cracking knuckles

[m1469]

100% of all theories (scientific, medical, philosophical, theological, etc.) will eventually be refuted.

Which would include this one :

100% of all theories (scientific, medical, philosophical, theological, etc.) will eventually be refuted.

he he 


with all due respect, Sir *curtsy*

[bernhard]

Which would include this one :


he he 


with all due respect, Sir *curtsy*

Er... That is not a theory, it is a fact.

And let us not forget that

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[m1469]

Er... That is not a theory, it is a fact.

And let us not forget that

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

he he, okay, I get it, the whole thing and even this :

100% of all theories (scientific, medical, philosophical, theological, etc.) will eventually be refuted.

Theories will always be proven wrong, facts will not.   



*aims to practice practise and practise practice, not in (just) theory*




(ps- this is how my head imagines the title of this thread : CrackLING knuckles... he he)

[leahcim]

It's obvious, you are not willing to analyze "my stats" (reply #36, at least that's what I assume you are referring to). Possibly, because you already have a hunch that it's correct.

I'm not accusing you of changing your mind as though it were wrong to change it. It's just that if you change the statement under question, as you appeared to do, there's not much point continuing to insist the original statement is correct and a wiki page on Beysian statistics and 20 years teaching science will shows us that the statement is true.

I didn't see anything on the wiki page that suggests how many of all medical studies eventuntually turn out to be wrong - you can edit wikipedia yourself though, so you could always add it

How can I analyze your stats, you just said "50%" there's nothing else to analyze, just a one line statement with a figure in it.

I don't have a hunch it's true, not just because of the wording. To be true, and I assuming for a moment that you'll need another moment of clarity to see why else it could be wrong, is because it says "about 50%" with no reference at all as to why it isn't 10, 20, 30 or 80%. Where is that? Reply #36 doesn't mention it. It's you talking about Schrodinger's cat and actually saying "if it's 50%", not "it is 50%" as you need to show for the statement to be accurate.

I can't see where you said "Look here, see it is 50%"

Indeed, you haven't posted anything that suggested you yourself came up with the statistic of "50%" for me to have any need to suggest the method you used to get it was flawed or not.

At the moment I'd say your bogus approach is the fact that you're arguing the toss on a piano forum, using far from any of the logical or cogent arguments you demand from me, but yet seem deluded that the stuff you've said is some kind of scientific peer-reviewable lore. As I said, get it reviewed if you think it is.

The 2nd bogus thing is that current evidence suggests you pulled the number out of your backside - that's my hunch TBH, that you have nothing to back up 50% or 60% or any %.
It was just a smart ass remark you made to make a point, by not making a point and when the same point was returned in the way that you often return replies - you decided to argue the toss that one was right and the other wasn't. Perhaps I should have made it say "50% are eventually...not wrong", which still negates what you were trying to use it to say, even if you want not wrong to be something other than right.

The 3rd bogus thing is the wording, but that's been discussed enough and you have changed your mind and clarified that.

How a wikipedia page on Beyesian stats or a post about a dead or alive or not cat is supposed to show any of those 3 is a scientific mystery as you say, I probably would get a prize if I could find it

I'd say the statistic is meaningless, especially in context, because you've claimed you're basically saying your comment meant that about 50% of studies are eventually dismissed as procedually flawed etc - what those studies concluded one way or the other is then neither right nor wrong, it's just not scientific, and so referring to it wouldn't be scientific.

So there might be, and I suspect in practise there are likely to be many studies which haven't been refuted that conflict in full or part. So again, what exactly does the statistic about studies which aren't worth reading tell us about cracking knuckles?

[I'm rather dubious that there is a black and white refutation process, because of who does it - it might be generally accepted as flawed by a lot of so-called peers, just like which of the remainder is "true" at ais done, no? It doesn't matter TBH]

[xvimbi]

I didn't see anything on the wiki page that suggests how many of all medical studies eventuntually turn out to be wrong - you can edit wikipedia yourself though, so you could always add it

That page referred to what Bayesian Statistics is. I guess that wasn't clear from the context of my remark.

How can I analyze your stats, you just said "50%" there's nothing else to analyze, just a one line statement with a figure in it.

Ah, with "my statistics", you didn't mean the paragraph at the end of my reply #36, you actually meant the number I presented.

Indeed, you haven't posted anything that suggested you yourself came up with the statistic of "50%" for me to have any need to suggest the method you used to get it was flawed or not.

The 2nd bogus thing is that current evidence suggests you pulled the number out of your backside - that's my hunch TBH, that you have nothing to back up 50% or 60% or any %.
It was just a smart ass remark you made to make a point, by not making a point and when the same point was returned in the way that you often return replies - you decided to argue the toss that one was right and the other wasn't. Perhaps I should have made it say "50% are eventually...not wrong", which still negates what you were trying to use it to say, even if you want not wrong to be something other than right.

The 3rd bogus thing is the wording, but that's been discussed enough and you have changed your mind and clarified that.

How so? What have I changed?

How a wikipedia page on Beyesian stats or a post about a dead or alive or not cat is supposed to show any of those 3 is a scientific mystery as you say, I probably would get a prize if I could find it.

It shows, as I said many times now that, if 50% of all studies are shown to be wrong (i.e. have been refuted), one cannot conclude that 50% are right. I said this in my direct reply (#7) to your post. This whole discussion could have been entirely avoided if you had thought about that for a while, instead of starting to agressivley argue against it with illogical arguments. If you don't like the 50% number, then let me assure you that, if 30% of all studies have been refuted, it likewise does not follow that 70% are right. Use any number you wish, you can even pull it out of my backside.

Speaking about the number that I allegedly pulled out of my backside...

https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

[bearzinthehood]

Isn't there some kind of message board for anal retentive people where you can go to discuss semantics? 

[leahcim]

It shows, as I said many times now that, if 50% of all studies are shown to be wrong (i.e. have been refuted),

The guy in the new scientist article doesn't say what you said at all.
Far from it.

I suggest you read it and think hard about the difference.

If you worked out what the other person was saying before posting "Oh I finally understand what you mean" the arguments you have would probably reduce significantly.

[leahcim]

Isn't there some kind of message board for anal retentive people where you can go to discuss semantics? 

Start your own if you need one

[xvimbi]

The guy in the new scientist article doesn't say what you said at all.
Far from it.

I suggest you read it and think hard about the difference.

You are just laughable. I paraphrased what the first paragraph in that article said. Keep trying to convince yourself that you have a point, you obviously need that. You can now attack any punctuation mistakes I made.

If you are still insisting on the 50% being 'bogus', then I concede, as for certain types of medical studies, the chance that they are correct is even less. The one that Boliver cited is probably one of them (given the fact that the sample size was very small), which brings us back to my main point: don't blindly trust a medical study. It's a pity that message got lost in that personal vendetta of yours.

[leahcim]

You are just laughable. I paraphrased what the first paragraph in that article said.

Not at all. The article doesn't suggest nor say that "About 50% of medical studies eventually turn out to be wrong" at all.

Perhaps the paper would be a better thing to read though.

Besides, the first paragraph has some interesting uses of the word "true" in light of the thread you started and the comments you made about the equiv statement I'd have picked one of the later ones if you were going to pick one at all, or perhaps you should write to them and tell them they can't say it 

[abell88]

I think there's too much testosterone in here...

[leahcim]

I think there's too much testosterone in here...

I'm not sure a teacher stamping his foot and shouting "my authority" is testosterone

[xvimbi]

I'm not sure a teacher stamping his foot and shouting "my authority" is testosterone

I didn't know you are a teacher. I'm not, but in the end, I guess, we are all teachers and students at the same time.

[leahcim]

I didn't know you are a teacher. I'm not

I base my observations and recommendations on my area of teaching (science) as well as on posts in this forum.

I have taught bogus science to scores of students.

Being a teacher myself (some of my time, anyway, and not for piano, luckily), I tend to blame it on the attitude of my students when they have problems

 

[xvimbi]

I guess driving a friend around a couple of times then makes one a chauffeur. You should become a trial lawer or an advisor to political parties. You are very good at wagging the dog. If I ever commit a crime, I'll hire you as my attorney.

[leahcim]

I guess driving a friend around a couple of times then makes one a chauffeur.

You called yourself a teacher and said scores of students. Intellectual dishonesty again.

If it suits you I think you'd say you were or weren't anything from day to day, post to post.

You're certainly not very good at sticking to a story. If you committed a crime, my advice plead guilty and save your face and your cash, or don't tell your potential lawyer you commited a crime If you didn't commit it, I wouldn't put you on the witness stand.

[xvimbi]

You called yourself a teacher and said scores of students. Intellectual dishonesty again.

Teaching is not my main activity; I made this clear. Also, I may have been a teacher in the past, but I am not now. What about that possibility? Indeed, I do have teaching experience, and I made that clear too. For someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "refuted", you are awfully lax about words such as "intellectual dishonesty". Make sure you know the meaning of these words and use them carefully.

[leahcim]

Teaching is not my main activity; I made this clear. Also, I may have been a teacher in the past, but I am not now. What about that possibility?

Let's look back in the crystal ball, back to your childhood, back across the dawn of time to the 18th September 2005 when you were happily posting that you were a teacher and answering questions saying you taught science or perhaps to a few days ago when you ranted and raved about it again.

If it helps, it seems as unbelievable to me as it seems to be to you now

Obviously as decades have passed much has changed. Doh.

Have a word with Nils, see if you can get the filter removed for the word that your more recent posts show is your current main activity

[thalbergmad]

30-15