| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2007 07:16:18 PM |
| Object: |
Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879410/posts
New Book, "Freedomnomics" says Abortion Increases Crime Rate
LifeSiteNews ^ | 8/10/07 | Hilary White
Posted on 08/10/2007 12:37:58 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, August 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A book published in
June by a leading US economist in part responds to previous and oft-
quoted claims that abortion has been a significant factor in lowering
the U.S. crime rate. The book by John R. Lott of the American
Enterprise Institute, "Freedomnomics," answers claims by liberal
economist Steven Levitt that abortion, in reducing the number of
"unwanted" children, has eliminated significant numbers of the kind of
people who commit crimes.
Lott's 2001 study, "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-
Wedlock Births" concluded that legalized abortion has in fact
increased the overall violent crime rate.
"We find evidence that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by
around about 0.5 to 7 percent... Others note that the legalizing of
abortion might contribute to a coarsening of society that might itself
lead to more crime."
"Freedomnomics," is being called a conservative response to the
publication of a manifesto of liberal political and economic theory by
University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times
journalist Stephen J. Dubner, which topped the 2005 New York Times
bestseller list.
"Freakonomics," claimed that "legalized abortion may account for as
much as one-half of the overall crime reduction" during the 1990s.
This claim was seized upon by abortion advocates, notably Dr. Henry
Morgentaler, Canada's most notorious abortionist, who claimed it was
proof that vindicated their claims and support for abortion on
demand.
The conclusion that abortion actually tends to increase crime rates
coincides with a study published earlier this year. That study
examined data on 237 low-income women in Baltimore and showed a
statistical correlation between abortion and incidents of child abuse.
Published in March in the Internet Journal of Pediatrics and
Neonatology, the study a showed history of abortion is associated with
more frequent acts of physical aggression toward subsequent children.
Read the study "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-
Wedlock Births" online:
http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&c...
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abortion Linked to Higher Rates of Child Abuse, Study Finds
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07031301.html
Media Ignoring Study Saying Abortion Increases Crime
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/sep/01091005.html
Study Linking Abortion and Lower Crime Rates Published
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/may/01051702.html
Experts Debunk Donohue/Levitt Study Connecting Abortion and Crime
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/may/01053005.html
.
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
27 Aug 2007 12:02:28 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EcmdnZAqJIbfeUzbnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3ISdnZxMJ4ffsk3bnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
And if they agree it doesn't mean anything unless the model and the
assumptions it is based on really do reflect reality. Something that
for a global system isn't going to be resolved by 10, 30, or even 50
years of modeling. What you are doing is making an assumption that
the model you are using to support your theory is an accurate
reflection of reality, but in reality the fact is that a model can
not prove a theory is correct.
Model <-> Theory What's the difference? They are basically
interchangeable terms.
Right and they are both QUESSES.
Um...no.
And who cares about proof other than you and fellow idiot Sapeisma?
Anyone who is really interested in understanding what is going on and
what exactly can or should be done about it. Guess that leaves you
out.
We understand. You don't.
Ah
I didn't realize that "gestalt" was part of the scientific method
Must be a recent development
When I studied that stuff, it was all about
stating a theory
Collecting data
See if the data supports the theory
Never came across the
"We understand, you don't" process
Although that has been the staple of priests of various religions for
millenia, since the very first con ma.. uh priest gulled the first bunch of
idiots with the line "I understand, you don't. So trust me"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
27 Aug 2007 11:16:33 AM |
|
|
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EcmdnZAqJIbfeUzbnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3ISdnZxMJ4ffsk3bnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
And if they agree it doesn't mean anything unless the model and
the assumptions it is based on really do reflect reality.
Something that for a global system isn't going to be resolved by
10, 30, or even 50 years of modeling. What you are doing is
making an assumption that the model you are using to support your
theory is an accurate reflection of reality, but in reality the
fact is that a model can not prove a theory is correct.
Model <-> Theory What's the difference? They are basically
interchangeable terms.
Right and they are both QUESSES.
Um...no.
And who cares about proof other than you and fellow idiot Sapeisma?
Anyone who is really interested in understanding what is going on
and what exactly can or should be done about it. Guess that leaves
you out.
We understand. You don't.
Ah
I didn't realize that "gestalt" was part of the scientific method
Must be a recent development
I wouldn't stick up for Scout. He's even more clueless than you, although
your recent miscues regarding the Ideal Gas Law make one wonder.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
26 Aug 2007 04:11:37 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EcmdnZAqJIbfeUzbnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3ISdnZxMJ4ffsk3bnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
And if they agree it doesn't mean anything unless the model and the
assumptions it is based on really do reflect reality. Something that
for a global system isn't going to be resolved by 10, 30, or even 50
years of modeling. What you are doing is making an assumption that
the model you are using to support your theory is an accurate
reflection of reality, but in reality the fact is that a model can
not prove a theory is correct.
Model <-> Theory What's the difference? They are basically
interchangeable terms.
Right and they are both QUESSES.
Um...no.
Uh, yes. one is a guess about why things happen, and the other is a guess
about the interaction of such guesses. In the end the computer model is
going to depend on both a certain number of assumptions (ie guesses) as well
as a number of theories about how things work (which are also guesses). The
only value a model has is directly dependent upon how accurately such
guesses reflect reality, or at least do not noticably contradict reality.
And who cares about proof other than you and fellow idiot Sapeisma?
Anyone who is really interested in understanding what is going on and
what exactly can or should be done about it. Guess that leaves you
out.
We understand. You don't.
Yep, I understand you wish to project causality upon a correlation and claim
that as your proof, when the truth is correlation doesn't establish
causality no matter how many theories you invent to explain it, or how much
computer models of those guesses seem to match the correlation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
26 Aug 2007 06:47:23 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EcmdnZAqJIbfeUzbnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3ISdnZxMJ4ffsk3bnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
And if they agree it doesn't mean anything unless the model and
the assumptions it is based on really do reflect reality.
Something that for a global system isn't going to be resolved by
10, 30, or even 50 years of modeling. What you are doing is
making an assumption that the model you are using to support your
theory is an accurate reflection of reality, but in reality the
fact is that a model can not prove a theory is correct.
Model <-> Theory What's the difference? They are basically
interchangeable terms.
Right and they are both QUESSES.
Um...no.
Uh, yes. one is a guess about why things happen, and the other is a
guess about the interaction of such guesses. In the end the computer
model is going to depend on both a certain number of assumptions (ie
guesses) as well as a number of theories about how things work (which
are also guesses). The only value a model has is directly dependent
upon how accurately such guesses reflect reality, or at least do not
noticably contradict reality.
Well, one man's guess is another man's hypothesis. I wouldn't call it a
guess, but hey that's me. And depending on how well the hypothesis works and
makes predictions that agree with observations, the model is either
scrapped, accepted pending new data, or modified to answer the observations
better.
This is how the scientific method works. If you have a better way, please
have at it. But let me warn you. The scientific method has a long and
glorious history of success and scientists will look at any alternatives
witha much jaundiced eye.
And who cares about proof other than you and fellow idiot Sapeisma?
Anyone who is really interested in understanding what is going on
and what exactly can or should be done about it. Guess that leaves
you out.
We understand. You don't.
Yep, I understand you wish to project causality upon a correlation
No, assign significance to various inputs.
and claim that as your proof
There is no proof necessary. Nor is it possible. Sorry that you don't
understand.
when the truth is correlation doesn't
establish causality no matter how many theories you invent to explain
I never claimed it did. So it's a fact that correlation does not imply
causation. I agree. Fine. Does correlation ever lead to causation? What does
causation imply about correlation? I'll tell you. There is never causation
without correlation.
it, or how much computer models of those guesses seem to match the
correlation.
So if we can't say with absolute certainty that a certain correlation of
data is due to the input being a cause of the output, how do you suppose you
are to determine causation ever. Perhaps you have some magic tricks that
scientists don't know about.
Let me answer that for you. There is no other way. But it was a loaded
question. Science never looks for absolute certainty. Science can *only*
establish that certain inputs are significant or not for certain levels of
confidence.
There's your Basic Science 101 lesson for today. Free of charge.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 12:21:10 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding. You've
only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you understand what
hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do you know what the
differences are between the various types of error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT have the
ability to even go a few decades without hitting "exceptions"
nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you indirectly
admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied to a
different situation.
Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all means
you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to do this by
controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
First YOU need to PROVE, or even demonstrate causation
After all it's YOUR claim
YOU need to support it before you ask others to prove you wrong
You *cannot* do this with global climate. So what do scientists do in that
case?Do they throw up there hands and give up? No. They establish a model
whereby inputs and outputs to a system are studied and they try to
establish a function whereby future inputs and outputs agree.
So then do explain to us how the geologists are able to demonstrate
causation between changes in temperature and subsequent changes in CO2
levels ?
Are you trying to tell us that you're some sort of exception to that ?
Too bad that with all the "fudging" to make your inputs and outputs agree,
you can't go past a few decades without your model failing
When you compare that to the geological data that is able to go for millenia
without failure, your model is far less credible
Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *five*
times. What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with
regards to global climate change?
Sorry, you are the one trying to establish causality. If you can't
determine what it takes to scientifically establish causality, then
why should I give you the answer? I mean you are the one that claims
to know it all.
So all this boils down to is an argument from personal incredulity. As a
logical position, this holds no water and merely establishes that you have
no argument.
No, what it boils down to is that you're trying to fit (aka force) the data
to your conclusion
That's not science
That's *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 05:40:35 PM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13cu50ns85oer4f@corp.supernews.com...
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding. You've
only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you understand
what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do you know what the
differences are between the various types of error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT have
the ability to even go a few decades without hitting "exceptions"
yep, because we simply don't understand enough about the causes, effects and
interactions of all the variables that govern climatic change. Heck, even
now there are some scientists that predict that this current thrend of
global warming may simply result in a massive ice age. They even have
computer models to support their predictions. :-)
nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you indirectly
admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied to a
different situation.
Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all means
you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to do this by
controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
First YOU need to PROVE, or even demonstrate causation
After all it's YOUR claim
YOU need to support it before you ask others to prove you wrong
Yep, he can't even tell us how causality is establish but instead has to ask
us to tell him how it is done. Don't you just love the humor in a man who
claims to know all the answers having to ask for help on one of the
fundamental basics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 09:43:21 PM |
|
|
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:D7Jzi.4807$oh1.2106@trnddc04...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13cu50ns85oer4f@corp.supernews.com...
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding. You've
only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you understand
what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do you know what
the differences are between the various types of error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT have
the ability to even go a few decades without hitting "exceptions"
yep, because we simply don't understand enough about the causes, effects
and interactions of all the variables that govern climatic change. Heck,
even now there are some scientists that predict that this current thrend
of global warming may simply result in a massive ice age. They even have
computer models to support their predictions. :-)
nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you indirectly
admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied to a
different situation.
Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all means
you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to do this
by controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
First YOU need to PROVE, or even demonstrate causation
After all it's YOUR claim
YOU need to support it before you ask others to prove you wrong
Yep, he can't even tell us how causality is establish but instead has to
ask us to tell him how it is done. Don't you just love the humor in a man
who claims to know all the answers having to ask for help on one of the
fundamental basics?
I think it's time to send geoff to the loony bin
He's becoming stupidly repetitive with his nonsense
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
25 Aug 2007 04:53:28 AM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13cv68ehgg0bbb3@corp.supernews.com...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:D7Jzi.4807$oh1.2106@trnddc04...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13cu50ns85oer4f@corp.supernews.com...
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding. You've
only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you understand
what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do you know what
the differences are between the various types of error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT have
the ability to even go a few decades without hitting "exceptions"
yep, because we simply don't understand enough about the causes, effects
and interactions of all the variables that govern climatic change. Heck,
even now there are some scientists that predict that this current thrend
of global warming may simply result in a massive ice age. They even have
computer models to support their predictions. :-)
nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you indirectly
admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied to a
different situation.
Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all means
you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to do this
by controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
First YOU need to PROVE, or even demonstrate causation
After all it's YOUR claim
YOU need to support it before you ask others to prove you wrong
Yep, he can't even tell us how causality is establish but instead has to
ask us to tell him how it is done. Don't you just love the humor in a man
who claims to know all the answers having to ask for help on one of the
fundamental basics?
I think it's time to send geoff to the loony bin
He's becoming stupidly repetitive with his nonsense
I've been thinking pretty much the same thing. He admits correlation doesn't
imply causality, but then turns around and does exactly that and wonders why
we don't accept his so called "evidence".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
25 Aug 2007 08:45:21 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13cv68ehgg0bbb3@corp.supernews.com...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:D7Jzi.4807$oh1.2106@trnddc04...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13cu50ns85oer4f@corp.supernews.com...
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own
standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single
method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you
Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding.
You've only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you
understand what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova?
Do you know what the differences are between the various types of
error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does
NOT have the ability to even go a few decades without hitting
"exceptions"
yep, because we simply don't understand enough about the causes,
effects and interactions of all the variables that govern climatic
change. Heck, even now there are some scientists that predict that
this current thrend of global warming may simply result in a
massive ice age. They even have computer models to support their
predictions. :-)
nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you
indirectly admit by refusing to accept such a standard when
applied to a different situation.
Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all
means you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way
to do this by controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
First YOU need to PROVE, or even demonstrate causation
After all it's YOUR claim
YOU need to support it before you ask others to prove you wrong
Yep, he can't even tell us how causality is establish but instead
has to ask us to tell him how it is done. Don't you just love the
humor in a man who claims to know all the answers having to ask for
help on one of the fundamental basics?
I think it's time to send geoff to the loony bin
He's becoming stupidly repetitive with his nonsense
I've been thinking pretty much the same thing. He admits correlation
doesn't imply causality, but then turns around and does exactly that
and wonders why we don't accept his so called "evidence".
How mind-numbingly stupid. Go ahead and show where I've said that. All I
have ever said is that you can establish the significance of inputs on a
model with certain levels of confidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 12:38:45 PM |
|
|
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own
standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single
method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you
Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding.
You've only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you
understand what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do
you know what the differences are between the various types of error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT
have the ability to even go a few decades without hitting "exceptions"
Wrong...we have data going back hundreds of thousands of years.
nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you
indirectly admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied
to a different situation.
Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all
means you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to
do this by controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
First YOU need to PROVE, or even demonstrate causation
Absolutely *impossible* for anyone to prove anything causes anything. See?
This is why we scientists get frustrated with laypeople. You don't
understand even the basics.
After all it's YOUR claim
YOU need to support it before you ask others to prove you wrong
The claim is supported. And if you want to falsify it fine. That's the way
science works.
You *cannot* do this with global climate. So what do scientists do
in that case?Do they throw up there hands and give up? No. They
establish a model whereby inputs and outputs to a system are studied
and they try to establish a function whereby future inputs and
outputs agree.
So then do explain to us how the geologists are able to demonstrate
causation between changes in temperature and subsequent changes in CO2
levels ?
Good question. They can't.Let me repeat so I get through to you. You can
*only* eliminate causes as possible inputs to an output. You *cannot* prove
causation.
Are you trying to tell us that you're some sort of exception to
that ?
Too bad that with all the "fudging" to make your inputs and outputs
agree, you can't go past a few decades without your model failing
When you compare that to the geological data that is able to go for
millenia without failure, your model is far less credible
Please be specific. Let's see your data.
Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *five*
times. What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with
regards to global climate change?
Sorry, you are the one trying to establish causality. If you can't
determine what it takes to scientifically establish causality, then
why should I give you the answer? I mean you are the one that claims
to know it all.
So all this boils down to is an argument from personal incredulity.
As a logical position, this holds no water and merely establishes
that you have no argument.
No, what it boils down to is that you're trying to fit (aka force) the
data to your conclusion
That's not science
That's *****
For you, science and ***** are the same.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 09:42:12 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PqCdnfWBA947ilLbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com...
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own
standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single
method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you
Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding.
You've only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you
understand what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do
you know what the differences are between the various types of error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT
have the ability to even go a few decades without hitting "exceptions"
Wrong...we have data going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Goody
Well that's nice
Too bad the data does NOT support your claims
nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you
indirectly admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied
to a different situation.
Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all
means you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to
do this by controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
First YOU need to PROVE, or even demonstrate causation
Absolutely *impossible* for anyone to prove anything causes anything. See?
This is why we scientists get frustrated with laypeople. You don't
understand even the basics.
There you go again admitting that you're a ***** artist who can't support
his claims
Don't you feel silly doing that over and over ?
I would, even if I was as stupid as you about it
After all it's YOUR claim
YOU need to support it before you ask others to prove you wrong
The claim is supported.
Fine then provide the data
And if you want to falsify it fine. That's the way science works.
That's funny, when I went to Engineering school, I was taught that
falsifying data was NOT the way science worked
Science worked by having people review your data and see if it stood up to
criticism
Falsifying data was considered FRAUD and FROWNED upon
So where exactly did you go to school to allegedly become a scientist ?
The local pen ?
You *cannot* do this with global climate. So what do scientists do
in that case?Do they throw up there hands and give up? No. They
establish a model whereby inputs and outputs to a system are studied
and they try to establish a function whereby future inputs and
outputs agree.
So then do explain to us how the geologists are able to demonstrate
causation between changes in temperature and subsequent changes in CO2
levels ?
Good question. They can't.Let me repeat so I get through to you. You can
*only* eliminate causes as possible inputs to an output. You *cannot*
prove causation.
Good since you cannot prove causation, your claim that increase is CO2
causes global warming is NOT supported and therefore is meaningless
Thank you for admitting that you cannot support your claim
Are you trying to tell us that you're some sort of exception to
that ?
Too bad that with all the "fudging" to make your inputs and outputs
agree, you can't go past a few decades without your model failing
When you compare that to the geological data that is able to go for
millenia without failure, your model is far less credible
Please be specific. Let's see your data.
What data ?
Since I did not make the original claim, I have nothing to prove
All I need to do is demonstrate that your claim does not have a leg to stand
on
Your dancing instead of proving your claim is evidence enough that your
claim is *****
Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *five*
times. What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with
regards to global climate change?
Sorry, you are the one trying to establish causality. If you can't
determine what it takes to scientifically establish causality, then
why should I give you the answer? I mean you are the one that claims
to know it all.
So all this boils down to is an argument from personal incredulity.
As a logical position, this holds no water and merely establishes
that you have no argument.
No, what it boils down to is that you're trying to fit (aka force) the
data to your conclusion
That's not science
That's *****
For you, science and ***** are the same.
Actuallly you have that wrong
You are the one babbling about
not having to demonstrate causation to support your claim
falsifying data so that your inputs and outputs match
and other such nonsense
The only one shoveling ***** here is you
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
25 Aug 2007 08:21:52 AM |
|
|
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PqCdnfWBA947ilLbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com...
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own
standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single
method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you
Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding.
You've only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you
understand what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do
you know what the differences are between the various types of
error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT
have the ability to even go a few decades without hitting
"exceptions"
Wrong...we have data going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Goody
Well that's nice
Too bad the data does NOT support your claims
Cite!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 05:43:29 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PqCdnfWBA947ilLbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com...
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own
standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single
method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you
Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding.
You've only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you
understand what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do
you know what the differences are between the various types of error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT
have the ability to even go a few decades without hitting "exceptions"
Wrong...we have data going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Yea, and when you run your model backwards.....it doesn't work. Nor can you
plug in then historic data and run it forward with any sort of accuracy. All
they currently can do is handle short term predictions based on what is
basically a nearly static problem with limited variables. The problem is the
variables they ignore may well be the very variables that is governing
current events.
nor do
predictions of a continueing correlation. A fact which you
indirectly admit by refusing to accept such a standard when applied
to a different situation.
Wrong. If causation *can* be disproved by experimentation, by all
means you should do so. In your example, there is a very easy way to
do this by controlled experimentation and hypothesis testing.
First YOU need to PROVE, or even demonstrate causation
Absolutely *impossible* for anyone to prove anything causes anything.
I accept you admission that you can't prove either global warming, nor human
act as the cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
25 Aug 2007 08:21:32 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PqCdnfWBA947ilLbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com...
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xO6dnf-QsaV5TFPbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:--GdnXQD9aQBrlHbnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:maqdnWETastJX1fbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
Oh, except you then turn around and denounce your own
standard.
These are not standards. There are differing methodologies.
Fine, apples and oranges, maybe when you can pick a single
method?
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Right, on one hand you want Method A, on the other hand you
Method B
Again, if you don't understand science, not my fault.
Oh, I understand it, and that's your problem. I understand that
correlation doesn't establish or even suggest causality,
And that's the problem. That is the depth of your understanding.
You've only scratched the surface of scientific modeling. Do you
understand what hypothesis testing is? Do you understand anova? Do
you know what the differences are between the various types of
error?
Nice try at diverting from the simple fact that your model does NOT
have the ability to even go a few decades without hitting
"exceptions"
Wrong...we have data going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Yea, and when you run your model backwards.....it doesn't work.
Cite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "elizabeth" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
20 Aug 2007 09:11:02 PM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
How would anyone establish what is the the single biggest cause of the
current spike in global mean temperature?
who cares?
The point is, what are we going to do about it? Wait until it's too
late to save anyone, wait until crops fail, and the displaced move
inland like armed locusts?
the only thing we can do is STOP ADDING TO THE CASUALTY LIST.
We *can* stop breeding, which would decrease every problem we have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
21 Aug 2007 08:22:05 AM |
|
|
On Aug 20, 10:11 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
How would anyone establish what is the the single biggest cause of the
current spike in global mean temperature?
who cares?
The point is, what are we going to do about it? Wait until it's too
late to save anyone, wait until crops fail, and the displaced move
inland like armed locusts?
the only thing we can do is STOP ADDING TO THE CASUALTY LIST.
We *can* stop breeding, which would decrease every problem we have.
That would certainly help, but as we can see some
humans use thousands of times as much of the earth
as others, so cutting down the mania for breeding,
while a step in the right direction, will not necessarily
be sufficient.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
21 Aug 2007 05:50:18 AM |
|
|
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not. What a silly thing to say. The theory makes predictions.
Future observations are the test.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
21 Aug 2007 04:56:04 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not.
You said it was.
"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control experiments on
a global scale."
Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?
What a silly thing to say.
Then why did YOU say it?
The theory makes predictions.
I predict that ice cream causes people to drown and I can prove this because
next year as the sale of ice cream increases the number of people who drown
will increase. Thus a confirmation of my theory proves that the theory
advanced is true according to your standards.
Future observations are the test.
Fine and after a couple of years of seeing that increases in drowning deaths
are correlated to that of ice cream sales we can establish that ice cream
causes people to drown.
I mean, the prediction will be shown to be true, so clearly any theory I
attach to explain that is also automatically proven under your standards.
Heck I could blame little aliens hiding in ice cream for the result and thus
establish the existence of UFOs.
Somehow I doubt you will accept these theories simply because I predicted
future events. Yet, you would ask me to do what you refuse to accept
yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
22 Aug 2007 08:08:46 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not.
You said it was.
"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."
Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?
Non sequitur. Damn, you are a complete ignoramus when it comes to science.
There is a well established correlation. This is the theory. The only option
is to present a better theory.
This *in no way* implies that it is an untestable hypothesis.
Go ahead and answer the question that I have asked you now *six* times.
What would satisfy you as far as establishing causation with regards to
global climate change?
What a silly thing to say.
Then why did YOU say it?
That you are a scientific ignoramus is not my problem.
The theory makes predictions.
I predict that ice cream causes people to drown and I can prove this
because next year as the sale of ice cream increases the number of
people who drown will increase. Thus a confirmation of my theory
proves that the theory advanced is true according to your standards.
Is this your best attempt at analogy? *****! Come up with something
*anything* new. I showed you already in this very thread how this can be
falsified.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
22 Aug 2007 05:04:09 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not.
You said it was.
"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."
Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?
Non sequitur.
Ok, it is a testable hypothesis impossible to disprove causation because
it's impossible to test.
In short, a contradiction. However, you are good at contradictions and an
inability to be consistent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 07:45:15 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not.
You said it was.
"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."
Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?
Non sequitur.
Ok, it is a testable hypothesis impossible to disprove causation
because it's impossible to test.
In short, a contradiction. However, you are good at contradictions
and an inability to be consistent.
Non sequitur. Causation cannot be disproven. This in no way infers that the
hypothesis is untestable. I'm sorry. But your understanding of scientific
analysis is lacking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 12:23:46 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bOKdncB_ouFBT1PbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not.
You said it was.
"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to disprove
causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."
Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?
Non sequitur.
Ok, it is a testable hypothesis impossible to disprove causation
because it's impossible to test.
In short, a contradiction. However, you are good at contradictions
and an inability to be consistent.
Non sequitur. Causation cannot be disproven.
And yet that is what you asked of me in another post
is this from stupidity or dishonesty ?
This in no way infers that the hypothesis is untestable. I'm sorry. But
your understanding of scientific analysis is lacking.
If you claim that ice cream sales causes drownings or wet sidewalks cause
rainfall, then your claimed "causation" can be disproven.
And it's by using simple analysis that it gets done
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 02:30:03 PM |
|
|
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bOKdncB_ouFBT1PbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not.
You said it was.
"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to
disprove causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."
Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?
Non sequitur.
Ok, it is a testable hypothesis impossible to disprove causation
because it's impossible to test.
In short, a contradiction. However, you are good at contradictions
and an inability to be consistent.
Non sequitur. Causation cannot be disproven.
And yet that is what you asked of me in another post
is this from stupidity or dishonesty ?
Causation can only be disproven in controlled experiments. Are you going to
run a control Earth? Otherwise, for climate change theory, all you can do is
determine the significance of inputs and then develop a model. The theory
lives and dies on its ability to make predictions.
This in no way infers that the hypothesis is untestable. I'm sorry.
But your understanding of scientific analysis is lacking.
If you claim that ice cream sales causes drownings or wet sidewalks
cause rainfall, then your claimed "causation" can be disproven.
And it's by using simple analysis that it gets done
Agreed, but you cannot do this with global climate change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 05:44:42 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KLudnRhZdI8hrFLbnZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@giganews.com...
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bOKdncB_ouFBT1PbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not.
You said it was.
"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to
disprove causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."
Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?
Non sequitur.
Ok, it is a testable hypothesis impossible to disprove causation
because it's impossible to test.
In short, a contradiction. However, you are good at contradictions
and an inability to be consistent.
Non sequitur. Causation cannot be disproven.
And yet that is what you asked of me in another post
is this from stupidity or dishonesty ?
Causation can only be disproven in controlled experiments. Are you going
to run a control Earth?
Sounds then like you have a real problem in supporting your claims.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
24 Aug 2007 09:47:08 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KLudnRhZdI8hrFLbnZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@giganews.com...
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bOKdncB_ouFBT1PbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qaSdnfvCJOnCqFHbnZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com...
Scout wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ff-dnYurAIz2XlfbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
elizabeth wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:46 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
snippity
Let put back what you evaded:
What in your mind would establish causation?
What difference does it make? This is an untestable hypothesis.
No, it's not.
You said it was.
"In the case of global climate change, it is impossible to
disprove causation
if there is correlation since there is no way to run control
experiments on a global scale."
Now, make up your mind. Is it untestable or not?
Non sequitur.
Ok, it is a testable hypothesis impossible to disprove causation
because it's impossible to test.
In short, a contradiction. However, you are good at contradictions
and an inability to be consistent.
Non sequitur. Causation cannot be disproven.
And yet that is what you asked of me in another post
is this from stupidity or dishonesty ?
Causation can only be disproven in controlled experiments. Are you going
to run a control Earth? Otherwise, for climate change theory, all you can
do is determine the significance of inputs and then develop a model. The
theory lives and dies on its ability to make predictions.
FALSE
I do NOT need to do a "controlled experiment" to disprove that >ice
cream sales cause drownings<
And your theory is stillborn BECAUSE it's UNABLE to make predictions forward
or even function backwards with historical exceptions
Too bad son
This in no way infers that the hypothesis is untestable. I'm sorry.
But your understanding of scientific analysis is lacking.
If you claim that ice cream sales causes drownings or wet sidewalks
cause rainfall, then your claimed "causation" can be disproven.
And it's by using simple analysis that it gets done
Agreed, but you cannot do this with global climate change.
Says you
And yet, geologists are quite capable of demonstrating that CO2 levels
FOLLOW warming in a cycle that lags from a few years to a few centuries
Why is it that they can do it, and a great scientist like you cannot ?
Could it be that you're not a "scientist", but a ***** artist instead ?
Methinks so
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
25 Aug 2007 10:37:08 AM |
|
|
SaPeIsMa wrote:
Causation can only be disproven in controlled experiments. Are you
going to run a control Earth? Otherwise, for climate change theory,
all you can do is determine the significance of inputs and then
develop a model. The theory lives and dies on its ability to make
predictions.
FALSE
I do NOT need to do a "controlled experiment" to disprove that >ice
cream sales cause drownings<
Well of course it's a preposterous claim. But how do you go about disproving
it without a controlled experiment.
And your theory is stillborn BECAUSE it's UNABLE to make predictions
forward or even function backwards with historical exceptions
Too bad son
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
This in no way infers that the hypothesis is untestable. I'm sorry.
But your understanding of scientific analysis is lacking.
If you claim that ice cream sales causes drownings or wet sidewalks
cause rainfall, then your claimed "causation" can be disproven.
And it's by using simple analysis that it gets done
Agreed, but you cannot do this with global climate change.
Says you
And yet, geologists are quite capable of demonstrating that CO2 levels
FOLLOW warming in a cycle that lags from a few years to a few
centuries
You misunderstand the results or are reading from an unreliable source, but
who knows since you haven't provided a cite. It's a feedback loop.
Why is it that they can do it, and a great scientist
like you cannot ? Could it be that you're not a "scientist", but a
***** artist instead ? Methinks so
You are in no position to judge since you are obviously a scientific
layperson. I could offer my credentials but what would that matter?
Rest assured, I am a degreed scientist and have been doing experimental
design and analysis for 20 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
25 Aug 2007 06:59:05 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l-WdnVvT8c870U3bnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@giganews.com...
SaPeIsMa wrote:
Causation can only be disproven in controlled experiments. Are you
going to run a control Earth? Otherwise, for climate change theory,
all you can do is determine the significance of inputs and then
develop a model. The theory lives and dies on its ability to make
predictions.
FALSE
I do NOT need to do a "controlled experiment" to disprove that >ice
cream sales cause drownings<
Well of course it's a preposterous claim. But how do you go about
disproving it without a controlled experiment.
And your theory is stillborn BECAUSE it's UNABLE to make predictions
forward or even function backwards with historical exceptions
Too bad son
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
Please repeat after me: Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Now with that fact firmly in mind please examine your site and indicate any
evidence that is NOT based on correlation.
This in no way infers that the hypothesis is untestable. I'm sorry.
But your understanding of scientific analysis is lacking.
If you claim that ice cream sales causes drownings or wet sidewalks
cause rainfall, then your claimed "causation" can be disproven.
And it's by using simple analysis that it gets done
Agreed, but you cannot do this with global climate change.
Says you
And yet, geologists are quite capable of demonstrating that CO2 levels
FOLLOW warming in a cycle that lags from a few years to a few
centuries
You misunderstand the results or are reading from an unreliable source,
but who knows since you haven't provided a cite. It's a feedback loop.
Why is it that they can do it, and a great scientist
like you cannot ? Could it be that you're not a "scientist", but a
***** artist instead ? Methinks so
You are in no position to judge since you are obviously a scientific
layperson. I could offer my credentials but what would that matter?
Rest assured, I am a degreed scientist and have been doing experimental
design and analysis for 20 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Abortion Increases Crime Rate |
26 Aug 2007 04:14:18 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
Please repeat after me: Correlation does NOT imply causality.
Now with that fact firmly in mind please examine your site and
indicate any evidence that is NOT based on correlation.
You are a nitwit. You keep on repeating as if it means anything other than
I've already explained to you. If you understood anything about data
analysis, you would know that the only thing you can do is to determine the
significance of inputs with certain levels of confidence.
In some very simple cases, one input may overwhelm all others in
significance such that we could safely say that we have determined, with a
level of confidence specified, the sole cause of an effect. This is an utter
impossibility in this case. There are myriad inputs. The chances that one of
them would be overwhelmingly significant is vanishingly
small...infinitesimal if you like.
And saying "indicate any evidence that is NOT based on correlation" is
completely insipid. Sure correlation does not imply causation. But the
reverse is *always* true. Causation implies correlation. If there is *no*
correlation between an input and an output, then it *cannot* be cause.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Abor | | | | | | |
