Election meddling is an attack worth starting a war

[Town Heretic]

Of course it is. The story is a data point.

That would be N=1, statistically meaningless. You need a great deal of data to objectively establish or even suggest a point. You need a lot of things your quick declarations lack.

Here's a little help:

"The importance of sample size is one of the most fundamental concepts in statistics. The larger your sample size, the more power that you have and the more confident you can be in your results. An anecdote, however, is simply a single observation, and extrapolating from a single observation to a general trend is an absurd thing to do. Imaging, for example, that you want to know whether or not a coin is biased, so you flip it twice and it lands on heads both times. Should you conclude that the coin is biased? Of course not. A sample size that small is meaningless because it is entirely possible (even likely) that you got a biased result just by chance. The same thing is true with anecdotes. Saying, “I vaccinated my kid, then he developed autism; therefore, vaccines cause autism” isn’t substantially different (as far as sample size) from saying, “I flipped the coin twice and got heads both times; therefore, the coin is biased.” Tiny sample sizes simply aren’t reliable." The Logic of Science, 2/10/16

You declaring it to be not evidence is one of those declaration things you seem to hate so much.

I'm not "declaring" it, it's prima facie established as an anecdote want of any supportive context to turn it into a meaningful larger statement. You either don't understand how statistical models work or you're just making smoke.

 

[Stripe]

That would be N=1, statistically meaningless.

And yet, the thing really happened. You can reduce things to numbers all you like. This really happened.

You need a great deal of data to objectively establish or even suggest a point.

Nope.

I can assert anything I like with no evidence.

Extrapolating from a single observation to a general trend is an absurd thing to do.

Luckily, we didn't do that.

I'm not "declaring" it, it's prima facie established as an anecdote want of any supportive context to turn it into a meaningful larger statement. You either don't understand how statistical models work or you're just making smoke.

I wasn't building a statistical model; I told a story.

It backs up what I think about universities. I don't believe what I do about education based on this one anecdote.

Get over it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

And yet, the thing really happened. You can reduce things to numbers all you like. This really happened.

Okay. Anecdotes do and all the time. But it's not reduction, only context for establishing whether a thing is meaningful in a larger sense. Without more yours is only an observation in support of a bias. It cannot, in and of itself, establish more, which was my point to CS and remains my point in relation to your story.

Speaking of which, I wrote, "You need a great deal of data to objectively establish or even suggest a point.

Nope. I can assert anything I like with no evidence.

You can go pantsless at the dinner table, but it's not a very good idea and it's nothing like an argument that establishes any particular truth beyond, "At this point X happened." Even within that limited context it wasn't established that because your professor failed to entertain debate on the one point his education or the value of education was reduced. I gave you a possible variable you hadn't accounted for, by way of illustration.

Any valid statistical analysis requires a few things. Many data points is crucial. Controls are crucial. Systematized collection and analysis is crucial. None of those foundational approaches is found in your offering. So the narrative, the instance, outside the debatable value within its own context, is without larger meaning. That was and remains my point.

Luckily, we didn't do that.

Well, you did. You set out the anecdote and followed with, "So much for a good education." You set out the illustration of an unestablished rule about education, summed in the vague conclusion. As I noted among the questions you didn't address a few posts ago, it's problematic.

I wasn't building a statistical model; I told a story.

This isn't story corner and you engaged me on a point. You had an idea and you presented something that wasn't sufficient as evidence to support a conclusion that reflected, as it stands, nothing appreciably more than your bias.

I don't believe what I do about education based on this one anecdote.

That's lovely, but it doesn't establish the validity of your position/feeling. Or, as a statement of your bias and feeling it's sufficient. Beyond that it's just not much of anything.

Get over it.

I didn't start our conversation. I only attempted to make it meaningful, because if you only wanted to tell everyone how you feel about education you didn't need to respond to me for that and I'm not particularly interested in how you feel unless there's reason in it.

 

[Stripe]

Yours is only an observation in support of a bias.

They're called ideas.

It cannot, in and of itself, establish more.

Luckily, we didn't try to establish anything.

Any valid statistical analysis requires a few things. Many data points is crucial. Controls are crucial. Systematized collection and analysis is crucial. None of those foundational approaches is found in your offering. So the narrative, the instance, outside the debatable value within its own context, is without larger meaning. That was and remains my point.

We weren't making a statistical analysis, so your point is useless.

Well, you did. You set out the anecdote and followed with, "So much for a good education." You set out the illustration of an unestablished rule about education, summed in the vague conclusion. As I noted among the questions you didn't address a few posts ago, it's problematic.

I didn't get a good education. I studied Earth science for three years and they didn't even explain why the Earth is round.

I'll be the judge of my experiences, thank you. You get to chime in if you find my stories do not match my descriptions.

This isn't story corner.

Feel free to just ignore me. :up:

I'm not particularly interested in how you feel unless there's reason in it.

If universities are systematically bad, wouldn't you want to know?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

They're called ideas.

That's what the flat earth people say...I'm kidding, they actually take a stab at supporting their belief with something akin to argument. They're about as wrong as disco, of course, but you have to credit the effort.

Luckily, we didn't try to establish anything.

And all of you in there managed to not do that, so...mission accomplished? lain:

We weren't making a statistical analysis, so your point is useless.

Logic is always useless to those who don't employ it. Worse, actually, as it tends to undo the lazy best efforts of those peddling notions/biases as fact.

I didn't get a good education.

I'm sorry to hear it. But sympathy for the admission isn't going to buy you a pass on how you present your ideas.

I studied Earth science for three years and they didn't even explain why the Earth is round.

At what level? Better yet, when did you take trigonometry? (see: Eratosthenes). The Jesuits gave us that one when we were still wearing school unis. Of course, beyond trigonometry there are any number of illustrations of the principle, from sight in high buildings with relatively unobscured views at ground level to flights on airplanes, to observations of the planets through decent telescopes, to the requirement of a vast and generational world wide conspiracy to prevent the truth from leaking out about...but why waste time on flat earth nonsense when your nonsense is retreating before us, rationally, like the tide? Well, the attempt of it at any rate, the attempt voiced in your emphatic, "So much for a good education" and the failure of that as more than an expression of rationally unsupported and purely personal bias. Let's get back to that while the boat is still floating.

I'll be the judge of my experiences, thank you.

That's what UFO abductees say. And who can blame any one of you for going with that, given.

You get to chime in if you find my stories do not match my descriptions.

I get to chime in when I want to, really, though the likelihood of my doing that is much greater when you speak nonsense to me as though it was countering something I said or wrote.

Feel free to just ignore me.

And again, I didn't start the conversation. So if you wanted to be ignored you picked a worse methodological approach than you did when you advanced nonsense as though it should act in rebuttal or be taken serious by anyone capable of serious consideration.

If you don't want a thing examined seriously then run it past someone who doesn't know better. CS, maybe.

If universities are systematically bad, wouldn't you want to know?

I'd want to know all sorts of things, but you have to know how to arrive at real knowledge on a point or you're not really helping anyone at all on a point, beginning with you.

 

[Stripe]

Flat earth... UFO abductees.

:yawn:

Wake us up when you're done poisoning the well — or in your case, poissoning it. This is actual use of a logical fallacy, as opposed to the nonsense you're laying at my door.

Logic is always useless to those who will not use it.

Mission accomplished?

It was a story. Get over it.

At what level? Better yet, when did you take trigonometry? (see: Eratosthenes). The Jesuits gave us that one when we were still wearing school unis. Of course, beyond trigonometry there are any number of illustrations of the principle, from sight in high buildings with relatively unobscured views at ground level to flights on airplanes, to observations of the planets through decent telescopes, to the requirement of a vast and generational world wide conspiracy to prevent the truth from leaking out about...but why waste time on flat earth nonsense when your nonsense is retreating before us, rationally, like the tide? Well, the attempt of it at any rate, the attempt voiced in your emphatic, "So much for a good education" and the failure of that as more than an expression of rationally unsupported and purely personal bias. Let's get back to that while the boat is still floating.

Dear Lord, what in the world are you talking about? :AMR:

English, dude. English.

I didn't start the conversation.

:yawn:

If you wanted to be ignored.

I don't want anything. You're the one making a song and dance over a meaningless little story.

You have to know how to arrive at real knowledge.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding.

 

[Town Heretic]

:yawn:Wake us up when you're done poisoning the well — or in your case, poissoning it. This is actual use of a logical fallacy, as opposed to the nonsense you're laying at my door.

That's a declaration of a thing, not proof of it. So at least you're consistent. And if you want to take on the actual fallacy I noted in your thinking, among a few points and questions you've mostly avoided like reason, do it. Don't point at a distance as though at some point you made the effort.

And stop hissing.

Logic is always useless to those who will not use it.

Both correct and ironic. So at least I can take away one contribution from you.

It was a story. Get over it.

Declared and answered prior. Stop talking nonsense and speaking it directly to me and you won't have any problem peddling your fish as steak with people like CS.

Dear Lord, what in the world are you talking about? English, dude. English.

A familiar retreat. But then you already said:

I didn't get a good education.

There's really no need to go to these lengths to illustrate it.

:yawn:

You might want to see a doctor about this.

I don't want anything.

You apparently wanted my attention and consideration. You should rethink that, methodologically speaking.

You're the one making a song and dance over a meaningless little story.

If you've realized it's meaningless then you've managed something and I'm proud of you.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding.

Then Judas went out and hanged himself.


For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position.

 

[Stripe]

That's a declaration of a thing, not proof of it.

I'm not trying to prove anything.

So at least you're consistent. And if you want to take on the actual fallacy I noted in your thinking, among a few points and questions you've mostly avoided like reason, do it. Don't point at a distance as though at some point you made the effort.

You must be saying something. :idunno:

And stop hissing.

What? :AMR:

You apparently wanted my attention and consideration.

:darwinsm:

Then Judas went out and hanged himself.

:AMR: The hell is wrong with you?

For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Town's problems.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm not trying to prove anything.

Then you did a bang up job. :thumb:

:AMR: The hell is wrong with you?

I'd say nothing, but I tried to have a serious discussion with you, so you might have a point.

EDIT: Ah, he didn't get the response. Stripe quoted scripture about understanding in a way that missed the point. I responded with a bit about Judas hanging himself because that's what Stripe did when he tried the anecdote to conclusion bit, then tried to defend it by hosting a dance-off.

For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Town's problems.

Stripe also has a weird habit of repeating the semblance of a thing I do, but he usually misses the point, as he does here, echoing my:

"For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position." Emphasis added to help the guy out.

And here's an example of futility. Stripe tries to infuse value into declaration by:

The story is a data point. You declaring it to be not evidence is one of those declaration things you seem to hate so much.

And when I note the lack of value in N = 1, a single data point in need of a lot more to mean something.

And yet, the thing really happened. You can reduce things to numbers all you like. This really happened.

Nope. I can assert anything I like with no evidence.

And there he goes. Inconsistency is another problem of Stripes. He declared a thing as if it had value. I noted the lack of that value. He tried to infuse it with that meaning as a data point, ran headlong into the problem of statistical relevance then decided it didn't matter...because he could wave his hand at that and call it reduction to numbers, which it wasn't, and then declare himself capable of just saying stuff.

You'd think at that point he'd have the good sense to slink off, but no...

I wasn't building a statistical model; I told a story.

A minute ago it was a data point.

That's why I never begin a conversation with him where we differ and why I frequently choose not to respond to him when he jumps in.

But every so often I think, "This is so clear there's no way he can't see it if I set the particulars out."

That's what optimism can get you. :mmph:

 

[Stripe]

EDIT: Ah, he didn't get the response.

Nope. I got the response. It was bizzare.

Stripe quoted scripture about understanding in a way that missed the point.

Nope.

I told a story. You thought it wasn't justified and started lecturing about all sorts of stuff, and... hissing. :AMR: That's the bit I didn't get.

I responded with a bit about Judas hanging himself because that's what Stripe did.

And I guess you slit your wrists? What is this? You jumped out of a building? Are you off your meds?

And here's an cy is ripes. He declared a thing as if all it reduction to numbers, which it wasn't, and then declare himself capable of just saying stuff.You'single dit had value. I noted the lack of that value. He tried to infuse it with that meaning as a data point, ran headlong into the problem of statistical relevancanother problem of Ste then decided it didn't matter...because he could wave his hand at that and cata point in need of a lot more to mean something. And there he goes. Incwd think at that point he'd have the good sense to slinkexample of futility. Stripe tries to infuse value into declaration by:And when I note the lack of value in N = 1, a ith him where we differ and why I frequently choose not to respond to him when he jumps in.But every so often I think, "This is so clear there's no way he can't sonsisten off, but no...A minute ago it was a data point. That's why I never begin a conversation ee it if I set the particulars out." That's what optimism can get you. mph:

Don't do drugs, kids.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

I can assert anything I like with no evidence.

Sure you can and if you don't want to be taken seriously then carry on doing it.

lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. I got the response. It was bizzare.

Your response to it didn't really give any indication that you did. It wasn't bizarre, it was my using a thing to make a point in a way I believe you attempted to but failed, as per my explanation.

I told a story. You thought it wasn't justified and started lecturing about all sorts of stuff, and... hissing.

No. You set out an anecdote and drew a public conclusion that you tacked onto a quote of mine about the misuse of anecdote as if you'd said something that addressed it.

When I noted the problem you called the anecdote a data point. When I pointed out its lack of value as a data point you went back to the "It's just a story."

That's all I ever thought it was and why it failed as an answer to my note to CS.

:AMR: That's the bit I didn't get.

The hissing? That was a one off at the extra "s" you put in "poisoning. It wasn't serious, which is why I set it apart and added the beside it.

And I guess you slit your wrists? What is this? You jumped out of a building? Are you off your meds?

No idea why you find that responsive.

Don't do drugs, kids.

This is what Stripe does. Declare and dismiss. What he rarely does consistently and substantively is argue a point. That's why I mostly don't bother, but when he addressed me directly with a goofy bit that failed as the rebuttal offered to a point I made to another poster, I gave it another shot.

That's life for you. Filled with disappointments.

For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. And I believe that's before his "It's a story/it's a data point" waffling attempt to make something serious out of nothing much to take seriously for the reasons given.

 

[Stripe]

The hissing? That was a one off at the extra "s" you put in "poisoning. It wasn't serious, which is why I set it apart and added the beside it.

Oh.

You don't like fish? :AMR:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Oh.

You don't like fish? :AMR:

Well, sometimes I find myself talking to you just for the halibut, so...


For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. And here, toward the end, is another fair examination of tactic by him.

 

[Stripe]

Well, sometimes I find myself talking to you just for the halibut, so...

You didn't get the joke then.

For anyone coming in late, Town is a pretentious twit who has attempted to turn a simple story into a referendum on a man's soul.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

You didn't get the joke then.

I guess not. It happens. See how easy that is to say? Feel free to set out what I missed in that one. I'd hate to miss a good laugh, at my expense or not.

For anyone coming in late, Town is a pretentious twit who has attempted to turn a simple story into a referendum on a man's soul.

And I'm not even a little perturbed about that, because this was never, for me, about you. It was about a bad habit and your insisting that I take a look at it by tapping me on the shoulder to show it off.

To answer then, I think you're a little immature, but by and large a well intentioned and decent person who is just lazy as all get out when it comes to serious argument. I suspect you were too big a fish in too small a pond for too long and you got into bad habits. In any event, I don't have to dislike you to dislike and answer on poor tactics/practice and nonsense, which is all I've really done.


For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. And here, toward the end, is another fair examination of tactic by him.

 

[Ktoyou]

I don't feel smart.

I'd say 'join the club', but I think you are a bit early?

 

[Stripe]

I guess not. It happens. See how easy that is to say? Feel free to set out what I missed in that one. I'd hate to miss a good laugh, at my expense or not.

It was a test.

A guy who knows what he's talking about would have gotten it in a second.

You're just blowing smoke.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I'd say 'join the club', but I think you are a bit early?

:noid:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

It was a test.

Oh, distribution. I wasn't looking at it, really. :think: Okay, it's a little funny.

A guy who knows what he's talking about would have gotten it in a second.

Not really, though people who actually put hard statistical studies together would probably have caught it. Or someone looking for anything serious in your response, a thing I'd largely given up on.

But it was a little funny. So you get points. :thumb:

You're just blowing smoke.

No, I wasn't, which is why you did that instead of finding any fault with my note of what was necessary to begin to put together a statistical model that would support your claim.


For anyone coming in late, here's a post where I note most of Stripe's problems in advancing his position. And here, toward the end, is another fair examination of tactic by him.