On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 3:56:11 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 6:26:58 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 04:38:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
There are thousands of incorrect statements and I'm not the internet
police
Nobody has asked that of you. But you could be a contributor to
Wikipedia, if you want to. But instead you prefer to whine...
I've never done it and don't propose starting. I have enough on my plate
trying to get a Raspberry Pi to read USB arduino data, building a counter
using a 74LV8154 on an Arduino shield, making Arrow of Light plaques for
my Webelos boys, and answering interminable puerile objections on this
board.
You could stop posting on Usenet for awhile, that would give you time for
Wikipedia. So if you think you don't have time for Wikipedia, why do you
have time to hang around here?
It's entertainment. Besides, I learn some new things here. I wouldn't
learn anything by what you suggest.
“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
Why don't YOU clean up your own false claims:
I'd be happy to, but only if they really are false, not just because
you dislike what I say.
I dislike dishonesty.
So you lie by quoting the wrong quotation. The lie is THIS:
"The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due
to the small sample size, the methods used, as well as the fact
only one f the six subjects met the hypothesis."
There were FOUR, not one:
Three of those four had additional weight changes, not explainable by
a soul having weight leaving the body at death. If those additional
weight changes could occur without souls involved, why not those
weight changes at the moment of death?
Sudden vs. longer term, forgetful one.
The paper doesn't say the weight losses later weren't sudden.
It doesn't say they were either.
Perhaps the author doesn't know because he didn't monitor the balance
continuously those several minutes.
True, however, the sudden drop at the point of death is the important
factor. Lots of slower weight changes happened several minutes after
death, so it's logical to assume the anomalies were in that category.
Patient #3 lost 1/2 oz at the moment of death but a few minutes
later he lost even more, one full oz. How could that be?
It's called "evaporation." YOU were one of those babbling about that,
remember?
And you dismissed that explanation.
No, I didn't. I dismissed it for a SUDDEN change, puerile one.
How do you know the other weight changes weren't sudden too? The paper
doesn't say, so you just don't know, you merely assume...
And you are trying to ASSume the contrary.
But you have, implicitly, given a partial answer anyway. Your
method is called Cherry Picking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
Completely dishonest babbling baloney.
Nice try, but those cheap con artist tricks cannot hide the obvious
fact that you are cherry picking...
Your so-called "cherry picking" is separating sudden versus longer term
changes. That is dishonest of you.
So there you are - even the author himself says we cannot draw any
reliable conclusions from his measurements alone. And the original
paper says so.
And I admitted that right off the bat.
So why did you even bring it up if you knew from the start that this
study was unreliable?
Not "unreliable" dishonest one. You really do like to jump to straw man
baloney, don't you.
If it wasn't unreliable, why did even the author himself think the
experiment needed to be repeated? Not just once, but many times...
For scientific acceptability, of course. The point is that it hasn't been
repeated and, therefore, hasn't been refuted.
The problem is that you demand absolute scientific proof to five nines
confidence. Sorry, old bean, can only give you three nines.
FYI: "absolute scientific proof" does not exist.
FYI: More straw man baloney from you. NOTICE I followed that by five
nines confidence. You are getting really, really picky about irrelevant
stuff.
And you still are.
Any scientific conclusion is open for modification, if and when reliable
evidence for that appears.
But the new evidence must have greater confidence than the old.
That's not a requirement, it's enough that the new experiments have at
least the same confidence as the old. Most likely, the new experiments
will measure a domain which wasn't measured in the old experiments, e.g.
because the older technology was unable to do such measurements. The
canonical example is Newtonian mechanics vs the theory of relativity. And
the new theory should explain not just the results from the new
experiments, but from the old experiments as well. THe theory of
relativity didn't show that Newtonian mechanics was completely invalid,
but merely that it wasn't applicable at speeds approaching the speed of
light.
Which means that relativity had higher confidence than Newtonian mechanics.
Your monumental skepticism leads you to the point of dishonesty,
particularly when you ignore sudden versus longer term changes.
Why don't you apply this skepticism to AGW? :-))
Back in the days of Svante Arrhenius, who in the 1800's was the first
person to point out the future risk of AGW, being skeptical about AGW
would have been a reasonable point of view. Today the situation is
very different. Being skeptical of AGW today is much like being
skeptical about the Earth being round and not flat.
Aren't you one who has played with the modstar program that shows that
doubling the CO2 level has a minor greenhouse effect? Have you tried
doubling the water vapor level and observe what happens with that?
I didn't do that, someone else did. Since you enjoy the Usenet so much,
you can spend some time to find the post by the one who did this. Unless
you start to devote some of your time to Wikipedia, then you are excused
from not doing so.
It's obvious that your beliefs are NOT based on the evidence.
It is obvious that you confuse me with someone else. Perhaps you should
start taking notes? Your memory isn't flawless...
THAT'S for sure :-)