Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1997 1998 [1999] 2000 2001 ... 2093

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 941951 times)

bloop_bleep

  • Bay Watcher
  • U want sum seed?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29970 on: March 19, 2019, 07:11:20 pm »

I disagree with Max that literally nothing except the raw data matters. You always have to interpret the data, find flaws with the data, find uncertainties in the data. That’s what scientists argue about. Otherwise there would be no such occupation as a “scientist”; as the data collection itself could easily be done via manual labor.
Logged
bloop_bleep's Moving Fortress Parts Mod!

Quote from: KittyTac
The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum mechanics.
Quote from: thefriendlyhacker
The trick is to only make predictions semi-seriously.  That way, I don't have a 98% failure rate. I have a 98% sarcasm rate.

thompson

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29971 on: March 19, 2019, 07:31:26 pm »

Science and telepathy are both nouns...
Logged

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29972 on: March 19, 2019, 08:25:37 pm »

Science gets verbed occasionally these days, for what it's worth. Telepathy, less so.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29973 on: March 19, 2019, 09:13:24 pm »

All nouns are verbs just taking a break from their 'd
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Folly

  • Bay Watcher
  • Steam Profile: 76561197996956175
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29974 on: March 19, 2019, 09:23:52 pm »

You're sciencing me bro. Don't science me bro. If you keep sciencing me, you're gonna get scienced bro. You don't wanna get scienced bro...
Okay, that's it, now you're getting scienced bro! I'm gonna science you like you've never been scienced before bro! You're gonna learn that you can't just go around sciencing bros, bro! It's sciencing time!


Google spell-check found 0 issues with these sentences.
Logged

MrRoboto75

  • Bay Watcher
  • :thonk:
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29975 on: March 19, 2019, 09:33:24 pm »

Being skeptical of science though, that shit is straight up ridiculous, it's a verb. Are you skeptical of juggling, or weaving, or driving?

I am skeptical of some people's driving, yes.
Logged
I consume
I purchase
I consume again

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29976 on: March 19, 2019, 09:38:00 pm »

Being skeptical of science though, that shit is straight up ridiculous, it's a verb. Are you skeptical of juggling, or weaving, or driving?

I am skeptical of some people's driving, yes.

I saw a speeding, lime green Jeep weaving in and out of traffic this morning.

Unfortunately I couldn’t see if the driver was also juggling. I apologize for my failure.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

EnigmaticHat

  • Bay Watcher
  • I vibrate, I die, I vibrate again
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29977 on: March 19, 2019, 10:09:19 pm »

There's a story I like to tell about this involving a guy who, one morning on the bus I was taking to my grad school lab, attempted to convince me that π is exactly equal to 3, as implied by the Bible (1 Kings 7:23). I pointed out that π is demonstrably not exactly equal to 3, and his response has stuck with me: "Scientists have wasted billions of our tax dollars trying to find π, and millions of digits later they still don't have an exact number, just a lot of blather about how it's infinite or whatever. So how can you tell me it's not 3 when you don't know what it is?"
Popular portrayals of science deserve some blame, for throwing the word "prove" around.  Science is about disproving things.  Anyone can form an idea, scientists test ideas by trying to destroy them.

That guy was pointing out your idea wasn't proven.  You were pointing out that his idea was trivially disproven.  Only one of you knew what science is.
Logged
"T-take this non-euclidean geometry, h-humanity-baka. I m-made it, but not because I l-li-l-like you or anything! I just felt s-sorry for you, b-baka."
You misspelled seance.  Are possessing Draignean?  Are you actually a ghost in the shell? You have to tell us if you are, that's the rule

thompson

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29978 on: March 20, 2019, 12:09:24 am »

There's a story I like to tell about this involving a guy who, one morning on the bus I was taking to my grad school lab, attempted to convince me that π is exactly equal to 3, as implied by the Bible (1 Kings 7:23). I pointed out that π is demonstrably not exactly equal to 3, and his response has stuck with me: "Scientists have wasted billions of our tax dollars trying to find π, and millions of digits later they still don't have an exact number, just a lot of blather about how it's infinite or whatever. So how can you tell me it's not 3 when you don't know what it is?"
Popular portrayals of science deserve some blame, for throwing the word "prove" around.  Science is about disproving things.  Anyone can form an idea, scientists test ideas by trying to destroy them.

That guy was pointing out your idea wasn't proven.  You were pointing out that his idea was trivially disproven.  Only one of you knew what science is.

I work in materials science, so to me science is about figuring out how the hell I managed to turn my germanium black the first time I tried. So, kind of like engineering, except you don't know what you're doing.
Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29979 on: March 20, 2019, 08:01:35 am »

There's a story I like to tell about this involving a guy who, one morning on the bus I was taking to my grad school lab, attempted to convince me that π is exactly equal to 3, as implied by the Bible (1 Kings 7:23). I pointed out that π is demonstrably not exactly equal to 3, and his response has stuck with me: "Scientists have wasted billions of our tax dollars trying to find π, and millions of digits later they still don't have an exact number, just a lot of blather about how it's infinite or whatever. So how can you tell me it's not 3 when you don't know what it is?"
Popular portrayals of science deserve some blame, for throwing the word "prove" around.
"Prove" (and alternate forms) is the right word, but understood wrongly. To prove is essentially to put to the test/trial, and while it can often be read as "the positive answer" it more rightly often refers to the question being asked regardless of the answer that may then have followed.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating", you must taste the food to confirm its nature. "Galley proof"/"Proof sheet", the initial test-print to confirm layout/content. "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true.", analyse for veracity before then taking that which has it for your informed position. "(100, or other value)% proof", a concentration of alcohol as empirically established. "Proving bread", allowing the yeast/equivalent to properly demonstrate its ability, before actually baking it. "Not proven", not sufficiently tested to establish a result (especially of guilt, in Scottish law).

And of course the classic misunderstood "The exception that proves the rule". There's an apparent rule and then along comes an exception to the rule that explores the limitations of the assumption, breaking the assuredness of the rule and/or forcing alteration so that the original rule is not confirmed (as often mis-stated) but actually shown to be not valid. Finding an exception shows where the rule is wrong.

(Although some say "the exception that proves the rule" is more about that when there is a noted exception it indicates that somewhere outwith that exception there must yet be rule-following of the kind the exception does not obey, or else that exception would not be notable. But it does rely on fully countable and testable non-exceptions, or else all you're really implying is that the exception is the true rule and anything going by the old rule is an exception to the exception. And if not all exceptions to the exception's rule may themselves follow the old-rule, then you have to consider a rule for the old-rule candidate(s), a rule regarding the exception(s) and who knows how many further rules you need to cover exceptions to tje exceptions that are themselves exceptions to the old-rule. e.g. Possessives, in English¹.)


¹. The basic rule is to add apostrophe-'s' to all words that don't end in an 's' already as a plural, otherwise just append the apostrophe after the existing final 's'. This comes pre-catering for the exception that a non-plural s-ending word ought to have apostrophe-s. "The mass's gravitational pull is..." "The masses' gravitational pulls are..." "Professor Jones's experiments on gravitational attraction demonstrated that..." "Each LIGO installation around the world is set up in the shape of a giant L, the L's placement being flat to the local ground level." "If each of the Ls' orientations are in differing planes then we can ultimately determine the direction from which a detected signal came."

But there are exceptions.  Biblical names don't "s's" themselves, for some archaic reason likely to originate with calligraphising monks not laboriously inking out "Jesus's" when they might otherwise have done so. (Or at least once they started to do it in English rather than Latin or whichever other precusror.) But that exception doesn't prove (confirm) the rule, because you need to consider the possessive (and determiner) pronouns that are all archaic exceptions, with "its" being the one people stumble over most because there is an "it's" that is in the separate group of regular contractions. Except for the pronoun "one" which isn't an exception like its brethren and sistren and othren.  Something belonging to one is one's. Unless it is the very self of one, which is oneself.  None of these confirm the aformentioned rules, merely highlighting limitations to the generality of the rule, letting a couple more 'rule-breaking' examples that I haven't yet mentioned exist, so none of those exceptions justify the more naïve versions of the rule, they merely show that a more complex version of the rule needs to be established to cope with the additional rigor of all these exceptions.
Logged

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Dude abides.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29980 on: March 21, 2019, 12:24:41 pm »

It's important to identify and compare things like majority and minority positions when working towards a political consensus, but it will never cease to baffle me that anybody thinks it has any sort of relevance when doing science. You don't determine experimental results by committee(...)
And it will never cease to baffle me how *certain people* keep using this false equivalence. The scientific consensus is not handed down by some imaginary committee, it emerges organically in the literature as a result of following up on promising research and discarding duds. One doesn't find out what the consensus is by asking a committee - one does find out what it is (or isn't) by doing a literature review. You know, like the opposite of cherry picking.
Logged

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • WHERE'S YOUR MOTIVATION!!?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29981 on: March 21, 2019, 12:32:18 pm »

Quote
One doesn't find out what the consensus is by asking a committee

Or they do, in the case of U.S. Nutritional Science. Which is how we ended up with 40 years of bad guidelines and the low fat craze.
Logged
If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the Gods, and the nights will flame with fire.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29982 on: March 21, 2019, 12:38:26 pm »

Donald Trump is still feuding with John McCain.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

scriver

  • Bay Watcher
  • I have a nice hat
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29983 on: March 21, 2019, 12:39:01 pm »

One thing there is that never die
Logged
Love, scriver~

Zangi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29984 on: March 21, 2019, 12:41:01 pm »

Quote
One doesn't find out what the consensus is by asking a committee

Or they do, in the case of U.S. Nutritional Science. Which is how we ended up with 40 years of bad guidelines and the low fat craze.
Shop forAsk enough experts and you'll get a consensus by committee with weight behind it.
Logged
All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu...  This is the truth! This is my belief! ... At least for now...
FMA/FMA:B Recommendation
Pages: 1 ... 1997 1998 [1999] 2000 2001 ... 2093