Indeed, I'm pretty sure the weather forecast isn't pulled out without some basis or facts behind it...
Then I guess it doesn't count as a prediction, if we use this Twilight Zone definition?
|
Indeed, I'm pretty sure the weather forecast isn't pulled out without some basis or facts behind it...Then I guess it doesn't count as a prediction, if we use this Twilight Zone definition?
I don't know. Dice rolls seem to be nearly as effective a predictor here...
I don't know. Dice rolls seem to be nearly as effective a predictor here...
That's exactly my point -- the generally poor predictive power (as compared to calculating heat of enthalpy in a reaction, for example) is a function of two things: (1) the more numerous and complex factors influencing the weather, and (2) the lack of robustness of our ability to model it.
We have no influence over the first thing, but we can improve the second. And people are working on it. Science doesn't say "never mind, it's good enough" -- it seeks to improve, to achieve better predictive power (or what dngnb8 would call "better reasoned conclusion power," I guess, since he uses a wildly nonstandard definition of "prediction").
Just noodling around, I grabbed this one, which is a pretty good definition, in terms of what most scientists mean by the word:
Scientific prediction
Indeed, I'm pretty sure the weather forecast isn't pulled out without some basis or facts behind it...
From what I understand, the forecast is really a statement of past facts. In essence, when they say 80% chance of rain, what they are saying is:
Under the current conditions, it rained 80% of the time in the past.
So its not really a prediction, as it is a statement of past data.
|
Indeed, I'm pretty sure the weather forecast isn't pulled out without some basis or facts behind it...From what I understand, the forecast is really a statement of past facts. In essence, when they say 80% chance of rain, what they are saying is:
Under the current conditions, it rained 80% of the time in the past.
So its not really a prediction, as it is a statement of past data.
I'm pretty sure it has more to do with warm fronts, cold fronts, humidity, storm systems in other areas, directions of the prevailing winds, and a multitude of other factors. While i'm sure that past data comes into play at some point, I doubt that it's the main determining factor.
I'm pretty sure it has more to do with warm fronts, cold fronts, humidity, storm systems in other areas, directions of the prevailing winds, and a multitude of other factors. While i'm sure that past data comes into play at some point, I doubt that it's the main determining factor.Indeed, I'm pretty sure the weather forecast isn't pulled out without some basis or facts behind it...From what I understand, the forecast is really a statement of past facts. In essence, when they say 80% chance of rain, what they are saying is:
Under the current conditions, it rained 80% of the time in the past.
So its not really a prediction, as it is a statement of past data.
I think that is what was meant by "under the current conditions". In other words, when similar conditions (warm/cold front, humidity level, other nearby weather pattern, wind speed and direction, etc), then the statistical analysis of past situations are used to compute a possible probability of current weather patterns.
I have no idea if that is how the weather bureau (how many vowels does that thing need?) actually comes up with stated probabilities.
What I do know is irregardless of whether a butterfly flaps its wings in China, I still want to kick Jeff Goldblum in the face for ruining the Ian Malcolm character.
In Scrabble, bureau is the win button.
|
|
I'm pretty sure it has more to do with warm fronts, cold fronts, humidity, storm systems in other areas, directions of the prevailing winds, and a multitude of other factors. While i'm sure that past data comes into play at some point, I doubt that it's the main determining factor.Indeed, I'm pretty sure the weather forecast isn't pulled out without some basis or facts behind it...From what I understand, the forecast is really a statement of past facts. In essence, when they say 80% chance of rain, what they are saying is:
Under the current conditions, it rained 80% of the time in the past.
So its not really a prediction, as it is a statement of past data.
I think that is what was meant by "under the current conditions". In other words, when similar conditions (warm/cold front, humidity level, other nearby weather pattern, wind speed and direction, etc), then the statistical analysis of past situations are used to compute a possible probability of current weather patterns.
I have no idea if that is how the weather bureau (how many vowels does that thing need?) actually comes up with stated probabilities.
What I do know is irregardless of whether a butterfly flaps its wings in China, I still want to kick Jeff Goldblum in the face for ruining the Ian Malcolm character.
What I know is that "irregardless" is not a word. Or at the very least, if it were a word, it would mean the exact opposite of what you mean it to be.
[/end grammar rant...]
EDIT: Ninja'd by lkl.
What I know is that "irregardless" is not a word. Or at the very least, if it were a word, it would mean the exact opposite of what you mean it to be.
[/end grammar rant...]
EDIT: Ninja'd by lkl.
*Yawn*
ir·re·gard·less adv
Definition of IRREGARDLESSnonstandard : regardless
Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESSIrregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Origin of IRREGARDLESSprobably blend of irrespective and regardless
First Known Use: circa 1912
And since it means regardless, it did mean exactly what I said. It is informal speech (or in this case posting).
But if going all schoolmarm in an informal message-board can embiggen you, then please don't let me dissuade you.
|
|
What I know is that "irregardless" is not a word. Or at the very least, if it were a word, it would mean the exact opposite of what you mean it to be.
[/end grammar rant...]
EDIT: Ninja'd by lkl.
*Yawn*
ir·re·gard·less adv
Definition of IRREGARDLESSnonstandard : regardless
Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESSIrregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Origin of IRREGARDLESSprobably blend of irrespective and regardless
First Known Use: circa 1912And since it means regardless, it did mean exactly what I said. It is informal speech (or in this case posting).
But if going all schoolmarm in an informal message-board can embiggen you, then please don't let me dissuade you.
Look at "Relevant" and "Irrelevant". "Ir-" as a prefix means the opposite of the word following. Since "Regardless" is a word, "Irregardless" would therefore mean "Not regardless" which then brings up double negatives which basically means "with regard".
Look at "Relevant" and "Irrelevant". "Ir-" as a prefix means the opposite of the word following. Since "Regardless" is a word, "Irregardless" would therefore mean "Not regardless" which then brings up double negatives which basically means "with regard".What I know is that "irregardless" is not a word. Or at the very least, if it were a word, it would mean the exact opposite of what you mean it to be.
[/end grammar rant...]
EDIT: Ninja'd by lkl.
*Yawn*
ir·re·gard·less adv
Definition of IRREGARDLESSnonstandard : regardless
Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESSIrregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Origin of IRREGARDLESSprobably blend of irrespective and regardless
First Known Use: circa 1912And since it means regardless, it did mean exactly what I said. It is informal speech (or in this case posting).
But if going all schoolmarm in an informal message-board can embiggen you, then please don't let me dissuade you.
I love me some double negatives, Not.
Look at "Relevant" and "Irrelevant". "Ir-" as a prefix means the opposite of the word following. Since "Regardless" is a word, "Irregardless" would therefore mean "Not regardless" which then brings up double negatives which basically means "with regard".
Sorry, I must have given you too much information originally. Let me trim it down for you.
ir·re·gard·less adv
Definition of IRREGARDLESSnonstandard : regardless
Welcome to the bastard language of english. Where we have things that are more of guidelines than actually rules.
|
|
Look at "Relevant" and "Irrelevant". "Ir-" as a prefix means the opposite of the word following. Since "Regardless" is a word, "Irregardless" would therefore mean "Not regardless" which then brings up double negatives which basically means "with regard".Sorry, I must have given you too much information originally. Let me trim it down for you.
ir·re·gard·less advWelcome to the bastard language of english. Where we have things that are more of guidelines than actually rules.
Definition of IRREGARDLESSnonstandard : regardless
Meh.
irregardlessan erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s (e.g. "Portsmouth Times," Portsmouth, Ohio, U.S.A., April 11, 1874: "We supported the six successful candidates for Council in the face of a strong opposition. We were led to do so because we believed every man of them would do his whole duty, irregardless of party, and the columns of this paper for one year has [sic] told what is needed."); probably a blend of irrespective and regardless . Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
I think that is vaguely his point. It is fine to say that you don't believe in supernatural beings. It is fine to say that you do believe in such beings. But it is probably inappropriate to claim the reason you do or don't is because of "science". As you point out, science plays no part on the supernatural, thus it is ultimately irrelevant to someone's believe or lack of with regards to the supernatural.Everything is supernatural, until science can explain it. Imagine how a simple flashlight would seem to someone before electricity was even considered?
Light in a tube, ITS MAGIC!
True, but its from this kind of premise that one gets Atheists that invoke science as the basis for their belief system.
What your essentially saying is that all possible realities may or may not be true. Its possible that science might, one day, prove anything that we can conceive and, potentially, it may well prove things we can't currently conceive.
Hence, as a concrete example, it may one day show that Cuthulu is absolutely true and that the mythos, as revealed by H.P. Lovecraft in 1926, is spot on - and there is a perfectly good scientific reason why he tapped into it. There is no way to know whether this may be what science proves in the future or any of an infinite number of other possibilities.
So am I therefore to live my life agnostic of all of existence because its conceivable that any reality may in fact turn out to be the true one?
That seems extraordinary difficult and its from this sort of point that I ultimately choose to opt out completely. The future is unknowable and the reality it may eventually show to be so equally cryptic. I choose to live in a world bounded by what we can currently verify as true, and we shall see what will be.
I feel its from here that one gets to scientific Atheism since all possible reality's are equally plausible (though I suppose one may choose to put more stock into some of them then others) one simply believes in none of them until they are proven.
As you point out, science plays no part on the supernatural
This reminds me: what exactly IS the supernatural, anyway? Mostly I know people invoke it a lot when they want something protected from scientific study. Is that the definition, then: "The class of processes, things, or ideas that we do not allow to be questioned"? Or is there an objective one?
I mean, I know people always put in things like magic, and spirits, and gods, and miracles, and the afterlife, etc. But a laundry list of random stuff isn't a definition.
As you point out, science plays no part on the supernaturalThis reminds me: what exactly IS the supernatural, anyway? Mostly I know people invoke it a lot when they want something protected from scientific study. Is that the definition, then: "The class of processes, things, or ideas that we do not allow to be questioned"? Or is there an objective one?
I mean, I know people always put in things like magic, and spirits, and gods, and miracles, and the afterlife, etc. But a laundry list of random stuff isn't a definition.
supernatural
su·per·nat·u·ral adjDefinition of SUPERNATURAL
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
If we go by the first definition, it is by its very ..."nature"... incapable of being observed using the current tools of scientific discovery we have at this time.
If we go by the first definition, it is by its very ..."nature"... incapable of being observed using the current tools of scientific discovery we have at this time.
So if we get better tools, "supernatural" things become "natural"? So the definition, in plain English, is: "things that either we're ignorant of, or that don't exist to begin with."
If we go by the first definition, it is by its very ..."nature"... incapable of being observed using the current tools of scientific discovery we have at this time.So if we get better tools, "supernatural" things become "natural"? So the definition, in plain English, is: "things that either we're ignorant of, or that don't exist to begin with."
Tools is maybe not exactly what I meant to say. If we develop abilities to the point where we could project our intelligence outside of our reality to other planes of existance, then we might be able to observe them. But at that point, perhaps we would have acquired a supernatural "nature" ourselves.
I guess to make an analogy. Let's consider the movie the Matrix. Now imagine if our everyday existence is actually within some "constructed reality". Within that reality, there would be "natural" laws that could be observed, tested, verified, etc. But there would be no way to observe the outside "true" reality from within the "constructed reality". If we are all but programs running around in some constructed reality, it may be impossible for those programs to know anything about the being that wrote the code. They might be able to study the laws of their reality but they are still limited to only their reality.
Of course for many, the answer might be Conan's take on religion.
He shrugged his shoulders. "I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."
If we develop abilities to the point where we could project our intelligence outside of our reality to other planes of existance, then we might be able to observe them. But at that point, perhaps we would have acquired a supernatural "nature" ourselves.
...or those other planes would be natural, as predicted by M-theory. Check out Stephen Hawkings' new book, for example.
Terry Jones idiocy just played into the hands of the enemy.
Australian troops in Afghanistan were attacked by an angry mob who thought that they were burning Korans - One person was shot.
Terry Jones idiocy just played into the hands of the enemy. Australian troops in Afghanistan were attacked by an angry mob who thought that they were burning Korans - One person was shot.
If you're dealing with people who will kill you over a book, or a cartoon, then you're dealing with people who are anxious to kill you over any slight -- perceived, actual, or invented. Placing the blame for this incident directly on Jones seems a bit bizarre.
Terry Jones idiocy just played into the hands of the enemy. Australian troops in Afghanistan were attacked by an angry mob who thought that they were burning Korans - One person was shot.If you're dealing with people who will kill you over a book, or a cartoon, then you're dealing with people who are anxious to kill you over any slight -- perceived, actual, or invented. Placing the blame for this incident directly on Jones seems a bit bizarre.
+1
Terry Jones idiocy just played into the hands of the enemy. Australian troops in Afghanistan were attacked by an angry mob who thought that they were burning Korans - One person was shot.If you're dealing with people who will kill you over a book, or a cartoon, then you're dealing with people who are anxious to kill you over any slight -- perceived, actual, or invented. Placing the blame for this incident directly on Jones seems a bit bizarre.
How about this - The Australian soldiers burn off regularly - they haven't been attacked before and generally have reasonable relations with the locals.
The locals who don't have the instant communications and are lucky to see a TV let alone the internet are vulnerable to misinformation.
The Taliban a very smart highly organised (they have not lost the war against the most powerful nations in the world despite how many years of coalition occupation). Say yippee that stupid American priest has provided us with propaganda ammunition. Lets go have a chat with the local.
"Hello my brothers see those godless men over there they are servants of the Americans, you know the stories of the American priest that were in the newspaper the one that was going to burn the Koran - he has ordered these men to do it here. Go to this location and you will see them burning the Koran." You know what these people want they want to make you Christians by force they will turn your daughters into whores and your sons into addicts that's what Christians do.... look to us the Taliban to protect you".
Propaganda is a tool of war and kills people just as well as any bullet - Terry Jones just gave the Taliban ammunition to make the coalition look like the monsters that want the average Afghan to be believe they are.
Look I understand your need for the protection of freedom of speech in the US. It is only in the last 40 years or so in Western Nations has the ability for people to speak freely extended to people who are not white, have different sexual orientations, and are of any political party. I understand the importance of protecting this right.
The problem is you and your allies are at war and war runs by a completely different set of rules, and those rules aren't fair and are designed to maximise death. Terry Jones provided a "Truth" that could be twisted to be used in the Taliban propaganda machine. It is not as simple as only loonies kill because a book is burnt, it is far more complex, throwing a rock into a pond causes ripples and some of those ripples may be strong enough to capsize your boat.
How about this - The Australian soldiers burn off regularly - they haven't been attacked before and generally have reasonable relations with the locals.
The locals who don't have the instant communications and are lucky to see a TV let alone the internet are vulnerable to misinformation.
Their relations with the locals must not have been too reasonable, considering the people there didn't trust their own interactions enough to not believe some crap someone else was saying.
The problem is you and your allies are at war and war runs by a completely different set of rules, and those rules aren't fair and are designed to maximise death. Terry Jones provided a "Truth" that could be twisted to be used in the Taliban propaganda machine. It is not as simple as only loonies kill because a book is burnt, it is far more complex, throwing a rock into a pond causes ripples and some of those ripples may be strong enough to capsize your boat.
The problem with this line of thinking, is that you have to take it in broader context. First we outlaw burning the Koran, then it's burning the flag. Then it's speaking anything that could be construed as 'offensive' to someone. (As most things can be to some group or other). I'd rather err on the side of freedom of speech. The Taliban will have no problem pointing to a million different images from Western media to convince the locals we are indeed the Great Satan. Why give them another coup by backing down on this?
Look, I didn't support this idiot's plans. But he didn't even go forward with it. And if you do a quick YouTube search there are plenty of burning Korans to see uploaded there. Should YouTube censor those out of fear? What next? Should >this< website be purged? How about >this< one?
You can't control the actions of the offended. Being offended isn't a legitimate excuse for killing people. If Muslims kill people for feeling offended, then that is on THEIR heads not the folks exercising their free right of speech.
/2 cents
Their relations with the locals must not have been too reasonable, considering the people there didn't trust their own interactions enough to not believe some crap someone else was saying.How about this - The Australian soldiers burn off regularly - they haven't been attacked before and generally have reasonable relations with the locals.
The locals who don't have the instant communications and are lucky to see a TV let alone the internet are vulnerable to misinformation.
As reasonable as anywhere else under US control - If your country has been occupied by people of a different religion who promised to give you freedom from fear corruption and terror and failed to deliver I would be pissed off enough to throw stones just need something small to spark it off, any kind of misunderstanding will do.
If you are trying to insinuate that Australians are not pulling their weight or doing their job I will ask you speak to the widows and children of our service personnel and ask them why they should let their loved ones continue to die for allies who are rude and ungrateful for the help that they are getting. Most Australians don't like our troops being in Afghanistan but most Australians understand the necessity and cost of being there.
|
As reasonable as anywhere else under US control - If your country has been occupied by people of a different religion who promised to give you freedom from fear corruption and terror and failed to deliver I would be pissed off enough to throw stones just need something small to spark it off, any kind of misunderstanding will do.
If you are trying to insinuate that Australians are not pulling their weight or doing their job I will ask you speak to the widows and children of our service personnel and ask them why they should let their loved ones continue to die for allies who are rude and ungrateful for the help that they are getting. Most Australians don't like our troops being in Afghanistan but most Australians understand the necessity and cost of being there.
Who cares. Afghani's kill people, we return the favor, etc. If someone is looking for a misunderstanding, they will find it. You can't blame anyone for that except the Afghanis. No one is making them murder people for burning a Quran. They are doing that out of their own free will.
As reasonable as anywhere else under US control - If your country has been occupied by people of a different religion who promised to give you freedom from fear corruption and terror and failed to deliver I would be pissed off enough to throw stones just need something small to spark it off, any kind of misunderstanding will do.Their relations with the locals must not have been too reasonable, considering the people there didn't trust their own interactions enough to not believe some crap someone else was saying.How about this - The Australian soldiers burn off regularly - they haven't been attacked before and generally have reasonable relations with the locals.
The locals who don't have the instant communications and are lucky to see a TV let alone the internet are vulnerable to misinformation.
So when you said, "...and generally have reasonable relations with the locals." You meant, they had a crappy relationship with the locals, but this is reasonable because all allied forces have crappy relationships with locals. Yes, that makes your original statement clearer.
"Hello my brothers see those godless men over there they are servants of the Americans, you know the stories of the American priest that were in the newspaper the one that was going to burn the Koran - he has ordered these men to do it here. Go to this location and you will see them burning the Koran." You know what these people want they want to make you Christians by force they will turn your daughters into whores and your sons into addicts that's what Christians do.... look to us the Taliban to protect you".
Propaganda is a tool of war and kills people just as well as any bullet - Terry Jones just gave the Taliban ammunition to make the coalition look like the monsters that want the average Afghan to be believe they are.
And, barring Terry Jones, you think the Taliban isn't telling them all those things anyway? "Well, we were going to tell the tribesmen to be nice to the Aussies, but now that some American priest has threatened to burn a book, we'll rile them up good!" I think that's horribly naive. Propaganda works with whatever is there, and if no obvious object presents itself, outright lies ("Obama is a Muslim!") will do just fine.
And, barring Terry Jones, you think the Taliban isn't telling them all those things anyway? "Well, we were going to tell the tribesmen to be nice to the Aussies, but now that some American priest has threatened to burn a book, we'll rile them up good!" I think that's horribly naive. Propaganda works with whatever is there, and if no obvious object presents itself, outright lies ("Obama is a Muslim!") will do just fine."Hello my brothers see those godless men over there they are servants of the Americans, you know the stories of the American priest that were in the newspaper the one that was going to burn the Koran - he has ordered these men to do it here. Go to this location and you will see them burning the Koran." You know what these people want they want to make you Christians by force they will turn your daughters into whores and your sons into addicts that's what Christians do.... look to us the Taliban to protect you".
Propaganda is a tool of war and kills people just as well as any bullet - Terry Jones just gave the Taliban ammunition to make the coalition look like the monsters that want the average Afghan to be believe they are.
To be fair, I don't think things like Terry Jones being propaganda are the problem- as you said, propaganda doesn't need truth to work(and in fact seems to work best with lies). The problem with this dude is that he's taking things that are best relegated to propaganda-level nonsense and making them true-to-life, which *could* cause the numbers of al-qaida type organizations to swell with people with a legitimate beef.
I'm pretty sure it has more to do with warm fronts, cold fronts, humidity, storm systems in other areas, directions of the prevailing winds, and a multitude of other factors. While i'm sure that past data comes into play at some point, I doubt that it's the main determining factor.
From what I understand
They take the current conditions, the
warm fronts, cold fronts, humidity, storm systems in other areas, directions of the prevailing winds, and a multitude of other factors
and match them to the like conditions of the past, and then say
% chance of this event
They come up with that % based on how many times that even occurred with same conditions.
So, if they say 80% chance of rain, that means, in the past, with the above quoted conditions, it rained 80% of the time.
The problem with this dude is that he's taking things that are best relegated to propaganda-level nonsense and making them true-to-life, which *could* cause the numbers of al-qaida type organizations to swell with people with a legitimate beef.
Sorry -- I can't accept that burning a book can possibly be considered a "legitimate beef" to start killing people over. If that's how far the Overton Window has shifted, then worldwide Sharia law is right around the corner.
|
|
The problem with this dude is that he's taking things that are best relegated to propaganda-level nonsense and making them true-to-life, which *could* cause the numbers of al-qaida type organizations to swell with people with a legitimate beef.Sorry -- I can't accept that burning a book can possibly be considered a "legitimate beef" to start killing people over. If that's how far the Overton Window has shifted, then worldwide Sharia law is right around the corner.
Well, considering that anyone who may think the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. could possibly be a Muslim, you know, because his father and step father were both Muslims, his mother was non-religious (actually an outspoken Atheist), he didn't "convert" to Christianity (in a church run by a Jew hating Farrakhan sycophant) until he was in his 20s, was identified as "Muslim" on his Indonesian school records, and recently went to church (very publicly) for the first time since the whole Wright thing blew up in his face due to the rumors of his Muslim background is OBVIOUSLY a complete idiot (i.e. you're only allowed to have a critical thought about anything if it fits the CNN-approved opinion list), I may as well start bowing to the east five times a day just to get my practice in.
If you're dealing with people who will kill you over a book, or a cartoon, then you're dealing with people who are anxious to kill you over any slight -- perceived, actual, or invented. Placing the blame for this incident directly on Jones seems a bit bizarre.
Additionally, we are dealing with a people who have been at war for centuries. Either with Christians, or amongst themselves.
As I said before, it is the Species of Man that will use any excuse to convince others to war. In this case, they use parts of Religious text. My God vs your God. God is with me, so that means its okay to take your life etc.