Percetange doesn't matter! What matters it's interval errors!!! You don't really get the meaning! It's not a "truthful statement"... it's reasoning and statistics! Statistics can't be wrong, you don't have an idea what you are sayin ...[text shortened]... And you try to make arguments out of your refuted point of view. Can't you see???
reasons I have been giving you.
Kelly
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you are claiming that because something is potentially verifiable then it can be taken as true if there is significant evidence even when it has not actually been verified.
That is the point isn't it, what is verifiable and what isn't?
You have test "X" that tells you (item A) is a billion years old, this for
you is varification?
And by "verification" you clearly mean you personally being able to touch / see / feel whatever is being tested.
I have been saying all along you could be right,
I don't know, but I also do not see how you can tell me you know
that test "X" is enough, even if you have test "Y" that somewhat
agrees or agrees with test "X" if "Y" only thought true because of
"X" you have nothing but assumptions.
Kelly
If it was as you say with only two interdependent tests then I might agree with you, but that is not what you have been claiming at all. You have been making claims about the age of the earth based on the fact that you cannot personally go back in time to see it for yourself.
But with the age of the earth there are hundreds of totally independent tests none of which rely on each other all of which agree absolutely (not somewhat) that the age of the earth is over 100 million years.
So what constitutes verification for you?
01 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]The closer to now the better don't you think? Being able to examine
But you are claiming that because something is potentially verifiable then it can be taken as true if there is significant evidence even when it has not actually been verified.
And by "verification" you clearly mean you personally being able to touch / see / feel whatever is being tested.
[b]I have been saying all along you could be right,
I don't f the earth is over 100 million years.
So what constitutes verification for you?
something in the here and now is easier to get a handle on all of the
variables verses something you must make assumptions about in
hopes you are not missing something. Even in this discussion we have
seem people claim verification due to human recorded history, and
while suggesting that they believe the human records of a few
thousand years suggest we are correct as we date items that match
that. You have personally looked at hundreds of independent tests,
which agreed absolutely (not somewhat)? Just so I’m clear on what
you are claiming are these independent tests using completely
different in nature methods in how they come up with dates, or are
they basically all the same in how they work, but done at different
times on different items, how do you define ‘independent tests’? Not
trying to be tricking just trying to understand what your claims are.
Kelly