Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Promise Broken

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 9:03pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

And if it turns out that rural gravel roads are killing babies, then yes we should do something about that.
If rural gravel roads are prevented from killing babies, so should liberals.


/thread

Stormy wins.
2nd.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

What is the comparison of occurence in children that are not exposed to any of these factors? As asthma can run in families, how many of these children came from families where it was prevelant? Asthma can further be triggered by allergies to pet dander. Where is the comparison to kids that have dogs/cats? How many of these kids parents smoked? Lots of variables not accounted for.


Irrelevant.


And you determined all that from a single paragraph quote?

I can promise - PROMISE - you that each of the studies quoted by Eville contained a discussion of as many confounding variables as the researchers could think of. The study design would then use basic statistical tools to isolate those confouning variables. Similarly, the full description of the study results would make clear that the results are or are not subject to any given confound.

How do I know that? Because that is what scientists do. There is exactly zero percent chance that those journals would publish a study that did not make a professional effort at isolating the confounds.

Scientists do this for a living. They spend all day trying to think of other causes for their results, and then trying to isolate out those other causes. That is how the scientific method works.

You cannot simply dismiss scientific results you do not like by declaring "nah - I bet it was caused by something else."

Of course, no one study is conclusive, and further study on all confounds is always warranted, and indeed studies will admit that they were unable to isolate some confounds. And, of course, no researcher can think of every possible confound. That is why we keep doing studies.

But to simply dismiss the studies like you just did is insulting to scientists everywhere, and illustrative of your lack of familiarity with the scientific process.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 3:54pm
Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

And if it turns out that rural gravel roads are killing babies, then yes we should do something about that.

If rural gravel roads are prevented from killing babies, so should liberals.


Ah, yes - the old "I cannot contribute intelligently to this conversation, therefore I shall change the subject instead" argument.

Sorry. Irrelevant.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 3:57pm
i think, hope, that he was making a funny.  
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 3:58pm
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

i think, hope, that he was making a funny.  


With Stormy, I can never tell. But my funny bone is burnt out at the moment. I will check back when it regenerates.

:)

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 4:43pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

What is the comparison of occurence in children that are not exposed to any of these factors? As asthma can run in families, how many of these children came from families where it was prevelant? Asthma can further be triggered by allergies to pet dander. Where is the comparison to kids that have dogs/cats? How many of these kids parents smoked? Lots of variables not accounted for.


Irrelevant.


And you determined all that from a single paragraph quote?

I can promise - PROMISE - you that each of the studies quoted by Eville contained a discussion of as many confounding variables as the researchers could think of. The study design would then use basic statistical tools to isolate those confouning variables. Similarly, the full description of the study results would make clear that the results are or are not subject to any given confound.

How do I know that? Because that is what scientists do. There is exactly zero percent chance that those journals would publish a study that did not make a professional effort at isolating the confounds.

Scientists do this for a living. They spend all day trying to think of other causes for their results, and then trying to isolate out those other causes. That is how the scientific method works.

You cannot simply dismiss scientific results you do not like by declaring "nah - I bet it was caused by something else."

Of course, no one study is conclusive, and further study on all confounds is always warranted, and indeed studies will admit that they were unable to isolate some confounds. And, of course, no researcher can think of every possible confound. That is why we keep doing studies.

But to simply dismiss the studies like you just did is insulting to scientists everywhere, and illustrative of your lack of familiarity with the scientific process.
 
So you are allowed without the full info you mentioned to confirm the data is relevant, but I am not allowed to state that I feel that it isn't?  Interesting. 
 
It's been a few years since I cracked a textbook, so my scientific methodology may be a little rusty, but I do comprehend the basics still.
 
Simply because I disagree with you, doesn't make me wrong.
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 4:50pm
Except when multiple scientific studies prove otherwise.
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 4:52pm
within the next day or two ill see if i can get the full text.
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 5:18pm
after looking through the full text, I can tell you that everything you mentioned, and more was controlled for in that study.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 5:40pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

And if it turns out that rural gravel roads are killing babies, then yes we should do something about that.
If rural gravel roads are prevented from killing babies, so should liberals.


/thread

Stormy wins.
2nd.
 
3rd...
 
Seriously, how can you care if it saves a few babies... when you want abortion legal...
 
very two faced...
 
Well, THIS baby is important, but, go ahead and kill THAT one...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 5:44pm
Well the baby in the dust topic has been born, giving him rights under the constitution. The unborn one does not.

Originally posted by Section 1 of Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 of Fourteenth Amendment wrote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.




But another good attempt to change the argument when you have nothing else to say.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

Except when multiple scientific studies prove otherwise.
Thank you for clarifying what I am and am not allowed to disagree with. Glad we cleared that up. Your input has been invaluable. Not sure how I survived for 41 years without it. Can I put you on speed dial to make all of my decisions as to what I can and can't agree with? Sweet.
 
For people so consumed with free thought, a lot of you seem very convinced of what my thoughts should be.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 6:32pm
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

after looking through the full text, I can tell you that everything you mentioned, and more was controlled for in that study.
Than I am convinced! Death to the Farmers and their evil dust! Death I say! Thank you for showing me the light.
 
Now that I agree with all of you, when do I get my barcode? What are my thoughts on same sex marriage and  welfare?  I have a party coming up and need to make sure I am on the same page.
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 6:44pm
Science is scary

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:08pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Science is scary


Apparently oldpbnoob thinks so.

I, for one, hope that Stormy was being serious, although I don't know if he was.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:47pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Science is scary


Apparently oldpbnoob thinks so.

I fear complacency and the blind acceptance of everything presented by scientists as absolute fact. They are not always right and they don't always have your best interests in mind. Regardless of what you think, science is a business in the sense that it has to generate income  in the form of grants, studies, etc.  If there were no problems to solve,  a lot of scientist would be out of a job. If you think all scientists are pure in their motives. Think again.
 
Blindly follow sheep.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:53pm
Abortion doesn't kill babies.

Whatever the hell you fools are talking seems to be casuing harm to grown, already born children.

If Stormy was serious, I don't even know what to say. If FE was serious trying to continue that nonsensical argument...never you're always trolling.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I fear complacency and the blind acceptance of everything presented by scientists as absolute fact. They are not always right and they don't always have your best interests in mind. Regardless of what you think, science is a business in the sense that it has to generate income  in the form of grants, studies, etc.  If there were no problems to solve,  a lot of scientist would be out of a job. If you think all scientists are pure in their motives. Think again.
 
Blindly follow sheep.


I completely agree with you.

One of the nice things about science is that scientific fact doesn't represent the views of it's discoverer.  They could be outright lying to me, yes.  But I doubt it.

There will always be problems to solve -- in case you hadn't noticed, historical precedent says we'll be needing more of them, not less, in the coming years.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 9:34pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:


I completely agree with you.

One of the nice things about science is that scientific fact doesn't represent the views of it's discoverer.  They could be outright lying to me, yes.  But I doubt it. I beleive it happens considerably more than you think. Interpretation of data can easily be skewed as can the results of the testing.

There will always be problems to solve -- in case you hadn't noticed, historical precedent says we'll be needing more of them, not less, in the coming years. Problems? Or perceived problems? How many times do you think issues are exaggerated to induce fear and following mentality that "something has to be done"? How many problems were found that we didn't even know we had?  How significant are these problems?
  NB4 Get your tin foil hats out.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2009 at 10:26pm
What no one has mentioned yet is that life is full of trade-offs.  Could we make everything (and its production) 100% safe?  Probably.  But then it would all be too expensive and we'd only be able to live in caves and eat questionable stuff off of naturally growing plants.  The simple fact is there will always be risk in life.  When you compare feeding millions in an affordable manner to the problems caused by farm dust it just makes more sense to put up with the dust.

Oh, and I agree that Stormy won with his gravel dust/abortion comment.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.