Reply With Quote
Skull-1, boutons and now you with this exact posturing. Interesting commonality with you guys.
He has stated before that he is not going to argue with foolishness as you are wont to do. We have had this exact same argument in the past.
Most likely especially when there are different recording devices, environmental factors or any number of things you would control for. They never taught you how to compile data at UTSA? It is pretty fundamental to our profession.
I am being quite serious. If you think it is just okay to take a random data set, make a graph and present it as valid then your education did you a disservice.
Skull-1, boutons and now you with this exact posturing. Interesting commonality with you guys.
He has stated before that he is not going to argue with foolishness as you are wont to do. We have had this exact same argument in the past.
So, if I give you some data and give Manny the EXACT SAME data, you two will produce different graphs???
You are the one choosing to not debate me thus the 'believe as you wish.' While I disagree as to why he decides not to, you have told us what you see such a decision to mean.
.
This really is a nonsequitor. That you frame your question as such just speaks to you not understanding what I am getting at.
Let's say I created a device to measure something, put together a controlled environment that output the data into an excel spreadsheet, and then gave Manny the spreadsheet with no more information then that then yes I would guarantee you that our graphs would look different.
You don't remember anything from controls, statistics or signals do you? Do you even try to keep up with new concepts as they are being introduced? Heaven forbid if you ever have to find another job.
it. Nevermind
You still do not understand. I was seeing whether or not the people that put together the graph were the same people that generated the data. This is a reason for me to think you are not very bright. Do you really still not understand?
And he finally gets it. We hope.
Why does it matter who generated the data? The data is the data. If I did a bunch of filtering of the data and gave Manny the raw, unfiltered data, then I can see your point. But, if I gave Manny the filtered data (or told him what kind of filter I used), then he could produce an identical graph.
if, if, if. You are taking things that are most uncertain and acting as if they are.
You would think that after all of the talk about BEST and how they went about normalizing the data, you would stop with this line of thinking. If you want to accept the graphs from partisan think tanks and various interest groups who obviously cannot answer those 'ifs' then you go right ahead. I will go right ahead and think you a intentionally obtuse and misleading fool.
As long as a published work is reproducible, then it doesn't matter if it was funded by the Koch brothers, like BEST, or whether it was produced by some progressive think tank.
Pull your head out of your ass, dude.
That works both ways. When the think tank makes it so their methods can be reproduced then you have a point.As long as a published work is reproducible, then it doesn't matter if it was funded by the Koch brothers, like BEST
Pull your head out of your ass, dude.
That's why I ask who compiled the graph so I can look for myself.
Head out of my ass? Talk about irony.
So, the "who" doesn't matter. What matters is reproducibility.
So, now you can stop asking.
Thanks.
Last edited by AntiChrist; 10-22-2013 at 06:59 PM.
That just means it's verifiable and not that it is actually valid.
I had stopped asking awhile ago when I went and looked for myself. You just took 2 hours to figure it out.
Amazing huh? That is critical thinking in action!
Eek.
I see we have wandered off on a tangent, per par.
Any one care to comment or tell me what we shoudl do about the death of an ocean's worth of wildlife?
I didn't address the OP because the ocean isn't broken.
okaaaay.
You think the guy in the OP was lying?
We should sit by and do nothing? Hope it gets better? Pray that there isn't some unknown long-term damage being done?
Are you really that liberal with risk?
"wouldn't fill the Superdome"
this was after the reactor explosion and after fuel burned through containment at Fukushima: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5095209
Point taken.
I had forgotten how dumb Darrin is when it comes to evaluating risks and thinking critically about data. That's what I get for being busy in RL.
Carry on then.
Point taken.
I had forgotten how dumb Darrin is when it comes to evaluating risks and thinking critically about data. That's what I get for being busy in RL.
Carry on then.
Add it to your scoreboard.
POTD
Don't listen to scientists. Listen to the really weird guy on the internet with no education but with the ability to post graphs he doesn't understand.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions