IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Coronavirus , partskeptic

Reply
Old 8th August 2020, 04:22 AM   #2161
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4,006
Not a good day. Started out cold and windy. I decided to go back to bed. The sun is out and I have commitments. Testing is not high on my list of priorities, although I will not drop it. With ME's posts I should just stay quiet for a while. I will post when I have something of interest.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 04:37 AM   #2162
RedStapler
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Not a good day. Started out cold and windy. I decided to go back to bed. The sun is out and I have commitments. Testing is not high on my list of priorities, although I will not drop it. With ME's posts I should just stay quiet for a while. I will post when I have something of interest.
Sure, let some time pass so you can pretend the criticism about all your lies never happened.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 04:57 AM   #2163
EvilBiker
Spectral Challenger
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I will post when I have something of interest.
Just in case you get confused or your short term memory loss quicks in, I compiled a handy list for you. Cut it out and stick it to your fridge!

Of interest:

1. Valid EM test results, as per spec.

Not of interest:

1.God
2. Poltergeists
3. IQ testing
4. Oneupmanship
5. Whenwe stories
6. Sob stories
7....
Anything else.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 06:50 AM   #2164
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4,006
This is one possibility. Just to be balanced.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7240631/

Children account for less than 2% of identified cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1,2 It is hypothesized that the lower risk among children is due to differential expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2),3 the receptor that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses for host entry.4 We investigated ACE2 gene expression in the nasal epithelium of children and adults.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 08:03 AM   #2165
EvilBiker
Spectral Challenger
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,406
Nope. Refer to list above.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 09:22 AM   #2166
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,021
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I'm appalled that was still the case in 1992 and yes, in that case your assumption was justified. I would note, however, that deliberately leaving out details which are vital to understanding what you are saying is not discriminatory, it is just silly.

So when can we expect you to post your detailed test protocol? I look forward to seeing how you have taken on board and addressed all the comments and queries which have been raised.
Just a quick remainder of what this derail is a distraction from.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 09:41 AM   #2167
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,915
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
This is one possibility. Just to be balanced.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7240631/

Children account for less than 2% of identified cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1,2 It is hypothesized that the lower risk among children is due to differential expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2),3 the receptor that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses for host entry.4 We investigated ACE2 gene expression in the nasal epithelium of children and adults.
1. Valid EM test results, as per spec.

Not of interest:

0. Onions, whether fashionable or not
1.God
2. Poltergeists
3. IQ testing
4. Oneupmanship
5. When we stories
6. Sob stories
7....
Anything else.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 10:24 AM   #2168
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,240
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I think I must just give a simple "Wrong. Fake News again" in response to your posts.
No, he's not wrong. You gave a summary of the economic history of Germany that sounded like it came straight out of far-right propaganda. You may not think of yourself as anti-Semitic, but you're clearly cribbing your argument on that point from people who are. And the prospect that you didn't recognize it for what it was is disturbing for any of a number of possible reasons. That discussion took up a whole page or more, and we all remember it. Your attempt to gaslight people to the contrary won't work.

Most of your arguments here come from someone or somewhere else. I don't mean they're informed by you're having previously read widely from among the available literature. I mean that it's obvious you're simply copying other people's easily-identified polemics directly and presenting it here as if it were your own scholarship, and as if it were the final truth of the matter. On the point in question, you didn't seem to give any of your critics credit for their own knowledge of pre-War European history, such that they could tell that what you were saying was a fringe interpretation. Further, you don't give your critics credit for recognizing the source of the particular argument you were making, such that they can call your bluff.

This isn't an isolated case. Most of your arguments fit this pattern. And you seem to be operating under the delusion that you're getting away with it, and that if you just gaslight everyone hard enough the delusion will stay intact. You need to come to grips with the proposition that your critics can be confident in their knowledge of where you're wrong, where you're likely to be cribbing from, and in their recollection of what you have previously said.

Quote:
They are annoying.
There seems to be a long list of things your critics do that annoys you. Presenting facts you were previously unaware of. Speaking eruditely in fields you have to clumsily fake your way through. Identifying your numerous errors of fact. Reminding you of things you did or said, that you seem to hope will go away. Being "annoyed" has been your frequent response to all of this.

When it comes to your personal comfort on matters such as this, literally no one cares. On the contrary, your expressions of consternation every time you're backed into a corner indicates to your critics that you are all out of arguments and have nothing left except emotional outbursts. I promise none of your critics is fretting, "Oh dear, I've upset PartSkeptic." I promise there is no unseen audience booing and clucking their tongues in scorn over how shabbily those mean old skeptics are treating you. So there's no point to the particular rhetorical trick you're trying to perform here. Wrong audience.

Your expectations seem to vacillate. You say you're here to hone your debate skills, then you get angry when debate actually ensues. You tell us you've written a number of books, few if any of which seem to have been published. From that we can infer that you believe you have something to say. But you seem to treat almost everyone else here as if what they have to say is inferior and worthless. You seem to want this thread to be where you perform your act, and where everyone else's performance is scripted to say only what you want said, and when you want them to say it. People aren't playing along, nor should they. If this truly annoys you, it should.

Quote:
I doubt you have much credibility on this thread.
Where's the irony meter GIF? That's really all I can here. You're arguing right out of the Dunning-Kruger playbook at this point. You tell us you bring up all your many accomplishments in order to establish your own credibility. And you hope thereby to convince us that you have an intellectual wherewithal that supports your claims. In fact these stories are so obviously non-credible that it has the opposite effect. You wield evident falsehood and embellishment so effortlessly that the default is not to believe a word you say. That would be true even if your critics were disposed to accept credibility in place of evidence.

Since you don't seem very competent at establishing your own credibility, your judgment of others' credibility is not especially trustworthy. But at heart, all you're doing here is begging some unseen audience not to believe your critics. You have no answer for what Matthew has resurrected, so your ploy is to lie and pretend it never happened, and hope to convince others that someone else is lying instead of you.

Quote:
I am building a shed and refurbishing a jungle gym.
No one cares to hear you brag about how productive or industrious you think you are. Today you're a busy bee because you're trying to socially-engineer your way out of a tight spot. Tomorrow you'll have leisure time to write a long string of irrelevant anecdotes.

Quote:
Don't you have something useful to do?
Your judgment of what other people might find useful or diverting is irrelevant. It's especially hypocritical considering some people have taken time away from their activities to try to help you solve your problems, only to be insulted or ignored by you. I doubt anyone is convinced you have any genuine concern for whether Matthew is spending his time effectively. Yes, in a larger perspective, entertaining someone else's delusions of grandeur might not rate very high on a scale of important work to do today. But that's my businesss, and Matthew's, and Pixel42's. Your sudden disapprobation is irrelevant.

And yes, it's obvious what you're trying to do. Having been reminded of your blatantly anti-Semitic presentation, which you're trying to pretend never happened, now you're trying to attach negative emotional consequences to the very act of criticizing you. "You should be doing other, more morally acceptable things instead of calling me on my mistakes." It's gaslighting. It's a form of emotional abuse. It has no place in a serious debate among adults.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 12:22 PM   #2169
EvilBiker
Spectral Challenger
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,406
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
1. Valid EM test results, as per spec.

Not of interest:

0. Onions, whether fashionable or not
1.God
2. Poltergeists
3. IQ testing
4. Oneupmanship
5. When we stories
6. Sob stories
7....
Anything else.
Just a small correction, Darat. I didn’t leave out a space with “whenwe”. It’s a word
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 05:21 PM   #2170
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,029
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
So you are saying that when anyone has a headache, it is always due to a historical condition?
No. I wrote "could be due"

Obviously you should take that Cognitive test again, as you don't seem to understand basic words and their meaning.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 05:26 PM   #2171
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,029
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
A white (even a "poor white") paid gardeners working as a living at R250 per day (R17.50 = 1 US$)?
I posted a photo of South Africa's main gardening magazine, which includes contributors who are all well paid gardeners who are from all ethnic backgrounds.

Your own racial prejudice is showing again.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 07:48 PM   #2172
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,029
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic 17JULY2020
But there was a flood of Jews into Germany who did not fit into the stable system and Berlin became a moral mess. Among all the other factors, it contributed to the making Jews a target for the Nazis.
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard Yesterday
Nope. You were caught lying and making up anti-Jewish stories earlier in this thread. You lied and said Jews were moving into Berlin and deserved what Hitler did to them. You ran away when we asked for a citation. Can't you remember ten days ago?
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic Yesterday
Your summary is in error. Once more. I made up no stories. I think I must just give a simple "Wrong. Fake News again" in response to your posts.
It is clear you are lying all the time now, and your failure to expect skeptics to be skeptical to your lies, on a skeptical forum, confirms your below average IQ, despite your claims to the opposite.

You are simply running away, this time, because you can't remember what other conflicting claims and posts you have already made on this forum
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2020, 08:00 PM   #2173
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,029
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
You should educate yourself before falsely accusing someone of lying.
We did. You lied and claimed Jews were moving to Germany and deserved what they got from the NSDAP. Several people here posted citations showing the truth was the exact opposite, and that you were lying again.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 12:00 AM   #2174
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4,006
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
Just in case you get confused or your short term memory loss quicks in, I compiled a handy list for you. Cut it out and stick it to your fridge!

Of interest:

1. Valid EM test results, as per spec.

Not of interest:

1.God
2. Poltergeists
3. IQ testing
4. Oneupmanship
5. Whenwe stories
6. Sob stories
7....
Anything else.

Got it. While testing is not a priority I do want to get it done. Just do not want a bunch of wasted tests.

JU & ME. Wrong. Again.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 12:55 AM   #2175
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Got it. While testing is not a priority I do want to get it done. Just do not want a bunch of wasted tests.
The best way to avoid a bunch of wasted tests is to first work out a detailed test protocol, and then run it past some people who have relevant experience and incorporate their suggested improvements.

Quote:
JU & ME. Wrong. Again.
You realise that just declaring someone wrong does not magically make them wrong? I consider JayUtah to be one of the most knowledgeable and insightful posters on this forum, his contributions are always worth reading. I have less experience of Matthew Ellard's posts, and I'm finding his posting style unnecessarily combative, but he does make some valid points.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 04:33 AM   #2176
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,021
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I'm appalled that was still the case in 1992 and yes, in that case your assumption was justified. I would note, however, that deliberately leaving out details which are vital to understanding what you are saying is not discriminatory, it is just silly.

So when can we expect you to post your detailed test protocol? I look forward to seeing how you have taken on board and addressed all the comments and queries which have been raised.



***cough***

Enquiring minds want to know.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 08:37 AM   #2177
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,240
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Just do not want a bunch of wasted tests.
From our perspective, a test is wasted if the data it generates cannot be used as evidence to test the hypothesis. Procedurally, data are rendered non-evidentiary if they are gathered in a way that allows for other potential correlates to intervene. For example, your knowing that the equipment is emitting at a certain power level predisposes you toward the placebo effect. We therefore establish protocols that govern how the test trial is to proceed. The steps in this protocol aim to preclude unwanted interventions and increase the probability that only the hypothesized phenomenon will predict the observed outcome.

Because good protocols are difficult to create without unconscious bias, even conscientious researchers submit a detailed description of their proposed protocols to their colleagues for review and comment. The goal is to provide enough detail that another researcher would be able to carry out the same experiment elsewhere, using only the description of the protocol, and ideally obtain the same result. This step is especially crucial if you fear the results will be contested.

We've labored with you for many weeks now to devise a protocol that will go as far as is possible in your situation to obtain dispositive data. And we are especially conscious that this test involves physical pain for you. We are heavily invested in getting good results from as few trials as possible. In addition, you fear any result you report here will be dismissed because you suspect your critics are biased against the existence of the phenomenon you hypothesize. Again, your critics are helping you devise a method of testing that they themselves would have a hard time arguing against.

Lately you seem to have thrown that out, assured all your critics that you know what you're doing, and proposed to collect data the way you feel is correct. But you've described your protocol only vaguely. And even though it was vague, it described a step that will clearly allow foreknowledge of the operation of the equipment. Your critics have adamantly expressed a desire to discuss your proposed protocol in detail, precisely to avoid wasting your time and theirs. But you seem unwilling to engage.

Quantitatively, data become non-evidentiary when they are considered outside a framework where statistical boundaries on their variance can be determined. This begins with understanding what you're measuring and understanding the error that may arise. It continues with modeling the measurements properly, and avoiding such things as unnecessary or arbitrary requantization of the measurements. Further, it's important to consider all the data, not just those trials in which the variables moved in a certain way. And it finishes with using proven techniques to detect whether covariance actually exists. On this point too you have failed to engage.

Once again you are focused on little beyond complaining about how badly you think you're being treated here. If other posters annoy or distract you, the forum provides a feature that hides their comments from view. And there is plenty of on-topic material to discuss, to keep those evident distractions from drawing your attention away.

Quote:
JU & ME. Wrong. Again.
Nope. I was generous enough to go into a fair amount of detail to describe why you are having trouble achieving here the credibility you seem to desire. You've complained in the past that I don't provide enough detail when I raise those points. Thank you for confirming my suspcion that those complaints were just rhetorical ploys, and that you have absolutely no intention of addressing the issue in detail. I'll remember to ignore such distractive whining from you in the future.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 11:15 AM   #2178
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
We did. You lied and claimed Jews were moving to Germany and deserved what they got from the NSDAP. Several people here posted citations showing the truth was the exact opposite, and that you were lying again.
Indeed, and his response is the only one that's not acceptable to skeptics.

He could have said, "Wow, I didn't realize my source was so biased. I withdraw the claim, and I apologize for any unintended offense." He would have taken some heat, because this is a contentious site. But in the end he'd have had more credibility, because it would have shown he is capable of re-evaluating his claims based on evidence that's presented.

He could have said, "No, you're wrong about the history. You say I'm quoting neo-Nazi revisionist sources, but here's a mainstream source that provides the same facts and interpretation..." Nothing about debate requires someone to concede his point, especially when he believes -- and can demonstrate -- that the facts still bear it out. Addressing the intent of a rebuttal with an argument that puts the ball legitimately back in the other guy's court is a great way to build credibility. People might come to think he's actually studied this beyond a few quickly-obtained references. In other words, there's no better way to build credibility than to be able to demonstrate, by learned debate, that you really do know what you're talking about.

He could have said, "I think this is a valid interpretation of history, but I don't agree with the racists policies that others have based on it." One can certainly talk about disadvantaged groups without participating in the activities that disadvantage them. It's often a tap-dance to deploy facts obtained from polemics without tripping and falling into the polemical conclusions themselves, but often if you just say, "I realize I'm quoting from the fringe, but for these reasons I think they have the facts right and that's as far as I'm going to agree with them," you can make a cognizable point. Not a strong one, but you can avoid charges of whichever -ism you want to avoid.

All of those, and many more like them, have some sort of appeal to skeptics. They reveal a certain degree of critical thought, specifically the ability to critically evaluate one's own arguments. (It's easy to tear into someone else's arguments, especially if you disagree with the conclusion. It's harder to evaluate one's own argument critically, especially if it's in favor of something you cherish.). Among skeptics, a demonstration like that builds credibility.

Instead, trying to pretend a thing never happened, and browbeating others into agreeing it didn't, is the worst thing you can do in a debate, and the worst way to engage skeptics. One of the reasons skeptics advocate critical thinking is to help people defend against the various forms of manipulation like gaslighting. When you come to a skeptics forum, ignore critical thought, and blatantly gaslight everyone, it's not only a poor way to build credibility, it's an excellent way to ensure you will receive a large volume of unflattering attention.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 11:28 AM   #2179
EvilBiker
Spectral Challenger
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,406
/thread.

Nominated.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 11:42 AM   #2180
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,475
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
/thread.

Nominated.
Seconded...
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2020, 08:26 PM   #2181
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,029
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
You must realize that a court is not compelled to give reasons.
It must be hard to lodge an appeal against the court's decision and ratio decidendi, if it doesn't offer reasons.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
.....I appealed a recent order/judgement to the Constitutional Court here in SA.
I'm dying to see which common law cases you invoked in your submissions to allow an appeal.

....however, you were simply lying again.


Judicial officers have the duty to give reasons for their decisions
S v Mokela 2012 (1) SACR 431 (SCA)
Strategic Liquor Services v Mvumbi NO & others 2010 (2) SA 92 (CC)
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 01:39 AM   #2182
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4,006
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
It must be hard to lodge an appeal against the court's decision and ratio decidendi, if it doesn't offer reasons.

I'm dying to see which common law cases you invoked in your submissions to allow an appeal.

....however, you were simply lying again.


Judicial officers have the duty to give reasons for their decisions
S v Mokela 2012 (1) SACR 431 (SCA)
Strategic Liquor Services v Mvumbi NO & others 2010 (2) SA 92 (CC)

Do you consider this a reason? It took 18 months of constant pressure on the courts to get the written reasons. The judge sets out the case by cherry picking facts. then gives her "reasons":

"I deemed it appropriate to rule as I did."

I have paraphrased, but I can upload her written reasons to Google Drive and you can tell me if she said anything different.

I laid a Judicial Complaint which went to the highest tribunal. The complaint was dismissed (by Deputy Judge President Zondo) on the basis that I was complaining about the merits of the decision, and requires an appeal. The judge in question rejected an application for leave to appeal, so did the SCA and so did the ConCourt, so an appeal was never heard.

The system of justice is unjust and allow judges to give ridiculous judgments because they rule in favor of the party with the most influence.

Stop with the malicious accusations of lying. I know what sort of afterlife you are going to have should you not reform and repent.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 01:56 AM   #2183
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4,006
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The best way to avoid a bunch of wasted tests is to first work out a detailed test protocol, and then run it past some people who have relevant experience and incorporate their suggested improvements.


You realise that just declaring someone wrong does not magically make them wrong? I consider JayUtah to be one of the most knowledgeable and insightful posters on this forum, his contributions are always worth reading. I have less experience of Matthew Ellard's posts, and I'm finding his posting style unnecessarily combative, but he does make some valid points.

I want to do the tests. But I require that I am able to produce a low ambient AND a modem that when on has a high emf. If I cannot do that reliably I cannot get a consistent result.

I am willing to waste tests, as long as I can get the emfs right. Once I do that I will post the test procedure in detail and you can critique it.

I will try once more at home. I bought the remote bell for the test and will try in about an hour or two. I have had a lot of body pain. This morning at 7:30am I took 2 pain tablets and went back to bed for 2 hours. They may interfere with the test, but I can try again later when they have worn off.


With regard to JU and ME I find that the direction of the argument will just get more entangled and nasty as they demand more proof and make statements that rephrase my position in such a way as to be incorrect. I am in a lose-lose situation. I have the proof but it will just be rejected and countered by a huge volume of antagonism for daring to go against the politically correct narrative. I once accepted that narrative. What changed my mind was extensive research and reading of sources that I cross checked and appeared to be valid.

I do not want to go into detail as to how wrong they are. I just do not want statements calling me a liar and an antisemite to go unchallenged. So I give a one word response without quoting them. They are wrong. JU may wrap his opinions in some convoluted highfalutin language but they are still in error. I consider them to be baiting me for their own amusement.

I appreciate you posting your point of view on the exchanges.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 02:15 AM   #2184
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4,006
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
Just a small correction, Darat. I didn’t leave out a space with “whenwe”. It’s a word

There is now a new reference to ex-Zimbabweans who left "Rhodesia" and came to South Africa.

It uses the word "we" but has changed to infer that they should not have moved south but out of Africa. I struggle to remember the new term. Something like a "shouldwe". Should we have have left Africa we would be better off". Or "Nowwe". Now we are in South Africa. I wish I could remember.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 02:25 AM   #2185
PartSkeptic
Illuminator
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4,006
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed, and his response is the only one that's not acceptable to skeptics.

He could have said, "Wow, I didn't realize my source was so biased. I withdraw the claim, and I apologize for any unintended offense." He would have taken some heat, because this is a contentious site. But in the end he'd have had more credibility, because it would have shown he is capable of re-evaluating his claims based on evidence that's presented.

He could have said, "No, you're wrong about the history. You say I'm quoting neo-Nazi revisionist sources, but here's a mainstream source that provides the same facts and interpretation..." Nothing about debate requires someone to concede his point, especially when he believes -- and can demonstrate -- that the facts still bear it out. Addressing the intent of a rebuttal with an argument that puts the ball legitimately back in the other guy's court is a great way to build credibility. People might come to think he's actually studied this beyond a few quickly-obtained references. In other words, there's no better way to build credibility than to be able to demonstrate, by learned debate, that you really do know what you're talking about.

He could have said, "I think this is a valid interpretation of history, but I don't agree with the racists policies that others have based on it." One can certainly talk about disadvantaged groups without participating in the activities that disadvantage them. It's often a tap-dance to deploy facts obtained from polemics without tripping and falling into the polemical conclusions themselves, but often if you just say, "I realize I'm quoting from the fringe, but for these reasons I think they have the facts right and that's as far as I'm going to agree with them," you can make a cognizable point. Not a strong one, but you can avoid charges of whichever -ism you want to avoid.

All of those, and many more like them, have some sort of appeal to skeptics. They reveal a certain degree of critical thought, specifically the ability to critically evaluate one's own arguments. (It's easy to tear into someone else's arguments, especially if you disagree with the conclusion. It's harder to evaluate one's own argument critically, especially if it's in favor of something you cherish.). Among skeptics, a demonstration like that builds credibility.

Instead, trying to pretend a thing never happened, and browbeating others into agreeing it didn't, is the worst thing you can do in a debate, and the worst way to engage skeptics. One of the reasons skeptics advocate critical thinking is to help people defend against the various forms of manipulation like gaslighting. When you come to a skeptics forum, ignore critical thought, and blatantly gaslight everyone, it's not only a poor way to build credibility, it's an excellent way to ensure you will receive a large volume of unflattering attention.

Your entire post is premised on the false fact that I am wrong - and hence I should see the error of my ways. And the false re-wording of my position that you and other people are doing. As you have pointed out, debating tactics mean that one does not need the truth, only to make arguments that impress others.

I will concede you are very good at doing that. However, winning the debate in the eyes of the audience is not proving you are correct.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 03:00 AM   #2186
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,915
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Your entire post is premised on the false fact that I am wrong - and hence I should see the error of my ways. And the false re-wording of my position that you and other people are doing. As you have pointed out, debating tactics mean that one does not need the truth, only to make arguments that impress others.

I will concede you are very good at doing that. However, winning the debate in the eyes of the audience is not proving you are correct.
No it wasn't. He clearly stated what you could have done to convince people you were right. One suspects you do not read for comprehension.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 04:23 AM   #2187
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
You are stubbornly taking a position to avoid losing the argument.
Nope. You will notice that the last part of my post there is a series of questions, to you, asking for facts and clarifications about your "hypothesis", which is the subject under discussion.
I have not taken a position on this, because you have given me nothing to go on.
There is an easy way to remedy that, of course:
Answer the questions!


Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Which logically means you have lost the argument - by default.

Judgment to the Plaintiff (me).
Your claim is that all of humanity is imperiled in one way or another, and all you can do is play silly, childish games like this? Really?
Very poor.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 04:36 AM   #2188
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post

You must realize that a court is not compelled to give reasons.
Do you now accept that this statement was untrue?

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
In this case they simple gave an order to reverse the costs order. If we appealed the lack of costs for the reversal to the highest court in the land the Appeal Court would have to have given reasons. But even then, it can be brief.

When I read the "report" I was stunned. I realized that law reports are quite selective in how and what they report. They often distort facts so as to be consistent in what they "want" the law to represent. A case that could be used by lay litigants to illustrate how bad some judgements could be puts the law in a bad light.

I appealed a recent order/judgement to the Constitutional Court here in SA. The judgement consisted of a long and cherry picked version of the facts. The reason for the judgment was given as "I deemed it appropriate". The ConCourt rejected my leave to appeal with one sentence "There is no chance of success". They have their ways to block embarrassing litigation.
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Do you consider this a reason? It took 18 months of constant pressure on the courts to get the written reasons. The judge sets out the case by cherry picking facts. then gives her "reasons":

"I deemed it appropriate to rule as I did."
Is this the same long judgement you mention above, or another one? This looks quite short to me.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I have paraphrased,
I'm sure you have. And very possibly cherry-picked as well.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
but I can upload her written reasons to Google Drive and you can tell me if she said anything different.
Yes, do that please.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The system of justice is unjust and allow judges to give ridiculous judgments because they rule in favor of the party with the most influence.
Whilst I have no doubt that corruption exists within the SA justice system, you have yet to show any evidence at all that corruption and influence were factors in your own particular case.
This is despite numerous requests for just that.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Stop with the malicious accusations of lying.
They will stop when you stop lying.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I know what sort of afterlife you are going to have should you not reform and repent.
No, you don't.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 04:39 AM   #2189
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,243
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Your entire post is premised on the false fact that I am wrong - and hence I should see the error of my ways.
Actually his post was based upon the premise that you should be expected to defend your argument in a debate, when your opponents present evidence that you are wrong. Evidence was posted which showed that you were wrong about the migration of Jews into Berlin in the 1930s, and you haven't presented anything to show that you are right and your opponents are wrong.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 06:40 AM   #2190
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,240
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Your entire post is premised on the false fact that I am wrong...
Looks like you need to actually read my posts before trying to respond to them.

Quote:
As you have pointed out, debating tactics mean that one does not need the truth, only to make arguments that impress others.
My point was exactly the opposite -- that the best way to win a debate is to take pains to determine whether the facts are on your side. You evidently didn't get past the first paragraph of my post. In contrast you're the one who admits his entire approach is based on trying to impress people with his many accomplishments and then begging them to take his word for it.

Quote:
I will concede you are very good at doing that. However, winning the debate in the eyes of the audience is not proving you are correct.
"Jay is just pandering to his audience," is one of the many ways you ignore my posts while trying to make it seem like that's not what you're doing.

If you want to demonstrate that I'm incorrect, you have to do more than just one- or two-sentence dismissals of detailed posts in which the pertinent line of reasoning is laid out thoroughly. Especially when those brush-offs reveal to everyone that you didn't read what you were allegedly responding to.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 07:20 AM   #2191
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,240
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I want to do the tests. But I require that I am able to produce a low ambient AND a modem that when on has a high emf. If I cannot do that reliably I cannot get a consistent result.
Why is that suddenly necessary? This whole thread started with you saying that whenever the wifi was operating you very quickly got severe headaches. Now you're trying to finely slice the purported causes and effects into an untestable monstrosity.

Start with telling us what you plan to measure with your fancy meter, and what you expect the numbers to be at different times of the day, including when the modem is switched off.

Quote:
I am willing to waste tests, as long as I can get the emfs right. Once I do that I will post the test procedure in detail and you can critique it.
"Getting the emfs right" simply means being able measure them accurately as they vary according to their own schedule. What you seemed to propose earlier is a procedure whereby you first cajole the modem into producing a high signal strength, and then you run the test. That's not valid.

Quote:
I will try once more at home. I bought the remote bell for the test and will try in about an hour or two.
I missed it; what's the bell for? You said you were primarily concerned with not wasting time. Why are you performing tests without a reviewed protocol, then? You do understand that no one else will accept your data as evidence without first having seen the protocol and the statistical model. If wasting time is your concern, you're going about this all wrong. You're just accumulating uncontrolled anecdotes.

Quote:
With regard to JU and ME I find that the direction of the argument will just get more entangled and nasty as they demand more proof...
Requiring you to prove your claims is "nasty?"

Quote:
...and make statements that rephrase my position in such a way as to be incorrect.
You haven't shown how anyone has misrepresented you. You're just trying to gaslight everyone, as usual. You want to pretend you have been badly misquoted and misrepresented, but everyone here remembers the discussion. And it's available for reference.

You are not entitled to a falsely rosy reputation. If you put your foot in your mouth, or tell a demonstrable lie, people are not obliged to forget it just because it embarrasses, annoys, or upsets you. Skeptics aren't here to make you comfortable. If you are factually wrong, or logically incoherent, or otherwise thinking uncritically, it's the skeptic's job to help you correct that. If you're actively gaslighting and manipulating people, it's the skeptic's duty to make you as uncomfortable as he can for doing that, because that's frankly not behavior a civilized world should tolerate.

Quote:
I am in a lose-lose situation.
No, just a losing situation. You're just plain losing because you're faking it, you have no evidence, and people can tell. You consider it a no-win situation because you want to keep using the same failing tactics, and you want everyone else to go along with it so you win. A skeptic considers it a win when the best-supported answer is reached, whatever it is. Losing for you means being wrong.

Quote:
I have the proof but it will just be rejected and countered by a huge volume of antagonism for daring to go against the politically correct narrative.
And now you're writing your opponents' argument for them. But at least you're finally hinting that you realize your historical interpretation lies on the fringe.

Quote:
I once accepted that narrative. What changed my mind was extensive research and reading of sources that I cross checked and appeared to be valid.
You have shown no aptitude for or desire to do extensive research. In fact, your stated pattern has been the opposite. You skip lectures, cram the night before, ace the exam, and pretend that's all there is to it. Your approach has been nothing but shortcuts based on your presumption to be very, very intelligent and above the requirements that burden the common man.

You quoted the neo-Nazi position, probably because that was your shortcut to learning European history. And now you're trying to pretend that it's carefully researched and cross-referenced, even after this same sort of approach has failed you numerous times here. Your critics can easily tell where you're getting your information.

And it's especially telling that you now claim to have extensively researched German history only after I suggested that's the sort of argument that would win over skeptics. The problem here is that you only went halfway. You claim to be well read in German history, but you state below that you have no intention of proving that you are. Once again you simply claim to be exceptional, and then require your audience to simply take your word for it on the point at hand.

Same old, same old.

Quote:
I do not want to go into detail as to how wrong they are. I just do not want statements calling me a liar and an antisemite to go unchallenged. So I give a one word response without quoting them.
"I'm perfectly capable of responding to their rebuttals in depth, but I don't want to." You might just as well have said, "I'm sorry, Your Honor, but my dog ate the brief that was due yesterday."

Quote:
They are wrong. JU may wrap his opinions in some convoluted highfalutin language but they are still in error.
Prove it.

Quote:
I consider them to be baiting me for their own amusement.
And now you're writing character motives for the rest of the cast in your fantasy drama.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 07:33 AM   #2192
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,240
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Stop with the malicious accusations of lying.
You will stop being called out on your falsehoods when you stop telling them. You seem to think no one can tell when you're lying. You seem to think your critics do not know, or cannot discover the truth for themselves. You seem to think they cannot see you changing your stories to fit new facts. Moreover, you seem to think they have a duty to indulge you and either tolerate or overlook this behavior.

You are being accused of telling untruths not out of malice, but out of a desire to obtain the truth so that reliable conclusions can be drawn regarding your claims.

A proper basis for your claims would be objectively obtained evidence that they are true. This forum has bent over backwards trying to help you obtain it, for everyone's benefit. But you seem quite uninterested in basing your claims that way. Instead, the only argument you give us on which to base your claims are tales that we can show from the evidence simply are not, or cannot, be true. At best they are dubious. You give us a non sequitur argument based on falsehood, and then cry foul when you are found out.

What you're upset about is not that people are accusing you of telling lies. You seem to be upset that you're not getting away with telling lies.

Quote:
I know what sort of afterlife you are going to have should you not reform and repent.
If I believed in religion, I would say this reeks of hypocrisy. Where do false prophets go in your theology?
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 08:49 AM   #2193
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I want to do the tests. But I require that I am able to produce a low ambient AND a modem that when on has a high emf. If I cannot do that reliably I cannot get a consistent result.
This started because you claimed to always be able to tell when the wifi was on because of the physical symptoms it caused. Now you're saying that the wifi has to be operating in a very specific (and apparently rare) way in order to provoke those symptoms. That means your hypothesis that there is a correlation between the wifi's state and your symptoms is already on very shaky ground.

Quote:
I am willing to waste tests, as long as I can get the emfs right. Once I do that I will post the test procedure in detail and you can critique it.
If your hypothesis is correct there should be no need to "get the emfs right". Don't forget you don't need to be right about whether the wifi is on or off every time, just more often than would be expected by chance. If the correlation is there, but not as strong as you originally believed, it just means you'll need to do more trials than you originally expected to see a statistically significant hit rate.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 08:56 AM   #2194
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I missed it; what's the bell for?
He originally wanted his wife to knock on the wall when she had set the wifi to on or off, but there are ways in which she could inadvertently indicate which state she'd set it to by the way in which she knocked. I suggested working to a fixed time schedule so no knocks were required; PartSkeptic preferred to use a bell with a fixed tone.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 09:41 AM   #2195
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 19,240
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
That means your hypothesis that there is a correlation between the wifi's state and your symptoms is already on very shaky ground.
Even by anecdotal standards. PartSkeptic proposes that accumulating congruent anecdotes should be considered in some way evidence. This is just informal data-gathering and seat-of-the-pants statistics, so no. But when the anecdotes stop being congruent, it's proper to reject the hypothesis even on that standard of proof. It it stops meeting the low bar, you have to consider the likelihood it will meet a higher one.

One never knows, though. A more rigorous approach could end up weeding out both false positives and false negatives.

Quote:
If your hypothesis is correct there should be no need to "get the emfs right".
If his hypothesis is that the modem should be emitting at a medium or high strength in order for him to run a trial, that's the opposite of what he should be doing. A valid data set needs to include times when the modem is off, and times when the modem is operating at a low power level.

Quote:
Don't forget you don't need to be right about whether the wifi is on or off every time, just more often than would be expected by chance. If the correlation is there, but not as strong as you originally believed, it just means you'll need to do more trials than you originally expected to see a statistically significant hit rate.
He seems curiously disinterested in discussing his statistical model. I don't even know if he has one or if he knows what one is.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
He originally wanted his wife to knock... PartSkeptic preferred to use a bell with a fixed tone.
Oh, I see. Thanks for filling that in. I assume by "fixed tone" you mean there is no way the operator can change the ring tone of the bell by, say, holding the button down longer.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 09:50 AM   #2196
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,002
Not reading anything he pulls from the internet does seem to be Partskeptics modus operandi.
When he pulled the paper to prove his point about wifi affecting cells it was clear he'd never read beyond the title, maybe the first line of the abstract.

And when I did actually take the time to analyze the paper he just ignored it and never brought up counter arguments.

I suspect the same will be true for his 'protocol', the original double blind protocol suggested by Pixel42 was well thought out and would have shown if there was at least some sort of correlation. But he keeps adding pointless complications and ways to unblind the protocol so it will give what he wants.
Lukraak_Sisser is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 09:59 AM   #2197
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 28,345
Yeah, now I'm a bit confused. If I understand the gist of this, PS started with a claim that certain specific behavior of the modem used in his house causes physical problems. A test is suggested, but now he cannot do the test because the modem in his house does not produce the behavior he blames for the problems?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 11:00 AM   #2198
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 4,739
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Yeah, now I'm a bit confused. If I understand the gist of this, PS started with a claim that certain specific behavior of the modem used in his house causes physical problems. A test is suggested, but now he cannot do the test because the modem in his house does not produce the behavior he blames for the problems?
My understanding of his original claim was that he could tell, from his physical symptoms (headaches, etc.), and with a frequency of correlation greater than would be expected by chance, whether the modem was on or off. That could be tested simply. Now, though, he's added that the modem needs to be operating at a certain level; he videos the modem during the test (without, I presume, seeing the video until after the test is over) to make sure that level was maintained during the test; and I believe that he's said he will discard- i.e., not count as data points- any results where that level was not maintained. (As I said, this is my understanding- I could be getting something wrong, but PS refuses to simply lay out a step-by-step protocol of how the test will go, so any misunderstandings are his responsibility)

But discarding any results seems to me to be a pretty self-serving approach- fine if you only want to reinforce a conviction, not so valid if you want to actually, scientifically test one. After all, if the hypothesis is that a certain cause (modem on and operating at a certain level) will produce a certain effect (headaches) with enough consistency to show a relationship, and you get results (headaches) when the cause is not present (modem is either off or not operating at the necessary level)- well, those are data points too. They're negative data points, they tend to disprove the hypothesis, but that's kind of the way it goes sometimes- you don't get to discard results because they're not what you want to see. The validity of the hypothesis relies on the greater-than-chance consistency of the correlation- just throwing out results that show inconsistency is cheating.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 10th August 2020 at 11:25 AM. Reason: clarify
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 12:28 PM   #2199
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
My understanding of his original claim was that he could tell, from his physical symptoms (headaches, etc.), and with a frequency of correlation greater than would be expected by chance, whether the modem was on or off. That could be tested simply. Now, though, he's added that the modem needs to be operating at a certain level; he videos the modem during the test (without, I presume, seeing the video until after the test is over) to make sure that level was maintained during the test; and I believe that he's said he will discard- i.e., not count as data points- any results where that level was not maintained. (As I said, this is my understanding- I could be getting something wrong, but PS refuses to simply lay out a step-by-step protocol of how the test will go, so any misunderstandings are his responsibility)
That's my understanding. Essentially he has modified his hypothesis from the wifi always causing a headache to the wifi always causing a headache when operating at or above a certain level of output.

Quote:
But discarding any results seems to me to be a pretty self-serving approach- fine if you only want to reinforce a conviction, not so valid if you want to actually, scientifically test one. After all, if the hypothesis is that a certain cause (modem on and operating at a certain level) will produce a certain effect (headaches) with enough consistency to show a relationship, and you get results (headaches) when the cause is not present (modem is either off or not operating at the necessary level)- well, those are data points too. They're negative data points, they tend to disprove the hypothesis, but that's kind of the way it goes sometimes- you don't get to discard results because they're not what you want to see. The validity of the hypothesis relies on the greater-than-chance consistency of the correlation- just throwing out results that show inconsistency is cheating.
That's a good point, and one I confess hadn't occurred to me.

It's not quite as bad as you're describing because you only discard trials where the wifi is on but never reached the prespecified minimum level. If it's off, and PS develops a headache which he identifies as being due to the wifi, then that negative data point is recorded - that's a miss. But if the wifi is on but never reached the prespecified minimum level then the trial is discarded regardless of whether PS thinks he developed a wifi-induced headache or not. So if he does, those negative data points aren't recorded. I'm not sure how much of a problem that is, I'll need to give it some thought.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2020, 12:59 PM   #2200
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 13,193
OK, I've thought.

When the hypothesis was simply that the wifi being on produced physical symptoms, the possible outcomes of the trials were simple:

SymptomsWifi OFFWifi ON
YESMISSHIT
NOHITMISS

When PS changed the hypothesis to require a minimum level of output that became:

SymptomsWifi OFFWifi ON, lowWifi ON, high
YESMISSDISCARDHIT
NOHITDISCARDMISS

I think what turingtest is saying is that, rather than discard the results when the wifi is low, we can use those data points too. If the wifi was on but below the level PS now considers too low to provoke his symptoms and he gets no symptoms that's actually a hit; if it's on and low and he does get symptoms that's a miss. So:

SymptomsWifi OFFWifi ON, lowWifi ON, high
YESMISSMISSHIT
NOHITHITMISS

I suspect PartSkeptic will object to the fact that him getting symptoms when the wifi is on will now sometimes count as a miss, but he chose to change the hypothesis, so ...
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 10th August 2020 at 01:03 PM.
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.