Magical Realists Magical Reality

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Magical Realist, Mar 30, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I did attack the argument, hence why I called it "the stupid".

    Why is it "the stupid"?

    Because the argument is downright stupid.

    And writing "spue" phonetically.. Joy of joys.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Because she didn't discover bigfoot DNA.

    She was also ridiculed for photoshopping Chewbacca and an Ewok and what looks like a shaggy rug and calling it Matilda the bigfoot.

    No.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    The more I read, the more I'm convinced that Magical Realist is deliberately flamebaiting.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,607
    Uh no. Attacking an argument isn't insulting the argument as "stupid." It's challenging the argument with a logical counterargument. But then you knew that...
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,607
    I've never heard of flamebaiting. Are you saying people can't help themselves from flaming? That's a sorry excuse for flaming if I ever heard one.
     
  9. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    We also know that you deliberately ignore any and every logical counterargument made, so it's no wonder that people have stopped caring anymore.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,607
    Right..24 pages of not caring. lol!
     
  11. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Well, there's still the potential for anyone who isn't you to learn something, such as why eyewitness evidence isn't good enough to prove the existence of bigfoot, and why people like Ketchum are discredited frauds.
     
  12. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    MR has simply decided that regardless of what's presented to him, he's going to maintain his position. There isn't anything that anyone can say or present which will make a dent in the position he WANTS to believe in. At this point, I'm going to put him on ignore, and let him rant into a void.
     
    Daecon likes this.
  13. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Done.
     
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Indeed, I think it's pretty obvious MR doesn't intend to listen to fact, reason, or a well thought out argument, which indicates to me at least that he is not here for a discussion, but rather to spread his nonsense around as though it were his own personal soapbox.
     
  15. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Please quote where I states something different about the same subject. Then you can have a win about that too. Still not a win that helps your argument, though.

    Not sure you understood though: what is transient for an eyewitness account is the thing that is being observed. Unlike the xray, which is recorded and can be looked at again.
    As has been demonstrated, no. Again, MR, I know you aren't that stupid. I know you would never apply this principle to actual medical care you get. Please stop pretending.
     
  16. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The only real options here are flamebating and stupidity and he's too good at this to be stupid (it would require an improbable series of coincidences), so...
     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Let's try to quantify the issue a bit....

    Last week I collected roughly a thousand points of numerical data for a project by hand, from printed tapes (the equipment did not have the capability of importing into Excel). I used a double-check method of typing the number in, looking at it, then looking back at the original to verify I typed it in correctly. My error rate seemed to be about 1 in 10 for the initial entry. Typical error sources were typing into the wrong column/typing from the wrong colum, failing to tab between entries, missing a digit, etc. Getting a digit wrong happened occasionally, but was not a high fraction of the errors. So most of the errors become apparent in later checks, since the data should be consistent.

    Today, looking at the graphs I made of the data, I found one number that is almost certainly wrong (I don't have access to the original data anymore to verify, but can get it if I need to). How am I so sure it is wrong? It is 3 orders of magnitude lower than expected. That's one of roughly a thousand data points. That fits the expected fraction of data that was essentially triple-checked: one error in 10^3 (1:10 x 1:10 x 1:10) points.

    Here's a scientific test done on eyewitness testimony:
    https://www.usc.edu/CSSF/Current/Projects/J0703.pdf

    The experiment was designed to be easy; to produce high reliability. And to be a typical real-world situation. Of the two methods of checking the lineup, the better one was just under 60% effective, or 1 error for every 1.7 trials.

    Basically, from these two examples, we get that eyewitness testimony is on the order of 600x less accurate than the scientific/rigorous method I used to record my data.

    The biggest caveat to this is that my original data still exists, so I can still go back and check it again, reducing my error rate by another order of magnitude...every time I go back and check it again.

    Note, that this fits the necessary accuracy of things like a space shuttle launch. Millions of separate parts have to perform properly to make a launch happen, and only by multi-layered checking/testing is it possible to achieve the necessary reliability to make launches even happen.
     
    Trippy likes this.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    The counter argument is simply the paranormal is unscientific and does not exist, other than in gullible people's imaginations.
    Bigfoot if a real entity, would not just be seen every now and then, in fleeting blurry photos, and we would have at least some physical evidence of their existence by now.
    UFO's of alien origin, are just as unlikely, as it makes no sense for any Alien to come here over thousands of L/years, grab isoltaed individuals, anal probe them and than disappear again.
    Anyone who believes any of the above are real are gullible fools and highly impressionable.
    That's it, pure and simple, and as long as you want to wear your "right"to post and believe what ever you chose like a badge of honour, you and your posts will be suitably rebuked for such nonsense.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Hmm...I think pad you are just as gullible to think otherwise in your above statement .
     
  20. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Why?

    What do you mean by that?
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    UFO's , bigfoot etc. are as much of this planet as a mountain . why ?

    Because both have been here for thousands of years. Just investigate , with depth .
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  22. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    You're making nearly the same "mistake" that MR and Yazata are making with regard the the fallibility of observations/memories. I've been on mountains. I can go again if I still doubt they exist. No such on-demand proof of UFOs/bigfoot exists - we have to rely mostly on 3rd party eyewitnesses, which everyone (including MR and Yataza) knows are much, much less reliable than physical evidence. That's the whole point of MR/Yazata's stupid attempt to claim that eyewitness accounts are just as good as physical evidence.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Don't worry about river...He's even more gullible than the other bloke.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page