Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Bishop Ze Ravenka

meatrace's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,924 posts (6,927 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,924 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't call your business christian and accept credit cards (usury).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
meatrace wrote:

95% of the population couldn't have been land owning white men. I'm guessing 50-ish % were women and a significant portion black.

You should stop lying.

HA! Silly old bear. :D

The answer to your self-induced conundrum would be 95% of people were represented by those who were eligible to vote.

Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!

But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crisischild wrote:

I don't really see the problem. It's a few specific products, they still cover all other forms of female birth control. Also the birth control not covered generally costs less in-store than the co-pay for many of the forms that are covered.

Why is this a world ending issue? Do I not understand because I'm a sexist racist patriaricle capitalist pig?

Because your medical care should be between you and your doctor, not your employer, and this sets precedent for far worse intrusions.


95% of the population couldn't have been land owning white men. I'm guessing 50-ish % were women and a significant portion black.

You should stop lying.


thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
I'm going to be blunt: It's quickly reaching the point where the only way there will be peace in Israel is if we nuke Jerusalem. Because, sadly, that city is what all of the fighting is about.

Just No.

And horribly provocative. This thread is doomed, but there's no need to kick it over the edge.

Lord Snow. Glad you're alright. Glad the defense system worked and no one was hurt in that attack.

Have to agree with MJ. There will be no peace until one side of the conflict is obliterated, and even then...


Psionics are awesome.
DSP psionics are well written and fun.


Irontruth wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist...

*sigh*

You only think that because you've decided you know what I'm arguing, and won't let my actual words dissuade you.

I give up. You're hopeless.

Feel free to clarify your point. Prove that their math is wrong. Prove that it doesn't apply to effects that have been measured in the real world.

Prove you're not the creationist in this argument.

You realize that you are arguing against a point he hasn't been making, right?

Yes and no. If you go back a little ways you'll see me trying to get at the heart of his point and even agreeing with some of it. I'll put it in it's own paragraph:

I agree, they could have used clearer language and explained it better.

These are guys who are familiar with analytic number theory and they're trying to explain very advanced concepts. In their attempt to explain it in layman's terms, it's confusing and possibly misleading.

I agree with all of that. I've even said, if he wants to end his complaints with the video at that point, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with him. Seriously. 100% agreement. If that's all he's concerned with, that's the end of the discussion.

But he's gone beyond that point multiple times. He has tried to claim multiple times that math is faulty and wrong.

no. I haven't. I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not smart enough to debate the validity of the math, only that what they showed was misleading and I feel intentionally so. Repeatedly. You won't listen.


Adam Daigle wrote:
That's not very helpful.

I disagree, I'm just thinking outside the box.

Like, if someone came on here asking "is there any elaborate contraption I can invent that will allow me to change the channel on the TV all the way across the room." And my advice is "get up off the couch and get the remote."

*gasp*


Irontruth wrote:


So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist...

*sigh*

You only think that because you've decided you know what I'm arguing, and won't let my actual words dissuade you.

I give up. You're hopeless.


You could get up and go talk to them.


Irontruth wrote:


C) The closest on this is posts from bloggers, who basically just stare at the equation incredulously without actually providing a mathematical proof.

And that's part of my point. People look at this and say "That's ridiculous" without actually investigating it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of arithmetic. Their logic basically being "I don't understand this, therefore it's wrong". No one has presented a flaw in the math, they just omit the parts they don't understand, which causes it to become incomplete and thus appear wrong.

Actually...did you even look at any of my links?

The truth is that there is a lot of debate in academic circles about whether it's even legitimate math, with most mathematicians saying no and most pro-string theory physicists saying yes, with a wink and a nod. Of course, string theory it still very contentious among physicists.

The Numberphile video was deceptive, and I think intentionally so (because it gets more of dem clicks!) and has had the deleterious effect of a generation of internet wankers walking around telling their friends that if you add up all the numbers from 1-infinity you get a negative number in a "whoa" *stoner voice* sort of way, which is not what the math actually represents.

Beyond that I'm done with this, because like I've said, people far smarter than either of us disagree on this point, and there's no way we're going to come to any sort of consensus on the boards when the people doing this work are unable to.

TL;DR- Either A or B, depending on interpretation.
I think C, but am happy to admit I'm not smart enough to debate it.


Irontruth wrote:

Bolded emphasis mine.

Please provide evidence that they were not talking about an actual mathematical proof or that the proof serves no function in mathematics.

Something has addled your brain. I didn't say what you're asking me to show evidence for. Do I have to do this step by step?

We have both agreed that the SUM of all natural numbers is infinity, not -1/12, yes?

We both agree (we don't have to though, it's there in the video title) that they are presenting the calculation as the sum of all natural numbers.

Right?

If I had a video called "Cats cats cats" and it was a video of a dog, that would be misleading. They have a video called "Sum of natural numbers" which presents calculations that do not represent the SUM of natural numbers.

That is misleading. Deceptive. False.

EDIT: The last 3-4 posts of mine have just been repeating the same thing over and over. Why is this so hard to understand IT? It feels like I'm arguing with Andrew R.


Irontruth wrote:


Except that isn't the only thing you've been saying. You've called it chicanery.

You've called it misdirection.

You've used words that are synonyms for deceit, dishonest, and fraud.

Are you standing by that analysis? That this isn't actually math, but some sort of fraud presented to look like math? Because that's what I've been going on about. Showing how this is actually a very important function in math and has useful applications, it doesn't just work as some sort of party trick, but can actually be used to produce results in the real world, or even accurately predict results of phenomenon.

So which is...

Like I said. Over and over again. Presenting it as a sum is deception. That's all I've said, even in the posts you quote back at me. THAT'S what's chicanery, because they pretend to be providing a proof for something when indeed they are not. That IS deception.

Numberphile is generally a very interesting web show, but the producers tend to be more interested in showing "a neat trick" and relying on shorthand than explaining the higher level math they delve into. As such, yes, it is a fraud and does a massive disservice both to the mathematicians (and physicists) they are representing and to the general public.


Irontruth wrote:
No, they aren't in error.

Yes, they are. You even admitted as much earlier, though you don't seem to realize you did. I'll even quote you:

Irontruth wrote:


They are saying "=" is "=".

The problem is that you're reading "=" as "the sum".

A Zeta function is not a "sum", it's a "value". Plugging in the equation returns a "value". For 1+2+3+4... that value is -1/12. The SUM is infinite. But since lots of equations give us a sum of infinite, what value is there in labeling THIS equation with a ∞?

Emphasis mine.

And yet, the video is called "Sum of natural numbers" and they present the math as the sum of all numbers. Now, I just quoted you saying, literally, "The SUM is infinite." And that the calculation represented is not a sum, but a value. I agree.

That' is the only thing I've been saying. All the rest of the stuff you've been spouting? Fine. Sure. I won't argue it. All I've been arguing is that the SUM is not -1/12, and that, as such, anyone who says it is is misrepresenting the higher level math involved. In other words, they are incorrect.

You continue to disagree because...I guess you like to argue?


Man, this thread is a real knee-slapper.


Irontruth wrote:

Too bad you didn't read one of the sources for that article.

He starts off pretty incredulous, then he shows how he did the math. Once he does, he realizes that he was mistaken and begins to realize what it is they're talking about.

Apparently you didn't read the article you just linked.

Heck, the title of the article you link as evidence is "Correction: Does 1+2+3+4...=-1/2? Absolutely Not (I Think)"

I could go on and quote a dozen more places in the article which you linked where it disagrees with your assertion, but it doesn't matter since we're no longer talking about the same thing.

All I've ever said in this back and forth is those numbers do not SUM to -1/12. On which you seem to now be agreeing. The Numberphile video, which really threw gasoline on this fire and prompted debate among physicists and mathematicians far smarter than either of us, specifically uses the term sum, or "when added up", so they are most certainly in error. They don't even provide a zeta function, just + signs.

Which is precisely why it's chicanery. They present it as one thing, as if it's simple math that the average droog just doesn't savvy rather than as a very specific and rarified meaning, which it does.

I think my point stands.


MagusJanus wrote:
meatrace wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
As for the mental leap: It's not that difficult. Take a look at everything I've said, then go ahead and read the linked section. Keep track of how much of what I said matches up. If you want more specific, just read sections 8.7-8.10 (stop when you hit 8.11). Barely any reading at all, and you can see what I have said so far backed up by plain text from the IPCC itself. All I'm doing is pointing out an answer to why it is they left something out and saying it's most likely right based on how they addressed everything else.

Yep, that's the best way to pursue discourse. Suggest that people who disagree with you are dumb or haven't looked over the evidence.

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, since no one else can see what you see, it's on you not us?

No insult was written into my post.

I'll take your word that no insult was intended, but read your own words you quoted "It's not that difficult." and "then go ahead and read the linked section."

Hey man, at least I own up to when I'm being jerky.

Hint: I'm always a jerk.


MagusJanus wrote:


So it's one of two choices... Either the solution to reduce CO2 levels from transportation is the one item they didn't cover, or the IPCC is admitting we have simply failed. Which do you think is more likely?

Here's the thing. Neither of those choices is them actually advocating a ban on fossil fuels.

And you have a rather silly false dichotomy. Yes, they conclude that measures taken thus far have not had a significant impact. That's about a thousand miles from saying we shouldn't improve upon those incentives.


MagusJanus wrote:
As for the mental leap: It's not that difficult. Take a look at everything I've said, then go ahead and read the linked section. Keep track of how much of what I said matches up. If you want more specific, just read sections 8.7-8.10 (stop when you hit 8.11). Barely any reading at all, and you can see what I have said so far backed up by plain text from the IPCC itself. All I'm doing is pointing out an answer to why it is they left something out and saying it's most likely right based on how they addressed everything else.

Yep, that's the best way to pursue discourse. Suggest that people who disagree with you are dumb or haven't looked over the evidence.

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, since no one else can see what you see, it's on you not us?


MagusJanus wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Not how discourse works.

You made a claim, you have to actually prove it, not demand others disprove it.

I presented evidence to prove it. Now others have to disprove that evidence. Which is how discourse works.

So, where is the evidence that my evidence is wrong?

You've presented evidence that did not in any way back up your assertion.

Let's say that I asserted that you owed me a million dollars.
I then present to you a bottle of bleach with a mustache drawn on and say "see? proof positive."

Everyone who looks at my "evidence" thinks I've gone nuts, but I stick to my guns and insist that it's proof of my claim.

Ergo, you owe me a million dollars. Pay up, son.


Krensky wrote:

Not how discourse works.

You made a claim, you have to actually prove it, not demand others disprove it.

Precisely.

Moreover, if absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence it sure as hell isn't evidence of presence.


MagusJanus, your conspiracy theory that the IPCC are advocating a ban on petroleum vehicles as evinced by their NOT advocating for such a ban reminds me of the head of the NRA talking about how the only reason Obama hasn't taken our guns is because he wants to take our guns.

It takes a natural 20 on a rhetorical gymnastics roll to convince anyone of that sort of logic, unless you are eminently credulous, like NRA members.


Irontruth wrote:
meatrace wrote:
The same math can be used to prove 1=2. It's chicanery any actual mathematician will call b%@&$&#* on. You should read my link.

The problem is it isn't chicanery.

Here is an article with a bunch of mathematicians and physicists agreeing with me.

My favorite bit:

Smithsonian wrote:
So, does 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5.... = -1/12? Yes, but only if, to you, an equal sign means something other than “is equal to.

In other words, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.


The same math can be used to prove 1=2. It's chicanery any actual mathematician will call b#$++~$! on. You should read my link.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

Quote:
And think about it, adding positive numbers can never be negative.

Ah, yes. The old "Just think about it!" counter. Right up there with "But it's common sense!" and "But I totally saw it on Facebook so it must be true!"

Quote:
It is just a propaganda video put up by String Theorists.
I don't think you know what "propaganda" means.

Except that it IS bullcrap. 1-1+1-1... is a non-converging series, which means it does not sum to 1/2. Without that bit of mathematical misdirection the whole calculation falls apart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

And I'm pretty sure there are two movies called "The Gate".

I'm talking the one where the kid used a model rocket (no, I am not kidding) to kill the demon and save his sister.

That's the one.

It's awesome. Nuts to you.


Electric Wizard wrote:
Fireman Gob Montag wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
...you only know what you see on the TV.
Well, I'm burning books as fast as I can, and I haven't even started burning teachers yet, so I think it'll be a while before they only learn from the GreatTalkyShowyBox.

Corporations determine which books to print too. Only the internet can set us free, but the NSA has that bottled up now.

Did you see this? "Dianne Feinstein Admits That Her 'NSA Reform' Bill Is About Protecting Existing Surveillance Programs"

.

Onion Web, my friend.


NobodysHome wrote:

It was almost as bad as "The Gate".

Almost, but not quite...

Dude that movie is amazing.

I saw that as a kid and the part with the dude in the wall freaked me out so bad it gave me nightmares. NOTHING gives me nightmares.
I watched it maybe 3-4 years ago and it was still fawesome.

You ever see the sequel?


Not sure if actual thread or horse_ebooks post.


Matt Thomason wrote:


Basically, it's a gigantic mesh of nodes across the globe, communicating with one another. Most of us with connections attach to one of those nodes, which then relay traffic throughout that mesh. You can also envisage it in abstract form as a giant network of roads, with a number of main highways (the high-speed "backbone" connections of the Internet), and smaller roads.

Or, as put someone infinitely wiser than any of us:

"It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes."-Ted Stevens


PSusac wrote:
meatrace wrote:

That's....a LOOONG list of buffs. Even just the bolded ones would be nearly all your slots (if extended at +1 spell level) at medium to high levels. Yeesh.

Exactly! With a day of prep time, you are like twice the wizard you would have been without the feat!

You'll have zero spell slots left. Even at 20th level, extended Overland Flight only lasts 40 hours--less than 2 days. So it's more like you cast the buff spells and are then the most impressive flying commoner ever seen.


I'm down.

What I REALLY want though is to harness the Higgs boson to create artificial gravity and gravity-based space transportation.


Decimus Drake wrote:
Isn't the toughness feat a fairly standard one to take?

Yes at some point.

Maybe I missed it but, what kind of campaign is this? It makes a big difference. For example if you were running the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path, and fighting mostly demons, I'd probably recommend spell penetration. Otherwise I wouldn't (especially if you're an elf and already get a +2).

Necromancy and Evocation have long been my prohibited schools, but I'm starting to rethink Evocation with the advent of Dazing Spell.


That's....a LOOONG list of buffs. Even just the bolded ones would be nearly all your slots (if extended at +1 spell level) at medium to high levels. Yeesh.


MagusJanus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Figure out a way to get atmospheric carbon into carbon fibers and make stuff out of that.
That would be easy enough to do. Just re-engineer a type of bacteria to do it.

Or. Ya know. Plants.

Exactly thouh. I said carbon composite because it's already something in large use but expensive (for the time being). You can engineer composite to recreate any of a range of relative densities, thus simulating a wide range of materials including wood.


Sissyl wrote:
There is a choice we have to make. Either we help those in the poorer countries to improve their standard of living, or we start massive wars to protect ourselves. Both methods will eventually reduce world population. Neither will likely prevent 10 billion. If we go with wars, however, there will likely not be enough left of us or the Earth to be worth mentioning.

That's a false choice if ever I've seen one.

Again, it's not the population of the "poorer" countries that are causing the hassle, it's us. We need to find better and sustainable solutions to energy, water, and agriculture.

Andrew R was railing earlier about plastics and how they are death incarnate. Well, it's petrochemicals that are death incarnate, including most plastics, but there is emerging plastics technology that repurposes plant cellulose rather than petrochemical byproducts. Heck, the first plastic WAS plant cellulose.

So, hypothetically, we could engineer plants to produce the kind of cellulose that is useful in plastics manufacturing thus supplanting petrochemical byproducts, all the while actually sequestering carbon by growing them rather than releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

I dunno, it's just one little thing. But a sustainable plastics industry, with perhaps the advent of carbon composite materials, could even replace metal for many things.

This broke the other week. The development of this technology could mean bridging the gap between popular sustainable energy sources like wind and solar and more traditional fossil fuels. One of the biggest complaints of which is its inability to function off-peak (i.e. when it's not windy or sunny). Battery technology is the solution.

So. Eliminate or reduce the need to deplete nonrenewable resources such as mining of metals and petrochemical-based plastics by replacing them with plant-based plastics. Pursue alternative (including gas and nuclear, preferably breeder reactors) and renewable energy sources and better battery technology. Electric cars like the Tesla. It's a start.


PSusac wrote:

2) Extend spell is an EXCELLENT feat - yes you can buy a rod for cheep - and you should. But that is for your spells that last 1 min/day. All your 1 hour per day spells (and there are way more than 3 of them) can be cast a day ahead of time. For this reason I like taking the feat.

3) While dimensional agility is a cool feat, ask yourself how you will actually use it in play - you are a spell cannon, bouncing around on the battlefield is great, but how is that actually tactically better than your current abilities as a ranged caster - teleport into place, cast a spell and fly away isn't much different than fly into place, cast a spell and teleport away, and you can already do that. On the other hand, it is useful for teleporting ot of tight spots and still getting to cast a spell that round.

Why wouldn't you just cast your hours/level spells with the rod? Why use a higher level slot?

IME and, granted, YMMV, min/level spells usually don't last more than one encounter and even extending them doesn't change this. Extend's best use is on hours/level and 10 min/level spells to make them last all day, or at least all adventuring day. Using both a feat and a higher level slot is far more resource intensive than, say, buying TWO rods if that's what you want to do.

For Dimensional Agility, the reason it's different is how attacks of opportunity work. As you say, being able to get out of a grapple AND put the grappler in a pit is infinitely better than moving 30 feet away and having the same problem the very next round.

Granted, only worth a feat slot of it is happening a lot in his game.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
meatrace wrote:


I see no reason why it can't be a combination.

Theres a few reasons.

For starters, climate change doesn't seem to cause mass extinctions. For the time frame of say, mammoth extinction, there were 17 or so cooling and warming periods and neither one seems to coincide very well with a drop in biodiversity.

The second thing is the target of the extinctions are things that are easy for humans to hunt.

The third thing is that when you have climate change, you get one species replacing another in its niche. It gets colder, the northern mammoths replace the southern one. It gets warmer, the southern mammoths replace the northern ones. One species replaces another. What you don't get is an entire open niche going POOF.

And why I'm saying a combination, and mind I'm by no means an expert.

Climate change, in either direction, may well have precipitated the introduction of humanity to the population of megafauna who live at more extreme latitudes, such as the mammoths you speak of. It gets warmer, humanity is able to push farther north (having started in Africa).

We've seen pretty brutal extinction patterns of megafauna just in RECORDED human history, a couple thousand years, including whales. For all the reasons you suggest but which I'll make more explicit. Larger creatures require more resources, thus you can have less of them in a small area and be sustainable. They typically have much longer gestational periods, meaning they don't bounce back as quickly. They're typically slower, and for a human population cutting its teeth (so to speak) on animal flesh they make far too enticing a target for economic reasons.

But right now we're seeing the extinction of the moose, and it's not largely because of hunting or direct human interaction. Moose are dying of lyme disease and other diseases borne by insects that previously (i.e. before climate change) weren't as intense at the northern climes which the moose inhabits.

There very well could have been a similar phenomena tens of thousands of years ago, which wouldn't show up in the fossil record whatsoever.


Sissyl wrote:
Good sex ed, free abortions, cheap contraceptives of all kinds, education for everyone, decent pensions, options for nursing homes for the elderly, a healthy job market and a social security system worth the name. That's all you need to curbstomp population growth. Then again... there are many projections that the curve will turn downward after ten billion people... which is when the real problems will happen.

Ten billion, at our current rate of resource utilization, growth rate of resource depletion, and industrialization of third world populations, would be catastrophic for humanity.

We're barely limping along at 7.


MagusJanus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:


Which of the extinction events during human history are you referring to?
The event is humanity. Any time humanity shows up in the fossil record, there goes the local wildlife. Its not a recent event.
Fair enough. I was wondering if you meant one of the specific extinction events humanity has caused, but I have to admit that you gave a far better answer than I had considered.

There's still a lot of debate on it, and plenty of studies done on either side of the issue of whether it was climate change or human activity that caused megafauna extinction.

I see no reason why it can't be a combination.


Sissyl wrote:
meatrace: Euthanasia used to kill those who are already dying isn't going to be visible in the population data, you realize that, right? I thought you were talking about EFFECTIVE programs, like euthanizing everyone above the age of 40 or somesuch, healthy or no. So, would you, if it meant that such programs were instated?

How would that be effective at all, killing people in their prime?

Remember the whole rant. The reason we need population control is because of out of control growth of resource depletion. In the US, 70% of medical costs (costs just being a way of tallying use of resources) are expended in the last 6 months of life. Not rallying millions of dollars in resources that are better utilized elsewhere, and cultivating a culture that learns to accept the inevitability of death, goes a long way in reducing the problem.

Remember also that it's only industrialized societies that are depleting resources at this level. The poor and homeless in sub-saharan Africa or South America or Central Asia aren't the problem--we are. I'm not at all advocating some sort of genocide, I'm advocating that industrial civilization get our house in order and come to terms with the facts on the ground.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Let me guess, you're volunteering to be the first to go in the suggested program of euthanasia then?

You only prove my point. People don't have the intestinal fortitude for what has to actually be done.

But since you're asking, sure. If, at some point in my future, I become a financial liability because of the resources I'm consuming for medical procedures to keep me alive outweigh my utility, put me down like a sick dog. I won't pretend I'm not afraid of death, but I fear being too frail to take care of myself even more.

We have a culture that is obsessed with the sanctity of "human life" even when that human life is basically just a sack of flesh hooked up to life support, or, on the other end of the deal, a smattering of cells. Furthermore we pretend that human life is the only life that matters, all the while causing the extinction of untold numbers of species of plant, animal, fungal, and microbial life.

I don't hold human life as sacred the way most people do. What I want to survive is our culture and our civilization, which means finding a sustainable model for industrial civilization.


Andrew R wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Good luck trying to convince humans to stop breeding like rodents though
It seems the best way is to stop treating them like rodents. With a few exceptions, raising the standard of living (and especially guaranteeing secure retirement) tends to cause the birthrate to drop off sharply. Sadly, our economic system is set up to provide far more profit for killing people rather then providing them with stable futures.
Those "stable futures" rely on each generation being larger than the last to support the ponzi scheme of taking from some to support others. Compounding the problem if you want to limit pollution causing industry that produces the wealth that pay the taxes. That does little to remedy the population issue

The crazy thing is that I basically agree with Andrew R on this point.

Addressing climate change is just putting a bandaid on a head wound if we don't get population growth under control. And by under control I don't mean slowing the rate of change, but actually reducing the world population in meaningful ways. Ways that we tend to find distasteful, like an enforceable population control policy, or euthanasia.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

It's hilarious how people can heatedly argue about something as pointless as rinsing the dishes before putting them in the dishwasher.

I love it.

Or about rules minutiae in a recreational fantasy game...

<.<


Kryzbyn wrote:

Or it could be that the models they looked at to decide the world would be on fire AND under water by 2015 were bunk.

Now they have new models.

Why you gotta bring up old s**t?

So they made a prediction. That prediction turned out to be incorrect, so they went back to their data to revise their model.

That sounds like
*dun dun DUUUUUUUN*
how science works, yo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Generic Villain wrote:

Someone in my life, whom I'll call Dick, feels that rinsing dishes before putting them in the dishwasher is a "waste," and that if he were to do this, he may as well just go whole-hog and hand-clean them. I feel differently. This is a matter of contention.

Any thoughts?

Why on earth would I wash my dishes before I wash my dishes?


Sissyl wrote:
From the linked page wrote:
"The Journal of Patient Safety, like the other journals that have published work from Mr. Hamman, had to retract the article."

How common do you think this is, anyway, meatrace? It's not common by any means, if nothing else, most such people would be discovered ages before publishing anything by their co-writers.

Nevertheless, you wanted an example, and you got it.

It should also be noted that there is no prejudice against the co-authors, who are free to re-submit the research without Hamman's name attached. Likely the only reason it was retracted at all was the nature of the publication itself "Patient Safety" where, ya know, patient safety might be at stake rather than merely grant money or rhetorical points.

You will find very few such retractions in other credible scientific publications, regardless of erroeneously reported credentials. Because the credentials don't matter.

Yes, I got an example. One that seemed to agree more with my assertion than with yours (1 in 6).


Sissyl wrote:
If someone published something in, say, medicine, and was shown to have bought his qualifications, I am quite certain the articles he had written would be retracted and he never publishing anything again. Not doing so opens the journal, and, eventually, the entire field of science, up to criticism and views of irrelevance. No matter what was actually in those papers.

You are incorrect. Someone's credentials does not invalidate data. That's an ad hominem argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Skepticism without evidence is just being a contrarian.

No it isn't.


Sissyl wrote:
You are saying materials science is not a science? Or subatomic physics? I am afraid I do not understand here, table flip or not.

Building a bridge is a matter of engineering, not science.

Le derp.

1 to 50 of 6,924 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.