Black Harvard Professor and The Economist 15 year study

[ErnestLynch]

Blacks more likely to have force used against them, but no more likely to have deadly force use against them than anyone else.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21702219-are-black-americans-more-likely-be-shot-or-roughed-up-police-quantifying-black-lives


Mr Fryer dug deeper into the data. He combed through 6,000 incident reports from Houston, including all the shootings, incidents involving Tasers and a sample in which lethal force could have justifiably been used but was not. What he found was even more startling: black suspects appear less likely to be shot than non-black ones, fatally or otherwise.

[boutons_deux]

Debunked

[spurraider21]

Debunked
Link?

I'd love to read some mid-20's poly-sci/journalism major on Salon debunk the work of a McArthur genius economist from Harvard

[vy65]

Link?

I'd love to read some mid-20's poly-sci/journalism major on Salon debunk the work of a McArthur genius economist from Harvard

triggered

[boutons_deux]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12149468/racism-police-shootings-data

http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/12/there-s-more-harvard-racial-bias-study-right-wing-media-are-reporting/211514

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12149468/racism-police-shootings-data

http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/12/there-s-more-harvard-racial-bias-study-right-wing-media-are-reporting/211514

How dare you forget Salon

"If Freyer’s conclusions are correct, then while police may be less willing to use lethal force against a black person in a given encounter, there are so many encounters because of racial profiling or other causes (:lol) that the country’s police are still killing black people at much higher rates than whites.

These disparities in use of force can not be explained away by the argument that blacks disproportionately live in high crime areas or supposedly (:lol) commit crimes at a higher rate than whites, thus the likelihood of negative police encounters are substantially increased.

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/14/sorry_conservatives_new_research_from_harvard_show s_a_profound_amount_of_racism_by_policenot_less_of _it/

[spurraider21]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/15/harvard-study-officer-involved-shootings/http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12149468/racism-police-shootings-datahttp://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/12/there-s-more-harvard-racial-bias-study-right-wing-media-are-reporting/211514
That's great. Except none of those "debunk" it.

The snopes piece doesn't offer a conclusion at all and mainly summarizes a Washington post editorial and the Vox piece you copy pasted.

The Vox piece had a lot of superficial complaints. They criticize Fryers work because fryer supposedly claimed that he was the first person to research or study the issue. I don't think fryer ever made that claim outright. Vox also complained that fryer used police reports as his data source. But they didn't actually debunk or disprove any of his findings. Vox also pointed out that Fryer didn't investigate the causes of stops, though I'm pretty sure Fryers piece outright notes that flaw in his paper.

And the mediamatters piece mainly discusses the scope and sample size of the data... Which again Fryer already acknowledged as a flaw in his work.


Nothing he said has been "debunked" but no, it's not a complete comprehensive study of every police shooting in the country. It never claimed to be.

[clambake]

uncle tom

[DarrinS]

You guys sent boutard to his safe space

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol vox
:lol mediamatters

[boutons_deux]

How many reports of white adults and kids being shot on sight?

How many 100Ks of whites are stopped and frisked?

Blacks like this guy Fryer, Clarence Thomas, Milwaukee police chief, are blacks worst "advocates".

[spurraider21]

How many reports of white adults and kids being shot on sight?

How many 100Ks of whites are stopped and frisked?

Blacks like this guy Fryer, Clarence Thomas, Milwaukee police chief, are blacks worst "advocates".
Fryer looked at data and reported it. If you read his background (I'll link you his wiki summary), and still decide he's a horrible black advocate, then I pity you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer,_Jr.

[boutons_deux]

Video: Austin police body-slam black teacher, tell her blacks have ‘violent tendencies’

Officials in Austin are investigating the violent arrest of a black elementary school teacher who was body-slammed by a white police officer during a traffic stop.

The investigation comes after the emergence of police video footage showing not only the June 2015 arrest but also a scene afterward, when another white officer told the teacher that cops are wary of blacks because of their “violent tendencies” and “intimidating” appearance.

“Ninety-nine percent of the time … it is the black community that is being violent,” the officer tells her. “That’s why a lot of white people are afraid. And I don’t blame them.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/22/video-austin-police-body-slam-black-teacher-tell-her-blacks-have-violent-tendencies/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw7&wpmm=1

What's the problem, nationally, this happens to white female teachers much more often.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its not a study. it was not published in a peer review publication and its not even finished. correct term is working paper.
author is an economist with no criminology experience
small sample size without control or normalization; its handpicked counties in 4 states; basically places that were willing to cooperate
it relies on police reports which are notoriously unreliable due to self reporting issues and biasing
police unions fight a compulsory national database

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's great. Except none of those "debunk" it.

The snopes piece doesn't offer a conclusion at all and mainly summarizes a Washington post editorial and the Vox piece you copy pasted.

The Vox piece had a lot of superficial complaints. They criticize Fryers work because fryer supposedly claimed that he was the first person to research or study the issue. I don't think fryer ever made that claim outright. Vox also complained that fryer used police reports as his data source. But they didn't actually debunk or disprove any of his findings. Vox also pointed out that Fryer didn't investigate the causes of stops, though I'm pretty sure Fryers piece outright notes that flaw in his paper.

And the mediamatters piece mainly discusses the scope and sample size of the data... Which again Fryer already acknowledged as a flaw in his work.


Nothing he said has been "debunked" but no, it's not a complete comprehensive study of every police shooting in the country. It never claimed to be.

No then what is "A 'Harvard Study' Doesn't Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings" doing in the title, jackass?

The vox piece complains about the veracity of the paper and data. Hardly superficial. Nice handwave though.

[CosmicCowboy]

No then what is "A 'Harvard Study' Doesn't Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings" doing in the title, jackass?

The vox piece complains about the veracity of the paper and data. Hardly superficial. Nice handwave though.

No problem

Produce a peer reviewed study that refutes it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No problem

Produce a peer reviewed study that refutes it.

In this case you guys are the one with the burden of proof.

There is no reliable data. The FBI director has been complaining about it for years.

[CosmicCowboy]

In this case you guys are the one with the burden of proof.

There is no reliable data. The FBI director has been complaining about it for years.

So you say it is the only attempt so far to sort the data and try to find a correlation between color and police shootings?

Bu since the results don't match your preconceptions it can't possibly be accurate?

[Killakobe81]

How many reports of white adults and kids being shot on sight?

How many 100Ks of whites are stopped and frisked?

Blacks like this guy Fryer, Clarence Thomas, Milwaukee police chief, are blacks worst "advocates".

That Milwaukee police chief is like Samuel Jackson's character in Django tbh ...

[spurraider21]

No then what is "A 'Harvard Study' Doesn't Disprove Racial Bias in Officer-Involved Shootings" doing in the title, jackass?

The vox piece complains about the veracity of the paper and data. Hardly superficial. Nice handwave though.
I never said vox only had superficial arguments. The one about him supposedly (he didn't) claiming he's the only one to who have ever studied the data was certainly superficial and was among their key criticisms.

The snopes title was in reference to the fact that it wasn't a vetted study, as the deck of the article indicates. The snopes piece didn't actually refute the data

[boutons_deux]

the "data" is just Houston, and only the data reported by racist, near-Deep-South Houston cops. reliable?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said vox only had superficial arguments. The one about him supposedly (he didn't) claiming he's the only one to who have ever studied the data was certainly superficial and was among their key criticisms.

The snopes title was in reference to the fact that it wasn't a vetted study, as the deck of the article indicates. The snopes piece didn't actually refute the data

Meant WaPo not Vox.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you say it is the only attempt so far to sort the data and try to find a correlation between color and police shootings?

Bu since the results don't match your preconceptions it can't possibly be accurate?

That's not what I said. I laid out my reasons in the post above the one I quoted. Shall I quote it to help you?

[TheSanityAnnex]

There is no reliable data.Bullshit. Shaun King has the data.

[TheSanityAnnex]

the "data" is just Houston, and only the data reported by racist, near-Deep-South Houston cops. reliable?
Share some data, your last three link dumps contained zero.

[z0sa]

the "data" is just Houston, and only the data reported by racist, near-Deep-South Houston cops. reliable?

So all 5318 officers (2012 number) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Police_Department) in the Houston PD are racists. Nice conspiracy theory, retard.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So all 5318 officers (2012 number) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Police_Department) in the Houston PD are racists. Nice conspiracy theory, retard.

While that is obviously true Texas is notorious for systemic racism particularly East Texas.

[boutons_deux]

So all 5318 officers (2012 number) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Police_Department) in the Houston PD are racists. Nice conspiracy theory, retard.

You rightwingnuts KNOW all Muslims are radicals terrorists

[z0sa]

You rightwingnuts KNOW all Muslims are radicals terrorists

I'm a "rightwingnut" too.

Nice trolling.

[Clipper Nation]

Its not a study. it was not published in a peer review publication and its not even finished. correct term is working paper.
author is an economist with no criminology experience
small sample size without control or normalization; its handpicked counties in 4 states; basically places that were willing to cooperate
it relies on police reports which are notoriously unreliable due to self reporting issues and biasing
police unions fight a compulsory national database
If only he was as credible as Fraud King.

[pgardn]

A huge problem with the study noted in the article:

If we take just the incidents in which police actually made a decision to engage a person or persons then skin color is important. It could be that engaging a white person was done because there was something very obviously wrong in the first place that caused the officer to engage. It could be that the very slightest suspicion caused an officer to stop or engage a black person. So basically the data is already skewed.

Note to fuzzy and others:

The fact that some on this board took the time to read and critize this particular ongoing study shows a bias. Would we be as critical if the study clearly confirmed my belief that blacks do get treated unfairly by cops?

I doubt it.

[TeyshaBlue]

Welcome to the echo chamber.

[spurraider21]

A huge problem with the study noted in the article:

If we take just the incidents in which police actually made a decision to engage a person or persons then skin color is important. It could be that engaging a white person was done because there was something very obviously wrong in the first place that caused the officer to engage. It could be that the very slightest suspicion caused an officer to stop or engage a black person. So basically the data is already skewed.

Note to fuzzy and others:

The fact that some on this board took the time to read and critize this particular ongoing study shows a bias. Would we be as critical if the study clearly confirmed my belief that blacks do get treated unfairly by cops?

I doubt it.
yep, Fryer's original article clearly noted that he didn't account for the purpose behind the stops, but merely the ensuing treatment from officers AFTER stops. all these criticisms were already acknowledged

[Leetonidas]

is this just from Houston? because this study doesnt mean much if it's not externally valid imo

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A huge problem with the study noted in the article:

If we take just the incidents in which police actually made a decision to engage a person or persons then skin color is important. It could be that engaging a white person was done because there was something very obviously wrong in the first place that caused the officer to engage. It could be that the very slightest suspicion caused an officer to stop or engage a black person. So basically the data is already skewed.

Note to fuzzy and others:

The fact that some on this board took the time to read and critize this particular ongoing study shows a bias. Would we be as critical if the study clearly confirmed my belief that blacks do get treated unfairly by cops?

I doubt it.

Fuck off. A bias towards what? An informed opinion?

If the study had a localized, small sample size, had a biased data source, and claimed to be a peer reviewed when in fact it was published in Ebony then you would get pushback. Your fantasy that there are not people avid on the other side is nonsense.

[Clipper Nation]

Fuck off. A bias towards what? An informed opinion?

If the study had a localized, small sample size, had a biased data source, and claimed to be a peer reviewed when in fact it was published in Ebony then you would get pushback. Your fantasy that there are not people avid on the other side is nonsense.
You're the one who spent months spamming Fraud King's lies uncritically because they supported your narrative.

[pgardn]

yep, Fryer's original article clearly noted that he didn't account for the purpose behind the stops, but merely the ensuing treatment from officers AFTER stops. all these criticisms were already acknowledged

Yep that's why I said noted in the article.

I think it's very important.

[pgardn]

Fuck off. A bias towards what? An informed opinion?

If the study had a localized, small sample size, had a biased data source, and claimed to be a peer reviewed when in fact it was published in Ebony then you would get pushback. Your fantasy that there are not people avid on the other side is nonsense.

Biased in what you choose to look closely at you Fckn dimwitted twerp.
Its bigger than just this study.

Everyone does it. Don't try so hard to be special son.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Biased in what you choose to look closely at you Fckn dimwitted twerp.
Its bigger than just this study.

Everyone does it. Don't try so hard to be special son.

Are you really going to play coy to the connotation of political bias on a political forum, dimwit? As I said, fuck off.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're the one who spent months spamming Fraud King's lies uncritically because they supported your narrative.

This is stupid. I posted one tweet where he had a picture of Brown's corpse and the position of the police truck. Since then your dumbass has been trying to pin that on me.

[pgardn]

Are you really going to play coy to the connotation of political bias on a political forum, dimwit? As I said, fuck off.

Wtf are you babbling about?
Playing coy... Sure thing.

Why don't you sit and think about it a bit longer. You may surprise yourself no you won't..
And stop with the parrot response.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wtf are you babbling about?
Playing coy... Sure thing.

Why don't you sit and think about it a bit longer. You may surprise yourself no you won't..
And stop with the parrot response.

What do you think I meant when I said


A bias towards what? An informed opinion?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lmao spurs talk comments on academic research

It was never published in an academic journal. Peer review was never in play. His expertise is also in economics not criminology.

[spurraider21]

It was never published in an academic journal. Peer review was never in play. His expertise is also in economics not criminology.
is your expertise in quantum mechanics?

[Joseph Kony]

It was never published in an academic journal. Peer review was never in play. His expertise is also in economics not criminology.

indeed, then it is not particularly interesting findings until there are enough peer reviewed studies in journals for a meta-analysis, tbh

[vy65]

It disproves Occam's Razor apparently

[FuzzyLumpkins]

is your expertise in quantum mechanics?

do I need to be to say that it is more complex than newtonian mechanics?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like I said lmao

It's not academic research so its not like what you said.

[DarrinS]

It was never published in an academic journal. Peer review was never in play. His expertise is also in economics not criminology.

Lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well no one is talking about the paper so that works for me.

[pgardn]

What do you think I meant when I said


You are so full of yourself having the ability to detect coy would not be possible.

[pgardn]

do I need to be to say that it is more complex than newtonian mechanics?

Damn you are a twit...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry

Quantum mechanics being more complex than newtonian mechanics belies occam's razor else Newtonian mechanics could explain quantum behavior which they cannot. It is what it is. In the context of said discussion the explanation I had given was simpler than the formal definition. The butthurt is crossthread.

I do like now that you guys have given up on trying to prove me wrong and have now gone back to ignorance as virtue. Ridiculing someone for trying to 'talk smart' as if the alternative is preferred is absolutely delicious.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are so full of yourself having the ability to detect coy would not be possible.

Well maybe you're not coy maybe your just too stupid to figure it out. I was being generous I guess. I'll help.

When you bring up bias on a political forum, it implies a political bias which essentially denotes confirmation bias and unreliability. It's why I stay away from pundits and try to get my news from objective journals like CSM and politico for example.

I asked if you meant a bias towards an informed opinion because you tried to conflate interest with bias. That is WC level thinking frankly.

[vy65]

https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/responsive/cover/main/desktop/2016/03/13/635934257494279675-995222056_Word_vomit__by_zeeoutlandishone.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And Crayola further demonstrates his ability. He's reduced to cartoons and memes like engineer Darrin who is ignorant of signal theory and integrating systems so posts memes instead too.

[vy65]

Where'd you get you Ph.D in quantum physics from?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/87/87f974f844c3eacb4dc174450e5339ee7be07dff6d6f7d6215 a012630060fa47.jpg

:rollin I can do it better!

Ahh I get it: youre asshurt that I brought up the subject at all. I never claimed to have one but you know that. It must burn that you had to give up on trying to win a point when all I had to do was quote the same refutation and you couldn't come up with shit, Crayola. You've been trying to get at me for what 2 days now with these pitiful attempts since that?

[vy65]

Why would I be asshurt about you bringing up quantum physics?

Where'd you get your quantum physics Ph.D from?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why would I be asshurt about you bringing up quantum physics?

Where'd you get your quantum physics Ph.D from?

I really couldn't say for certain but you keep carping about it with snark such as this so it is what it is. I do have some theories about it if you'd like to hear them. Occam's razor is demonstrably not a proof as evidenced by QM. In response I've gotten this petulance for two days now.

Why would I need s Ph. D. to comment on it or more specifically, crayola, why would I need one to argue or otherwise comment on it with a shitty lawyer?

[vy65]

I really couldn't say but you keep carping for certain about it with snark such as this so it is what it is. I do have some theories about it if you'd like to hear them. Occam's razor is demonstrably not a proof as evidenced by QM. In response I've gotten this petulance for two days now.

Why would I need s Ph. D. to comment on it or more specifically crayon why would I need one to argue or otherwise comment on it with a shitty lawyer?

Oh, so you don't have a doctorate in quantum physics. I guess that's not important if you have some other basis for having expertise in quantum physics (lol). Where'd you get your expertise from?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, so you don't have a doctorate in quantum physics. I guess that's not important if you have some other basis for having expertise in quantum physics (lol). Where'd you get your expertise from?

SO now you backtrack once again. I'll just use the same argument again.

Why would I need an expertise to comment on it or more specifically, crayola, why would I need one to argue or otherwise comment on it with a shitty lawyer?

[vy65]

SO now you backtrack once again. I'll just use the same argument again.

Why would I need an expertise to comment on it or more specifically, crayola, why would I need one to argue or otherwise comment on it with a shitty lawyer?

Are you asking me why you would need expertise in quantum physics to comment on quantum physics? Is that honestly your question?

[vy65]

It was never published in an academic journal. Peer review was never in play. His expertise is also in economics not criminology.

If you don't need expertise in quantum physics, why does Fryer need expertise in criminology?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you asking me why you would need expertise in quantum physics to comment on quantum physics? Is that honestly your question?

nope I'm asking why would I need it to discuss it with a shitty lawyer. The prepositional phrase is key, Crayola. You need help figuring out who the lawyer is?

If I was going to argue with say a postdoc physics student at cambridge it might help but I talk with one of those all the time and he doesn't try this pathetic big timing when we discuss quantum theory.

youre not even arguing the point anyway. You just don't like me and are desperate to discredit me like some insecure zero sum numbskull.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you don't need expertise in quantum physics, why does Fryer need expertise in criminology?

Fryer's work was credited as a study ie to be published in a peer reviewed journal where the standard is much higher than an internet argument with a supposed lawyer who demonstrates no expertise in his claimed profession much less physics on any level.

[vy65]

nope I'm asking why would I need it to discuss it with a shitty lawyer. The prepositional phrase is key, Crayola. You need help figuring out who the lawyer is?

If I was going to argue with say a postdoc physics student at cambridge it might help but I talk with one of those all the time and he doesn't try this pathetic big timing when we discuss quantum theory.

youre not even arguing the point anyway. You just don't like me and are desperate to discredit me like some insecure zero sum numbskull.

Well, that was a funny break down.

:cry why u no like me vy :cry

[vy65]

Fryer's work was credited as a study ie to be published in a peer reviewed journal where the standard is much higher than an internet argument with a supposed lawyer who demonstrates no expertise in his claimed profession much less physics on any level.

Oh, so since you're making off-the-cuff comments about quantum physics on an Internet message board, we won't hold you to any level of accountability or require you to have any level of expertise other than talking to a friend about it. Gotcha.

[vy65]

And for the record fuzz, I like you just fine.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, so since you're making off-the-cuff comments about quantum physics on an Internet message board, we won't hold you to any level of accountability or require you to have any level of expertise other than talking to a friend about it. Gotcha.

IF I make blanket assertions to be accepted on faith then I would expect nothing less. I hold others to the same standard. Nullius en verba. Again youre not arguing the point that QM is more complex than Newtons mechanics. Youre just asshurt that I brought it up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And for the record fuzz, I like you just fine.

If this is how you treat people you like, going cross thread to grind that axe, then you must be a real peach to those you don't.

[vy65]

IF I make blanket assertions to be accepted on faith then I would expect nothing less. I hold others to the same standard. Nullius en verba.


Occam's razor is an excuse for the intellectually lazy. Quantum mechanics demonstrates the falsity of it completely.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, that was a funny break down.

:cry why u no like me vy :cry

I don't wonder that. It doesn't bother you that I think I'm smart as much as it bothers you that I think I'm smarter than you. your rather typical frankly in how you respond to me. your behaviors match the motivation.

This is boring. I'm going to play some rocket league with my friend.

[vy65]

But hey, I guess we can chock all this up to your expertise being a convo you had with a guy, once.

[vy65]

I don't wonder that. It doesn't bother you that I think I'm smart as much as it bothers you that I think I'm smarter than you. your rather typical frankly in how you respond to me. your behaviors match the motivation.

This is boring. I'm going to play some rocket league with my friend.

The lady doth protest too much methinks

[pgardn]

Well maybe you're not coy maybe your just too stupid to figure it out. I was being generous I guess. I'll help.

When you bring up bias on a political forum, it implies a political bias which essentially denotes confirmation bias and unreliability. It's why I stay away from pundits and try to get my news from objective journals like CSM and politico for example.

I asked if you meant a bias towards an informed opinion because you tried to conflate interest with bias. That is WC level thinking frankly.

The above is the biggest bunch of bs I have possibly ever read.

There is bias when a site even chooses to print an article on a certain subject. Objectivity and politics should not even be mentioned in the same sentence. You try to paint yourself as some sort of judge in this area is laughable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But hey, I guess we can chock all this up to your expertise being a convo you had with a guy, once.

No you can chalk it up to Newtonian mechanics being much simpler than schrodinger's wave equation but being unable to explain quantum behavior which is expressed as probabilities which schrodinger's equations can explain.

I've already said that. Anyway, I'm out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The above is the biggest bunch of bs I have possibly ever read.

There is bias when a site even chooses to print an article on a certain subject. Objectivity and politics should not even be mentioned in the same sentence. You try to paint yourself as some sort of judge in this area is laughable.

:lol oh noes! ad hominemfest is just so compelling! Really.

[vy65]

:lmao

[pgardn]

Quantum mechanics being more complex than newtonian mechanics belies occam's razor else Newtonian mechanics could explain quantum behavior which they cannot. It is what it is. In the context of said discussion the explanation I had given was simpler than the formal definition. The butthurt is crossthread.

I do like now that you guys have given up on trying to prove me wrong and have now gone back to ignorance as virtue. Ridiculing someone for trying to 'talk smart' as if the alternative is preferred is absolutely delicious.

What?

All any physics does is model observations to a mathematical form. And then use the math to predict other behavior if possible. Occam's razor should not even be mentioned in your spewing above as it tries to narrow choices. Probability is used in Quantum Mechanics automatically making it more appropriate as reasonable IMO.

And you bringing this bs in the middle of a political argument makes me think you are slightly to severely autistic (looky, I'm fuzzy, I covered a range of possibilities, get it, get it?, see I'm clever)

[pgardn]

:lol oh noes! ad hominemfest is just so compelling! Really.

Leave the last sentence out of my post out and then reread it then. Maybe you can look past something you use so often.

[pgardn]

No you can chalk it up to Newtonian mechanics being much simpler than schrodinger's wave equation but being unable to explain quantum behavior which is expressed as probabilities which schrodinger's equations can explain.

I've already said that. Anyway, I'm out.

Newtonian mechanics applied to behavior with many variables thrown in can be incredibly ugly and very, very difficult mathematically yet still be fairly accurate. Quantum mechanics is applied to the most fundamental behavior on the level of the small. You have a textbook way of comparing them. Not a working application explanation. It can all be difficult as it made up by ape brains.

We should all apologize to this site for this shit.

[vy65]

Gee, pgardn, sounds like you know what you're talking about. You wouldn't happen to have some education in physics, would you? Something that goes beyond having a conversation about quantum physics with a guy once?

[DarrinS]

Crayola, pedobear, sophist piece of shit (my personal favorite).

Why does Fuzzy suck so bad at insults?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Newtonian mechanics applied to behavior with many variables thrown in can be incredibly ugly and very, very difficult mathematically yet still be fairly accurate. Quantum mechanics is applied to the most fundamental behavior on the level of the small. You have a textbook way of comparing them. Not a working application explanation. It can all be difficult as it made up by ape brains.

We should all apologize to this site for this shit.

What are you talking about?

Quantum behavior cannot be explained by classical mechanics. Instead a more complicated mechanics is required. I make no value judgement. I'm not demeaning Newton's work particularly Principia which was ground breaking. It still invalidates occam's razor as a proof.

My explanation is in the context of the argument we were having in another thread. You want me to talk about it allegorically or something?

Keep on nitpicking though. It's kinda funny.

PS Infinitesimal calculus is not 'difficult' particularly when compared to the matrices you have to use to model space for quantum calculations. That is kinda the whole point of the nit being picked.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Crayola, pedobear, sophist piece of shit (my personal favorite).

Why does Fuzzy suck so bad at insults?


The lady doth protest too much methinks

And I'm glad you like it. Self realization is important.

[pgardn]

Gee, pgardn, sounds like you know what you're talking about. You wouldn't happen to have some education in physics, would you? Something that goes beyond having a conversation about quantum physics with a guy once?

My job requires I know more biology and chemistry, with a bit of physics.

I took the dreaded quantum mechanics and try to forget it as much as possible.
I do need to know stuff, but am not comfortable talking down to people on a basketball site which is really why most of us are here when we are bored and going to sleep. So I thought.

I need the season to start.

[Clipper Nation]

This is stupid. I posted one tweet where he had a picture of Brown's corpse and the position of the police truck. Since then your dumbass has been trying to pin that on me.
:lol Fraud King
:lol You

[vy65]

My job requires I know more biology and chemistry, with a bit of physics.

I took the dreaded quantum mechanics and try to forget it as much as possible.
I do need to know stuff, but am not comfortable talking down to people on a basketball site which is really why most of us are here when we are bored and going to sleep. So I thought.

I need the season to start.

Sounds like you have an interesting job. In any event, thanks for checking assholes.

[pgardn]

What are you talking about?

Quantum behavior cannot be explained by classical mechanics. Instead a more complicated mechanics is required. I make no value judgement. I'm not demeaning Newton's work particularly Principia which was ground breaking. It still invalidates occam's razor as a proof.

My explanation is in the context of the argument we were having in another thread. You want me to talk about it allegorically or something?

Keep on nitpicking though. It's kinda funny.

PS Infinitesimal calculus is not 'difficult' particularly when compared to the matrices you have to use to model space for quantum calculations. That is kinda the whole point of the nit being picked.

You kinda ask for it don't you think.

PS
All this can be incredibly difficult or incredibly easy. I can make it easy by just laughing at your PS by merely stating that people modeling what we perceive to be natural behavior will never end and actually could get "easier" as long as humans are around. You throwing out crap to impress people when there will be so much more (that might be less) after you and I are long gone... I find this funny.

And of course Newtonian mechanics does not explain the most fundamental behavior. Jesus h Christ he did not know about more fundamental particles. We did not even know much about the most basic biological creatures.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You kinda ask for it don't you think.

PS
All this can be incredibly difficult or incredibly easy. I can make it easy by just laughing at your PS by merely stating that people modeling what we perceive to be natural behavior will never end and actually could get "easier" as long as humans are around. You throwing out crap to impress people when there will be so much more (that might be less) after you and I are long gone... I find this funny.

And of course Newtonian mechanics does not explain the most fundamental behavior. Jesus h Christ he did not know about more fundamental particles. We did not even know much about the most basic biological creatures.

I'm not trying to impress you. I'm trying to demonstrate how Occam's razor is not a proof. Your going cavalier for Newton's honor is amusing though. Thoe windmills need defeating.

[pgardn]

I'm not trying to impress you. I'm trying to demonstrate how Occam's razor is not a proof. Your going cavalier for Newton's honor is amusing though. Thoe windmills need defeating.

Newtons honor... I could not care less. This is not a frkn contest.

Do you not understand math modeling of natural behavior? Newton dealt with large objects, yes? Just how the hell is he going to assign an electron a wave function? Do you have any clue how science works? You are a product of your times, just like in so many other human endeavors. You think Einstein was some time traveler? He was not the only person thinking about time and space as malleable and taking light speed as constant. There is no secret that many people were thinking about time as we started to try and coordinate travel properly in his day. Do you not get this?

Even after Newton people took some of his ideas and created the idea of energy/work. Around what time? steam engines etc...
Einstein would be shocked at some of the consequences OTHER people would come up with from his ideas.

And you take this to mean I am playing cavalier with Newton? Wtf?
Really... Wtf?

[pgardn]

11:15

you keep me up for this drivel...

Christ.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Newtons honor... I could not care less. This is not a frkn contest.

Do you not understand math modeling of natural behavior? Newton dealt with large objects, yes? Just how the hell is he going to assign an electron a wave function? Do you have any clue how science works? You are a product of your times, just like in so many other human endeavors. You think Einstein was some time traveler? He was not the only person thinking about time and space as malleable and taking light speed as constant. There is no secret that many people were thinking about time as we started to try and coordinate travel properly in his day. Do you not get this?

Even after Newton people took some of his ideas and created the idea of energy/work. Around what time? steam engines etc...
Einstein would be shocked at some of the consequences OTHER people would come up with from his ideas.

And you take this to mean I am playing cavalier with Newton? Wtf?
Really... Wtf?

Again I'm not criticizing Newton. He was avante garde for his time. Nonetheless, classical mechanics is much simpler than quantum mechanics. This is not a value judgment; it's a statement of fact.

The argument is regarding Occam's razor which states that the simplest explanation is the best. In the case of physics that is not the case. Caught up yet?

[pgardn]

Again I'm not criticizing Newton. He was avante garde for his time. Nonetheless, classical mechanics is much simpler than quantum mechanics. This is not a value judgment; it's a statement of fact.

The argument is regarding Occam's razor which states that the simplest explanation is the best. In the case of physics that is not the case. Caught up yet?

Quit that shit. You said I was playing cavalier with Newton. So you rephrase it to mean you are not criticizing Newton. Why do you pull this shit?

Caught up yet? Seriously...

You really think I don't get it.

From what I can tell you are one of the people who walks into a room and yells "physics, calculus, quantum mechanics" just because a majority of people don't find these things interesting or were taught poorly in the first place. I think I could take 90% of the people on this board and take them slowly though science starting with physics and work up to some biological phenomena. I think I could get them to understand why biological systems only use very discrete energy levels to sense the world around them thus giving them a feel for how little we can understand without physical analogy. They would understand more than you in your quantum world. Because you happen to be concentrating on that right now hardly makes you an expert in anything useful. This would be more like an idiot savant stemming off one specific area of human endeavor.

And Just because one goes through a subject quickly or slowly does not necessarily indicate how profoundly they understand. You can use your Hibbert fields to impress people with a way to more usefully express wave functions, But the physical reality of what all this means is much more important. One can easily illustrate how a good algebra background makes slightly complex calculus doable, but the central idea of limits are not appreciated in differentiation or integration as it applies to some physical reality. This is the real beauty. Not getting a hard on for some very specific part of math that allows you to do other math.

I bet I could give find a version of a first year physics in HS as given by the new introductary AP1 exam and you would fail to make a good score. (A colleague told me it was more difficult than the calculus based physics because it dealt with ideas with much less math and more with concepts; his son was not one of the 4% nationwide who got a 5) Probably because you have not done it in a while. And this would make you stupid? Because it covers Newtonian mechanics and you are way, way beyond that.

So maybe I go and intensely study topology and come back and insult people on a basketball board. That would make me feel so good.

Enough already. I hope the majority of the board just skips all this drivel, I would.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Quit that shit. You said I was playing cavalier with Newton. So you rephrase it to mean you are not criticizing Newton. Why do you pull this shit?

Caught up yet? Seriously...

You really think I don't get it.

From what I can tell you are one of the people who walks into a room and yells "physics, calculus, quantum mechanics" just because a majority of people don't find these things interesting or were taught poorly in the first place. I think I could take 90% of the people on this board and take them slowly though science starting with physics and work up to some biological phenomena. I think I could get them to understand why biological systems only use very discrete energy levels to sense the world around them thus giving them a feel for how little we can understand without physical analogy. They would understand more than you in your quantum world. Because you happen to be concentrating on that right now hardly makes you an expert in anything useful. This would be more like an idiot savant stemming off one specific area of human endeavor.

And Just because one goes through a subject quickly or slowly does not necessarily indicate how profoundly they understand. You can use your Hibbert fields to impress people with a way to more usefully express wave functions, But the physical reality of what all this means is much more important. One can easily illustrate how a good algebra background makes slightly complex calculus doable, but the central idea of limits are not appreciated in differentiation or integration as it applies to some physical reality. This is the real beauty. Not getting a hard on for some very specific part of math that allows you to do other math.

I bet I could give find a version of a first year physics in HS as given by the new introductary AP1 exam and you would fail to make a good score. (A colleague told me it was more difficult than the calculus based physics because it dealt with ideas with much less math and more with concepts; his son was not one of the 4% nationwide who got a 5) Probably because you have not done it in a while. And this would make you stupid? Because it covers Newtonian mechanics and you are way, way beyond that.

So maybe I go and intensely study topology and come back and insult people on a basketball board. That would make me feel so good.

Enough already. I hope the majority of the board just skips all this drivel, I would.

Well that was a big waste of time.

I got to the first stupid characterization and quit reading. You still haven't caught up.

[spurraider21]

I really couldn't say for certain but you keep carping about it with snark such as this so it is what it is. I do have some theories about it if you'd like to hear them. Occam's razor is demonstrably not a proof as evidenced by QM. In response I've gotten this petulance for two days now.

Why would I need s Ph. D. to comment on it or more specifically, crayola, why would I need one to argue or otherwise comment on it with a shitty lawyer?
was this claim ever made, though?

[pgardn]

Again I'm not criticizing Newton. He was avante garde for his time. Nonetheless, classical mechanics is much simpler than quantum mechanics. This is not a value judgment; it's a statement of fact.

The argument is regarding Occam's razor which states that the simplest explanation is the best. In the case of physics that is not the case. Caught up yet?

You are so disingenuous it's amazing. No one ever claimed you were denigrating Newton in any way. You are attempting to redirect and it's painfully obvious. I'm playing cavalier with Newton, this is what you stated and it's just wordy garbage.

Occams razor gets rid of extraneous postulates rather than simplify. In QM we do exactly this using probability. Just because the methods of understanding are difficult does not mean Occam's razor has somehow been bypassed. The elegance is the idea of a range of possible states, that is in itself not extraneous or bringing in unnecessary information.

You read some thought somewhere on the Internet and attempt to distort. What a piece of work. And then you claim I need to catch up. You know this is BS. If you understand anything about science you must know this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

was this claim ever made, though?

yeah by Crayola in another thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are so disingenuous it's amazing. No one ever claimed you were denigrating Newton in any way. You are attempting to redirect and it's painfully obvious.

Occams razor gets rid of extraneous postulates rather than simplify. In QM we do exactly this using probability. Just because the methods of understanding are difficult does not mean Occam's razor has somehow been bypassed. The elegance is the idea of a range of possible states, that is in itself not extraneous or bringing in unnecessary information.

You read some thought somewhere on the Internet and attempt to distort. What a piece of work. And then you claim I need to catch up. You know this is BS. If you understand anything about science you must know this.

Now you're building strawmen. How droll. And you still haven't caught up.

[spurraider21]

yeah by Crayola in another thread.
i dont know that he claimed occams razor was definitive proof, though

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i dont know that he claimed occams razor was definitive proof, though


The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is since you didn't give the proper definition. Screaming and waving your hands won't cover that up. Maybe you should pay more attention to your wiki reading next time.

Yeah he did. It's entertaining to because the extent of Counselor Crayola's arguments beyond occam's razor has been to try and apply my arguments to me as opposed to any original construction.

[pgardn]

Now you're building strawmen. How droll. And you still haven't caught up.

Oh I would want to extricate myself from your muddy positions stated as well. Definitely. Run while you can.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh I would want to extricate your positions stated as well. Definitely. Run while you can.

False characterizations. Youre sure on a roll. If you want to have story time have at it but don't expect me to waste much time, simpleton.

[pgardn]

False characterizations. Youre sure on a roll. If you want to have story time have at it but don't expect me to waste much time, simpleton.

This is what happens when you step into something you should not have.
Of course you want out.

False characterizations:
"You play cavalier with Newton"
Holy shit. You are also a hypocrite.

[vy65]

Yeah he did. It's entertaining to because the extent of Counselor Crayola's arguments beyond occam's razor has been to try and apply my arguments to me as opposed to any original construction.

What the fuck does "definitive proof" even mean? You had no idea what you were talking about when you tried to explain what reductio ad absurdum meant and the simplest explanation for your word- vomit posts is the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Saying shit like "definitive proof" is kinda the point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What the fuck does "definitive proof" even mean? You had no idea what you were talking about when you tried to explain what reductio ad absurdum meant and the simplest explanation for your word- vomit posts is the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Saying shit like "definitive proof" is kinda the point.


Does it require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not? Was the argument I called RAA actually RAA?

Since we both know it does and it was, you can go and fuck off now.

Is that what you do in your briefs? Just assert what you want and then not cite any logic or relevant case law like a dumbfuck, Crayola?

:lol Going back to occam's razor. What a dumbfuck

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is what happens when you step into something you should not have.
Of course you want out.

False characterizations:
"You play cavalier with Newton"
Holy shit. You are also a hypocrite.

So says teh one interjecting himself into another's argument.

You were responding to my posts like I was criticizing Newton making excuses and all the like. It was pretty dumb frankly.

[pgardn]

So says teh one interjecting himself into another's argument.

You were responding to my posts like I was criticizing Newton making excuses and all the like. It was pretty dumb frankly.

If that's how you took it reread my post post about science at that time.
People tend to think what is going on in their time as difficult. When you look back it's silly to look at the past like it's easy stuff. At the time, The methodology used to come up with F ~ mM/r^2 was hardly obvious.

You don't know the whole of science well it's pretty clear. Anyone can be an expert at googling details of very difficult math.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If that's how you took it reread my post post about science at that time.
People tend to think what is going on in their time as difficult. When you look back it's silly to look at the past like it's easy stuff. At the time, The methodology used to come up with F ~ mM/r^2 was hardly obvious.

You don't know the whole of science well it's pretty clear. Anyone can be an expert at googling details of very difficult math.

Who cares? I was discussing in the context of occam's razor. Trying to justify why it was simpler is irrelevant. It's been two days now and you still don't get it.

[pgardn]

Who cares? I was discussing in the context of occam's razor. Trying to justify why it was simpler is irrelevant. It's been two days now and you still don't get it.

Yes and you have already confirmed you do not understand that either. For 2 days.

Cavalier with Newton... You still have no idea what you are writing about.

[pgardn]

You are so disingenuous it's amazing. No one ever claimed you were denigrating Newton in any way. You are attempting to redirect and it's painfully obvious. I'm playing cavalier with Newton, this is what you stated and it's just wordy garbage.

Occams razor gets rid of extraneous postulates rather than simplify. In QM we do exactly this using probability. Just because the methods of understanding are difficult does not mean Occam's razor has somehow been bypassed. The elegance is the idea of a range of possible states, that is in itself not extraneous or bringing in unnecessary information.

You read some thought somewhere on the Internet and attempt to distort. What a piece of work. And then you claim I need to catch up. You know this is BS. If you understand anything about science you must know this.

Read again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Read again.

And how does it achieve that, googleboy? And what relevance does that have other than pedantic rambling?

[pgardn]

And how does it achieve that, googleboy? And what relevance does that have other than pedantic rambling?

Parroting again. Now you can't even stay creative with your insults.

By using the simplicity of probability to come up with a range of possible answers fool. You throw out impossibilities and recognize Improbabilities. Just because the math is tedious and the outcomes not easily explained physically does not mean this somehow jumps Occam's razor. Wave equations are not new and neither is field theory. None of this upsets Occam's razor, its good modeling. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

And You started the rambling with your obtuse "cavalier with Newton" idiocy.

[pgardn]

Quit that shit. You said I was playing cavalier with Newton. So you rephrase it to mean you are not criticizing Newton. Why do you pull this shit?

Caught up yet? Seriously...

You really think I don't get it.

From what I can tell you are one of the people who walks into a room and yells "physics, calculus, quantum mechanics" just because a majority of people don't find these things interesting or were taught poorly in the first place. I think I could take 90% of the people on this board and take them slowly though science starting with physics and work up to some biological phenomena. I think I could get them to understand why biological systems only use very discrete energy levels to sense the world around them thus giving them a feel for how little we can understand without physical analogy. They would understand more than you in your quantum world. Because you happen to be concentrating on that right now hardly makes you an expert in anything useful. This would be more like an idiot savant stemming off one specific area of human endeavor.

And Just because one goes through a subject quickly or slowly does not necessarily indicate how profoundly they understand. You can use your Hibbert fields to impress people with a way to more usefully express wave functions, But the physical reality of what all this means is much more important. One can easily illustrate how a good algebra background makes slightly complex calculus doable, but the central idea of limits are not appreciated in differentiation or integration as it applies to some physical reality. This is the real beauty. Not getting a hard on for some very specific part of math that allows you to do other math.

I bet I could give find a version of a first year physics in HS as given by the new introductary AP1 exam and you would fail to make a good score. (A colleague told me it was more difficult than the calculus based physics because it dealt with ideas with much less math and more with concepts; his son was not one of the 4% nationwide who got a 5) Probably because you have not done it in a while. And this would make you stupid? Because it covers Newtonian mechanics and you are way, way beyond that.

So maybe I go and intensely study topology and come back and insult people on a basketball board. That would make me feel so good.

Enough already. I hope the majority of the board just skips all this drivel, I would.

And again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Parroting again. Now you can't even stay creative with your insults.

By using the simplicity of probability to come up with a range of possible answers fool. You throw out impossibilities and recognize Improbabilities. Just because the math is tedious and the outcomes not easily explained physically does not mean this somehow jumps Occam's razor. Wave equations are not new and neither is field theory. None of this upsets Occam's razor, its good modeling. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

And You started the rambling with your obtuse "cavalier with Newton" idiocy.

Occam's razor is still not a method for proving something in and of itself, dimwit. Like I said, who cares? that is what I was arguing not your stream of strawmen.

I never said occam's razor had no use. Now youre defending it's honor. The desperation is amusing.

[pgardn]

Occam's razor is still not a method for proving something in and of itself, dimwit. Like I said, who cares? that is what I was arguing not your stream of strawmen?

I never said occam's razor had no use. Now youre defending it's honor. The desperation is amusing.

I never said it was shit head.

[pgardn]

You are so disingenuous it's amazing. No one ever claimed you were denigrating Newton in any way. You are attempting to redirect and it's painfully obvious. I'm playing cavalier with Newton, this is what you stated and it's just wordy garbage.

Occam's razor gets rid of extraneous postulates rather than simplify. In QM we do exactly this using probability. Just because the methods of understanding are difficult does not mean Occam's razor has somehow been bypassed. The elegance is the idea of a range of possible states, that is in itself not extraneous or bringing in unnecessary information.

You read some thought somewhere on the Internet and attempt to distort. What a piece of work. And then you claim I need to catch up. You know this is BS. If you understand anything about science you must know this.

And again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said it was shit head.

Then why are you arguing? Still haven't caught up I see. Crayola did say that.

You guys coming in trying to prove any single point of mine wrong trying to prove yourself are laughable.

[pgardn]

Then why are you arguing? Still haven't caught up I see. Crayola did.

You guys coming in trying to prove any single point of mine wrong trying to prove yourself are laughable.

You are such a blatant intellectual fraud.

You don't understand the very basics of science and you definitely don't know the history behind this stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And again.

And again so what?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are such a blatant intellectual fraud.

So says the guy who has no clue what my argument actually was.

[pgardn]

So says the guy who has no clue what my argument actually was.

You change your arguments when cornered.
And then change what is said back to you.

You are a fraud.

[pgardn]

Again I'm not criticizing Newton. He was avante garde for his time. Nonetheless, classical mechanics is much simpler than quantum mechanics. This is not a value judgment; it's a statement of fact.

The argument is regarding Occam's razor which states that the simplest explanation is the best. In the case of physics that is not the case. Caught up yet?

No one ever said you were.
AGAIN.

And your understanding of physics and Occam's razor are misunderstandings.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No one ever said you were.
AGAIN.

And your understanding of physics and Occam's razor are misunderstandings.

Be specific. All I've seen are strawmen that I have never once claimed. The one thing I did claim you don't dispute.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You change your arguments when cornered.
And then change what is said back to you.

You are a fraud.

My argument from the beginning is that occam's razor is not a proof. My example was QM. All this other stupidity is all you.

[pgardn]

Quantum mechanics being more complex than newtonian mechanics belies occam's razor else Newtonian mechanics could explain quantum behavior which they cannot. It is what it is. In the context of said discussion the explanation I had given was simpler than the formal definition. The butthurt is crossthread.

I do like now that you guys have given up on trying to prove me wrong and have now gone back to ignorance as virtue. Ridiculing someone for trying to 'talk smart' as if the alternative is preferred is absolutely delicious.

This is WRONG.

Newtonian mechanics does not explain quantum mechanics because it cannot deal adequately with what is now known, not because it is simple. Newtonian mechanics deals with idealized point masses or extended bodies. It has nothing to say about electromagnetic waves or tiny forces in atoms since neither were even known at that time. No one even knew about atoms much less electrons and tiny sub atomic particles. What you have written above is a clear misunderstanding of science especially the history of science.

Furthermore QM does adhere to Occam's razor quite beautifully. It predicts the behavior electrons and other "tiny" phenomena by suggesting a range of possibilities as well as impossibilities which makes it quite elegant(beautiful in its simplicity). Just because the math is difficult does not make the outcome sloppy containing unnecessary explainations.

Do you get it?

You think because something is mathematically difficult it somehow contains extraneous explainations is silly. This is what you have basically written above. QM is difficult to visualize physically as were othe physical phenomenon way back in the history of science. You might claim, looking back from today, Newton's first law obvious because it is today. Well it's not obvious to observations at that time or even today. How many things do you witness today when you walk outside that are moving in straight lines at constant speeds? The third law is clearly not obvious even today as given by sample surveys. Both of these ideas are used to do Newtonian mechanics, which is not difficult mathmatically because it is set up in problems where many real world forces are left out to make it doable. The ideas of the 1st and 3rd laws are used to be able to carry out the math most simply stated in the 2nd law which still holds today.

We will continue to mathmatically model physical phenomena and the models will change. We will find some mathmatical models used today will NOT suffice for future predictions based on those models. You do not necessarily live in an enlightened period where things are more difficult because YOU happen to live in THIS period of modeling. In Newton's time people were NOT merrily walking down the street drawing free body diagrams claiming how simple his ideas were. Or the math.

Now.
Enough.

There are only so many times I can repeat myself.

[vy65]

Went from being completely false/for the intellectual lazy to you can't exclusively rely on it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Went from being completely false/for the intellectual lazy to you can't exclusively rely on it.

I said it was a crutch for the intellectually lazy and proves nothing. I was speaking of you, dimwit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is WRONG.

Newtonian mechanics does not explain quantum mechanics because it cannot deal adequately with what is now known, not because it is simple. Newtonian mechanics deals with idealized point masses or extended bodies. It has nothing to say about electromagnetic waves or tiny forces in atoms since neither were even known at that time. No one even knew about atoms much less electrons and tiny sub atomic particles. What you have written above is a clear misunderstanding of science especially the history of science.

Furthermore QM does adhere to Occam's razor quite beautifully. It predicts the behavior electrons and other "tiny" phenomena by suggesting a range of possibilities as well as impossibilities which makes it quite elegant(beautiful in its simplicity). Just because the math is difficult does not make the outcome sloppy containing unnecessary explainations.

Do you get it?

You think because something is mathematically difficult it somehow contains extraneous explainations is silly. This is what you have basically written above. QM is difficult to visualize physically as were othe physical phenomenon way back in the history of science. You might claim, looking back from today, Newton's first law obvious because it is today. Well it's not obvious to observations at that time or even today. How many things do you witness today when you walk outside that are moving in straight lines at constant speeds? The third law is clearly not obvious even today as given by sample surveys. Both of these ideas are used to do Newtonian mechanics, which is not difficult mathmatically because it is set up in problems where many real world forces are left out to make it doable. The ideas of the 1st and 3rd laws are used to be able to carry out the math most simply stated in the 2nd law which still holds today.

We will continue to mathmatically model physical phenomena and the models will change. We will find some mathmatical models used today will NOT suffice for future predictions based on those models. You do not necessarily live in an enlightened period where things are more difficult because YOU happen to live in THIS period of modeling. In Newton's time people were NOT merrily walking down the street drawing free body diagrams claiming how simple his ideas were. Or the math.

Now.
Enough.

There are only so many times I can repeat myself.

I got it the first time. As I have pointed out you haven't caught up, dimwit.

That was pretty stupid. The only cause considered is occam's razor which is being rejected. I never claimed that it was not able to explain quantum behavior because it was too simple. I said it was more simple and therefor occam's razor was demonstrably unable to prove something.

Your logic sucks. Just because something is negated doesn't make the opposite true.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You make is as simple as possible and no simpler. Simpler for the sake of simpler is not how it's done.

[vy65]

I said it was a crutch for the intellectually lazy and proves nothing. I was speaking of you, dimwit.

Incorrect. Should I repost what you said?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Incorrect. Should I repost what you said?

Here was the initial exchange.


The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is since you didn't give the proper definition. Screaming and waving your hands won't cover that up. Maybe you should pay more attention to your wiki reading next time.


Occam's razor is an excuse for the intellectually lazy. Quantum mechanics demonstrates the falsity of it completely. My explanation was simpler than the two part wiki definition much less the one using formal logic so even by your own standard youre wrong. You can say that it isn't complete but what your not able to do is exclude it. You suck at deduction. Most people do but youre supposed to be a lawyer, Counselor Crayola.

and :lol parroting my own argument back and not being able to make your own.

It is completely false as a proof.

[vy65]

The person qualified to comment on this issue posted:


What?

All any physics does is model observations to a mathematical form. And then use the math to predict other behavior if possible. Occam's razor should not even be mentioned in your spewing above as it tries to narrow choices. Probability is used in Quantum Mechanics automatically making it more appropriate as reasonable IMO.

And you bringing this bs in the middle of a political argument makes me think you are slightly to severely autistic (looky, I'm fuzzy, I covered a range of possibilities, get it, get it?, see I'm clever)

I haven't seen a response from you that directly engages this point. In fact, you started backtracking to the position of Occam's Razor not being sufficient to prove anything (a claim not made at all) once this post was made.

So, here's an opportunity for you. Respond to the post above and explain why it is incorrect and Occam's Razor is a, to use your word, "falsity."

In your answer, be sure to explain why pgardn's assessment on probability/eliminating unlikely outcomes is incorrect. Thanks!

[pgardn]

Quantum mechanics being more complex than newtonian mechanics belies occam's razor else Newtonian mechanics could explain quantum behavior which they cannot. It is what it is. In the context of said discussion the explanation I had given was simpler than the formal definition. The butthurt is crossthread.

I do like now that you guys have given up on trying to prove me wrong and have now gone back to ignorance as virtue. Ridiculing someone for trying to 'talk smart' as if the alternative is preferred is absolutely delicious.


I got it the first time. As I have pointed out you haven't caught up, dimwit.

That was pretty stupid. The only cause considered is occam's razor which is being rejected. I never claimed that it was not able to explain quantum behavior because it was too simple. I said it was more simple and therefor occam's razor was demonstrably unable to prove something.

Your logic sucks. Just because something is negated doesn't make the opposite true.

The bolded is flat out wrong.

Do I need to post why AGAIN?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The bolded is flat out wrong.

Do I need to post why AGAIN?

You need to look up the meaning of the word 'else' and try again.

If occam's razor was a proof then something being more simple would by definition be proved by virtue of it being more simple. If I can show something more complex being rigorous to observation as opposed to a more simpler paradigm which does not then OR is demonstrated to be not a proof.

The deterministic classic mechanics cannot explain the probabilistic quantum behavior whereas the more complex QM does match observation. Therefor OR is not a proof.

No one of what you said disputes any of that. You can repeat yourself like an idiot if you would like.

[pgardn]

You need to look up the meaning of the word 'else' and try again.

If occam's razor was a proof then something being more simple would by definition be proved by virtue of it being more simple. If I can show something more complex being rigorous to observation as opposed to a more simpler paradigm which does not then OR is demonstrated to be not a proof.

The deterministic classic mechanics cannot explain the probabilistic quantum behavior whereas the more complex QM does match observation. Therefor OR is not a proof.

No one of what you said disputes any of that. You can repeat yourself like an idiot if you would like.

Where did I say it was a proof? I said it was a method of removing extraneous information.

Again you pull this shit and reword and wiggle.

Read AGAIN what you originally wrote.
Its WRONG.

[pgardn]

Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics try to explain very different things as I already explained.
You don't understand history.

[pgardn]

You make is as simple as possible and no simpler. Simpler for the sake of simpler is not how it's done.

The methodology to determine the possibilities of outcomes in QM may be difficult. The findings using QM are quite elegant. You continue to confuse the two.

[DarrinS]

You guys should leave that poor kid alone. Not fair. :lmao

[pgardn]

You guys should leave that poor kid alone. Not fair. :lmao

I think fuzz would make a decent politician.

He dodges, ducks, misrepresents, restates others words, is disingenuous...
And I really don't like doing this on a basketball site in the political section.
I totally stop reading the back and forth between posters, so when he does this with others I really had no idea he would try and pull such immature cowardly crap.

Others should really skip this stuff or find it in a science thread. I would. It's tiresome.

[spurraider21]

You guys should leave that poor kid alone. Not fair. :lmao
Sad!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where did I say it was a proof? I said it was a method of removing extraneous information.

Again you pull this shit and reword and wiggle.

Read AGAIN what you originally wrote.
Its WRONG.

You interjected yourself into another argument. The argument you interjected into was that being said. I already linked it. Need me to do it again? Having to go around the same thing over and over again is like dealing with an alzheimer's patient.

[DarrinS]

I think fuzz would make a decent politician.

He dodges, ducks, misrepresents, restates others words, is disingenuous...
And I really don't like doing this on a basketball site in the political section.
I totally stop reading the back and forth between posters, so when he does this with others I really had no idea he would try and pull such immature cowardly crap.

Others should really skip this stuff or find it in a science thread. I would. It's tiresome.

Agreed

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agreed

Please point to something that I have misrepresented like you did when you claimed a graph the be from BEST when it was in fact from an oilco think tank and then refuse to give the link where you got it from.

[DarrinS]

Please point to something that I have misrepresented like you did when you claimed a graph the be from BEST when it was in fact from an oilco think tank and then refuse to give the link where you got it from.

You mad? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You mad? :lol

Nope. No point to it but it's sad you would wish that I was. Schadenfreude is for emotional cripples.

Just asking you to support your claim. I can point out how you are unreliable. You cannot do the same.

[DarrinS]

Nope. No point to it but it's sad you would wish that I was. Schadenfreude is for emotional cripples.

Just asking you to support your claim. I can point out how you are unreliable. You cannot do the same.


I don't need to go searching through ancient threads again to support anything. It wasn't my claim -- I was just agreeing with another poster's opinion of you. If you want to go dig up some old graphs you think I misrepresented, no one is stopping you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't need to go searching through ancient threads again to support anything. It wasn't my claim -- I was just agreeing with another poster's opinion of you. If you want to go dig up some old graphs you think I misrepresented, no one is stopping you.

Need is a relative term. You clearly have low standards, spos.

[pgardn]

Gee, pgardn, sounds like you know what you're talking about. You wouldn't happen to have some education in physics, would you? Something that goes beyond having a conversation about quantum physics with a guy once?

I really don't like to have these types of back and forths. 3 F'N pages or so.... ridiculous. I do know science as my job requires it. I believe I have a good grasp of the Union of all 3 subject areas. I do not know law well, even though my father is a lawyer. So I am not going to continually battle you on law as I just don't know it well enough. I am not going to go to the tech section and disagree with NoNo by spouting off crap about encryption of data as I don't know the subject well. I will play in the political section as it lends itself to opinion.

I will most likely forget a posters habits unless some particular issue strikes me. This site is a boredom playground (it seems to be for others as well) when I have to be patient in my job due to travel or be patient with results and issues. I do not get joy in offending people and I should probably just stop with more obstinate posters.

And I now realize I have already responded to you... and thus wasted more space. Nevermind.

[CosmicCowboy]

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

George Bernard Shaw

Fuzzy is the argumentative pig of the forum. He may not know shit about the subject but with google and wikipedia he thinks he is automatically an expert on everything and he will argue anything. Unfortunately he is all buzz word and no content depth.