# Evaluating Risk



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2019)

If we were serious, we'd buy fire extinguishers and learn how to use them.


----------



## pdg (Jul 11, 2019)

I have and I have - but I'm not sure of your point...


----------



## jobo (Jul 11, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If we were serious, we'd buy fire extinguishers and learn how to use them.


well no, if you were evaluating risk, then you'd evaluated if you need fire extinguisher, what type and what size, and where !

people with home fire extinguisher s invariably have the wrong size the wrong type in the wrong place, a fact they only realisa e when they have a fire, and they would have been better advised to spend the time they have wasted on the fire extinguisher, evacuating themselves.

a strong parallel perhaps with their choice of ma ?


----------



## pdg (Jul 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> well no, if you were evaluating risk, then you'd evaluated if you need fire extinguisher, what type and what size, and where !
> 
> people with home fire extinguisher s invariably have the wrong size the wrong type in the wrong place, a fact they only realisa e when they have a fire, and they would have been better advised to spend the time they have wasted on the fire extinguisher, evacuating themselves.
> 
> a strong parallel perhaps with their choice of ma ?



This much is actually very true.

Personally, I have different types and sizes in different areas to suit the most likely fire risk, while taking into account secondary hazards (electricity, gas, liquid fuels, etc.) - but I know I'm in the very vast minority.

In most cases (excepting the smallest fires) an extinguisher should only be treated as an egress assistant - suppress any fire enough to safely get out. You're not going to be completely putting out even a mediocre house fire with your average 1 or 2 kilo extinguisher...


----------



## jobo (Jul 11, 2019)

pdg said:


> This much is actually very true.
> 
> Personally, I have different types and sizes in different areas to suit the most likely fire risk, while taking into account secondary hazards (electricity, gas, liquid fuels, etc.) - but I know I'm in the very vast minority.
> 
> In most cases (excepting the smallest fires) an extinguisher should only be treated as an egress assistant - suppress any fire enough to safely get out. You're not going to be completely putting out even a mediocre house fire with your average 1 or 2 kilo extinguisher...


agree, if you ha e anything less than a 9 litre your going tostruggle to put out anything more than a waste paper bin fire, and those disappear at a fright ing rate  , if you can't extinguished the whole fire in less than circa  30 seconds your wasting your time,you need to catch the fire very early if your going to have any success at putting it out and people just won't have extinguisher that big. because they are very expensive and very ugly


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2019)

pdg said:


> I have and I have - but I'm not sure of your point...



We talk about the chance that an attacker will use this or that technique, multiple attackers, weapons, and etc all as if we're rationally evaluating risk, when in reality fire and natural disasters are a much higher risk. But we discuss disarming techies for ak47 and butterfly knives and don't know how to put out a fire or get out of our own homes if it's smoke filled, let alone practice for those things.


----------



## pdg (Jul 11, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We talk about the chance that an attacker will use this or that technique, multiple attackers, weapons, and etc all as if we're rationally evaluating risk, when in reality fire and natural disasters are a much higher risk. But we discuss disarming techies for ak47 and butterfly knives and don't know how to put out a fire or get out of our own homes if it's smoke filled, let alone practice for those things.



I did touch on this in another thread - about the balance of probability.

Fire is always a risk, so we've planned for it.

I have spare tyres in the cars, and I've 'trained' the wife on how to change a wheel (although it's most likely she'd phone me if she got a puncture...)

Natural disasters are really unlikely around here, so we're not 'prepped' - but stuff like powercuts happen so we have a generator and portable (camping) cooking/heating facilities.

There's almost zero possibility that I'll ever be confronted with a gun toting bad guy - so I'm perfectly happy to rely on the slight edge I may gain by knowing things like how guns work.

Knives are a slightly higher probability - but statistically I'm still much more likely to get run over by a bus. To that end I've spent more time developing roadcraft than knife disarms - and if it were ever to happen I'd have to rely on the element of surprise afforded by attacking while they're in the threat phase.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2019)

pdg said:


> I did touch on this in another thread - about the balance of probability.
> 
> Fire is always a risk, so we've planned for it.
> 
> ...



All good. You are in the minority. As to the natural disasters, look about you, the world is changing. Stuff happens.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 11, 2019)

Back when I still taught, I would have all of the students create a "fire plan" of what to do in case of fire, where the family meeting spot was etc.  I think that if you say you teach "self-defense" then you need to cover all dangers (within reason....always the "what if 20 ninjas jump out of the tree at you") that a person is likely to face.  In Michigan, I covered tornados since that is a strong possibility...earthquakes, not at all as a risk.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 11, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If we were serious, we'd buy fire extinguishers and learn how to use them.


Have one on both balers, two tractors, I think 4 in the shop and main barn and I think 6 in the fabrication shop. We are required to have sprinklers in one area.

I know that is not specifically what the reference is about. And I agree, but not to the point that is dictates life. Be smart, plan, and have fun. The rest is just fluff.


EDIT: There are two extinguishers at both Dojangs. Per OSHA and NFPA guidelines we have escape routes posted where necessary. Exists have lit signs. We do not practice collective escape plans but do discuss it in BB meetings.


----------



## jobo (Jul 11, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All good. You are in the minority. As to the natural disasters, look about you, the world is changing. Stuff happens.


 not in Manchester England it doesn't, a bit of a strong wind and maybe a couple of foot of flooding and i live on top of a very big hill.  there is an " earth quake " fault, the last quake shook two books of a shelf in my house and caused 300 quids worth of damage a cross the whole city .

i mean really don't live in an earth quake,,  hurricane or forest fire zone and your fine, basically don't buy a house in the Hollywood hills or new Orleans  oh and avoiding volcanos, may also be prudent and don't go twister watching, that's my advice for avoiding natural disasters


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 11, 2019)

pdg said:


> This much is actually very true.
> 
> Personally, I have different types and sizes in different areas to suit the most likely fire risk, while taking into account secondary hazards (electricity, gas, liquid fuels, etc.) - but I know I'm in the very vast minority.
> 
> In most cases (excepting the smallest fires) an extinguisher should only be treated as an egress assistant - suppress any fire enough to safely get out. You're not going to be completely putting out even a mediocre house fire with your average 1 or 2 kilo extinguisher...


I learned this through experience. We used to carry regular ABC extinguishers on the balers. Had a bearing go out and caught the bale on fire. The ABC's did absolutely nothing to slow the burn. Lost the baler but saved the tractor. Now we carry compressed water extinguishers. They work, we know from experience. Some years later had a near identical event where a bad bearing caught the bale on fire. This time I opened the tail gate and extinguished the bale enough to eject it from the baler with little damage to the baler beyond what the bearing did on its own. 
If you have never seen it, it is scary what a burning bale will do if you try to put it out. Start trying to peel the layers back to get to the source of the fire and the sudden input of air to the flame is like lighting a blow torch. Better to leave it be if an option.


----------



## pdg (Jul 11, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All good. You are in the minority. As to the natural disasters, look about you, the world is changing. Stuff happens.



Not denying it happens, just that the chances of anything serious happening around here in the way of natural disasters are so slim that I might as well train to defend myself against multiple rabid polar bears armed with AK47s and katanas.


----------



## pdg (Jul 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> If you have never seen it, it is scary what a burning bale will do if you try to put it out.



I grew up and still live in a farming area, I've seen whole barns full of bales go up.

Best plan is usually to keep the surrounding area doused until it burns itself out - or more aptly in our personal cases, keep well out of the way...


----------



## Buka (Jul 11, 2019)

I train fighting, live with my ex-wife in a small house on the slope of a volcano, where I smoke cigars and work as a cop.

Risk, schmisk.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 11, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We talk about the chance that an attacker will use this or that technique, multiple attackers, weapons, and etc all as if we're rationally evaluating risk, when in reality fire and natural disasters are a much higher risk. But we discuss disarming techies for ak47 and butterfly knives and don't know how to put out a fire or get out of our own homes if it's smoke filled, let alone practice for those things.



Self defense weapons are over represented in self defense discussions.

You just don't get the same enthusiasm in a which door locks for home invasion discussion.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 11, 2019)

Buka said:


> I train fighting, live with my ex-wife in a small house on the slope of a volcano, where I smoke cigars and work as a cop.
> 
> Risk, schmisk.



Wow. You live with your ex wife?


----------



## Gweilo (Jul 11, 2019)

Situational awareness.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 11, 2019)

Buka said:


> I train fighting, live with my ex-wife in a small house on the slope of a volcano, where I smoke cigars and work as a cop.
> 
> Risk, schmisk.



@Buka  doesnt always takes risks but when he does he drinks Dos Equis.....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 11, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Wow. You live with your ex wife?


The old clothes is always more comfortable than the new clothes. One time I made someone mad big time by saying that her father just married to her mother.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 11, 2019)

Buka said:


> I train fighting, live with my ex-wife in a small house on the slope of a volcano, where I smoke cigars and work as a cop.
> 
> Risk, schmisk.


You know what they say about keeping your friends and enemies close. Killing two birds with one stone?


----------



## Buka (Jul 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> You know what they say about keeping your friends and enemies close. Killing two birds with one stone?



I have such a fabulous reply to that question, but I think I'll P.M it to you instead.


----------



## Buka (Jul 11, 2019)

Hmmm, tried a PM, but that wouldn't work. Drat.

I'll get back to it later.


----------



## Buka (Jul 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Nothing in my house is working properly right now. Must be from the fire.


----------



## Buka (Jul 11, 2019)

My laptop is all faquaed up.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 12, 2019)

I went and got certified as a CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) instructor.  It basis is teaching civilians what to do in emergency situations, like tornado, flood, earthquake etc. and how to triage a mass casualty event for medical help and how to provide basic medical aid.  I think people who are serious about protecting their family should take a course like this along with CPR/AED certification.

I think that the potential for a "bad event" is a lot higher than many people think in the US.  In the majority of the US, you live in a location where there is a risk for wildfires, floods, earthquakes or tornadoes.  Not to mention the highway and railway system in the US increases the chances for a very large chemical spill.  Let alone, what do you do if your loved one is choking or has a heart attack while in public/home.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> I went and got certified as a CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) instructor.  It basis is teaching civilians what to do in emergency situations, like tornado, flood, earthquake etc. and how to triage a mass casualty event for medical help and how to provide basic medical aid.  I think people who are serious about protecting their family should take a course like this along with CPR/AED certification.
> 
> I think that the potential for a "bad event" is a lot higher than many people think in the US.  In the majority of the US, you live in a location where there is a risk for wildfires, floods, earthquakes or tornadoes.  Not to mention the highway and railway system in the US increases the chances for a very large chemical spill.  Let alone, what do you do if your loved one is choking or has a heart attack while in public/home.



Agree. I'm a registered weather spotter. Fun training. Free. Worthwhile.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 12, 2019)

We get a bit of weather. Everyone has cyclone kits.


----------



## jobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Agree. I'm a registered weather spotter. Fun training. Free. Worthwhile.


do you need to be registered  I just look out of the window and say flipping raining again


----------



## pdg (Jul 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> do you need to be registered  I just look out of the window and say flipping raining again



You obviously haven't had the full training.

To be certified you need to be able to classify the type of rain - like light misting, cats and dogs, drizzle, bloody deluge, that 'orrible fine stuff what makes you wet, etc.

Of course, there are at least 17 more classifications for British rain.

But only one that would possibly come under the 'natural disaster' heading, just, and only available in certain areas...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 12, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> I went and got certified as a CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) instructor.  It basis is teaching civilians what to do in emergency situations, like tornado, flood, earthquake etc. and how to triage a mass casualty event for medical help and how to provide basic medical aid.  I think people who are serious about protecting their family should take a course like this along with CPR/AED certification.
> 
> I think that the potential for a "bad event" is a lot higher than many people think in the US.  In the majority of the US, you live in a location where there is a risk for wildfires, floods, earthquakes or tornadoes.  Not to mention the highway and railway system in the US increases the chances for a very large chemical spill.  Let alone, what do you do if your loved one is choking or has a heart attack while in public/home.


How do i get certified and/or trained for this? Is there a national database for classes?


----------



## jobo (Jul 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> You obviously haven't had the full training.
> 
> To be certified you need to be able to classify the type of rain - like light misting, cats and dogs, drizzle, bloody deluge, that 'orrible fine stuff what makes you wet, etc.
> 
> ...


in Manchester there's only four classification of rain,, ,, been raining, still raining,will  rain soon and( once a year, )jeez its hot, I wish it would rain


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 12, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If we were serious, we'd buy fire extinguishers and learn how to use them.



Prepare for the more likely series of events/dangers before the most unlikely.           And plenty of people have them and do to prepare for fire likewise with smoke detectors which are pretty much standard in any modern countries housing.  Same with the fire services in them constantly reminding people to check them and keep them up to date and not to overload sockets etc.   

I would propose the fitness benefit for martial arts and combat sports to push it up there on the list and the potential going professional in a combat sport can lift people out of poverty etc to put it high as a needed skill to some people.   And then you have underlying fears and it boosting confidence etc.  


Welcome to realistic prepping my friend.   

(i would argue and say this falls outside the scope of martial arts as a thing though)


----------



## jobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Rat said:


> Prepare for the more likely series of events/dangers before the most unlikely.           And plenty of people have them and do to prepare for fire likewise with smoke detectors which are pretty much standard in any modern countries housing.  Same with the fire services in them constantly reminding people to check them and keep them up to date and not to overload sockets etc.
> 
> I would propose the fitness benefit for martial arts and combat sports to push it up there on the list and the potential going professional in a combat sport can lift people out of poverty etc to put it high as a needed skill to some people.   And then you have underlying fears and it boosting confidence etc.
> 
> ...


yes, but it's clear that some people on here include moving as there's a fire coming your way as self defence and once you've opened that can of worms seemingly anything counts


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> yes, but it's clear that some people on here include moving as there's a fire coming your way as self defence and once you've opened that can of worms seemingly anything counts



I would argue that as a legitimate usage of the term self defence, same with against animals (including insects and tics). 

There isn't a clear definitive definition of self defence.    The two words together literally mean any action taken to defend yourself.  

There is a valid issue here that people neglect very probable and more likely events to happen to them to more fantasy esque events.      But then if you enjoy what you do and its physically active and isn't entirely useless, could be doing something worse with your time.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 12, 2019)

Oh and sorry for the double post, but since this has become a advice thread, no idea if anyone has cited it yet:
Citizen Corps | Ready.gov
Plan Ahead for Disasters  | Ready.gov   (main page for the ready thing)

All though its U.S centric, some of the advice etc fits outside it.   And i think you should be able to find your areas disaster plans with some google searching if they exist and/or are public.     I think the FEMA website might have some advice snippets or cite to the ready website for it as well.


edit:     This has a subsection on it for the previously mentioned CERT thing also.  Stop the Bleed


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> well no, if you were evaluating risk, then you'd evaluated if you need fire extinguisher, what type and what size, and where !
> 
> people with home fire extinguisher s invariably have the wrong size the wrong type in the wrong place, a fact they only realisa e when they have a fire, and they would have been better advised to spend the time they have wasted on the fire extinguisher, evacuating themselves.
> 
> a strong parallel perhaps with their choice of ma ?


I've needed mine twice. Both times it was someplace easy to reach (though not near the fire), and both times it served perfectly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> Back when I still taught, I would have all of the students create a "fire plan" of what to do in case of fire, where the family meeting spot was etc.  I think that if you say you teach "self-defense" then you need to cover all dangers (within reason....always the "what if 20 ninjas jump out of the tree at you") that a person is likely to face.  In Michigan, I covered tornados since that is a strong possibility...earthquakes, not at all as a risk.


You're talking about personal safety. While I don't have a problem with folks including this in their teaching, IMO it's not part of self-defense. Self-defense (my usage of the term) is about defending against an attack by a person. Fires, floods, car wrecks aren't attacks.

I cover very little about personal safety (beyond what's pertinent to self-defense) in my classes. I talked about it more when I taught teens. If I had a full-time school and people coming to classes more often, I might give it more time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> not in Manchester England it doesn't, a bit of a strong wind and maybe a couple of foot of flooding and i live on top of a very big hill.  there is an " earth quake " fault, the last quake shook two books of a shelf in my house and caused 300 quids worth of damage a cross the whole city .
> 
> i mean really don't live in an earth quake,,  hurricane or forest fire zone and your fine, basically don't buy a house in the Hollywood hills or new Orleans  oh and avoiding volcanos, may also be prudent and don't go twister watching, that's my advice for avoiding natural disasters


Agreed, though tornadoes can be more dangerous than your closing comment suggests. Just not going out to look won't protect you in a serious one - had one that basically destroyed a small town a few years ago. Leveled entire buildings along the way.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, though tornadoes can be more dangerous than your closing comment suggests. Just not going out to look won't protect you in a serious one - had one that basically destroyed a small town a few years ago. Leveled entire buildings along the way.


I used to do a section in my management training course, on risk evaluation, and people dependent on personality were either in the toatly flippent or deeply paranoid camps, or commonly totally flippent about high risk and deeply paroinid about about slight risk, and I used to try and get people to evaluate risks objectively.

in this country, your chance of meeting an untimley end, that any death that's not linked to old age. is 1in 100,000 in any year. the odds start to drop dependent on life style and environment, if you smoke, if you ride a motorbike, in you work in construction or live next to a munitions factory etc.  but they are still reassuringly high, that this year is not your last.

bizarly if you crunch the figures, the highest risk is dying, is, through asteroid strike, as though the odd in any given year are very low, the death toll if one happen will almost certainly include you. and a big one is  on its way, its just a matter of when! the number of people worrying about this, I suggest are very low

you could take the population of the great plains or where ever, calculate the average death toll through twisters and come up with a fairly good assessment of the risks tornado s actually pose to you. if you lived there. I'm willing to bet that the odds against you being sucked up, span round and spat out are considerably less than dying in a house fire, car crash  or other more mundane death !


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

Looking outside over the past several hours. Light rain and a few wind gusts.
Tropical Storm Barry is just making landfall approx. 50 miles away. If not having the weather service just looking outside would not give any indication the danger of a tropical storm or the amount rain expected would be present.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Rat said:


> I would argue that as a legitimate usage of the term self defence, same with against animals (including insects and tics).
> 
> There isn't a clear definitive definition of self defence.    The two words together literally mean any action taken to defend yourself.
> 
> There is a valid issue here that people neglect very probable and more likely events to happen to them to more fantasy esque events.      But then if you enjoy what you do and its physically active and isn't entirely useless, could be doing something worse with your time.


well see post above, are these " things " more likely and if they are how more likely?.

I'm pretty sure you have more chance of being murdered in California than dying in a wild fire,  or an earthquake and if your murdered there a fairly high chance it was by your spouse, famil or " friend" etc, those people you secure your house to protect are a statically greater risk to you than those your locking out.

I see ma, or more specifically the training I dbe to support ma ( ie fitness ) to be of considerable use in most emergency siutuations, and though you may not be able to karate kick a house fire, the ability to climb out if a window and climb down a drain pipe whilst carrying your children may come in handy


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Looking outside over the past several hours. Light rain and a few wind gusts.
> Tropical Storm Barry is just making landfall approx. 50 miles away. If not having the weather service just looking outside would not give any indication the danger of a tropical storm or the amount rain expected would be present.


Buckle down and stay safe Danny.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Looking outside over the past several hours. Light rain and a few wind gusts.
> Tropical Storm Barry is just making landfall approx. 50 miles away. If not having the weather service just looking outside would not give any indication the danger of a tropical storm or the amount rain expected would be present.


and what have you done with this information ? and how dangerous is a tropical storm  that's 50 miles away ?


----------



## pdg (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> and what have you done with this information ? and how dangerous is a tropical storm  that's 50 miles away ?



Depending on the local topography, a tropical storm 50 miles away could be absolutely nothing, or it could be life threatening.

It might even land on you from that distance, 50 miles is nothing in the scheme of things when it comes to the movement of a decent sized storm.

We just don't get that sort of storm over here...


The closest (on record) we've ever really got was in 1987 with "The Great Storm", which compared to the stuff that hits certain parts of the US was little more than a squall.

That storm damaged my dad's shed and took about 3 tiles off the roof of my school. Oh, and it blew over a tree or two in the village...


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> and what have you done with this information ? and how dangerous is a tropical storm  that's 50 miles away ?


In the past 30 minutes the winds have increased to approx 50 miles per hour sustained and increasing. Will be up to approx 70 mph. Raining heavy now. We will be under this for the next 10-12 hours. Rain fall is expected to be about 24 inches during that period of time. Electricity is down however we have a generator and fuel.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

pdg said:


> Depending on the local topography, a tropical storm 50 miles away could be absolutely nothing, or it could be life threatening.
> 
> It might even land on you from that distance, 50 miles is nothing in the scheme of things when it comes to the movement of a decent sized storm.
> 
> ...


in what way would a tropic storme be life threatening, i mean sure a tree could fall on you or you could be decapitated by a roofing slate, but the odds against either happening to you, are considerable, what's the death toll from the average tropical storm ?


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> In the past 30 minutes the winds have increased to approx 50 miles per hour sustained and increasing. Will be up to approx 70 mph. Raining heavy now. We will be under this for the next 10-12 hours. Rain fall is expected to be about 24 inches during that period of time. Electricity is down however we have a generator and fuel.


so a bit of strong wind  and some  heavy rain then   !  24 inches of rain doesn't mean 24 of standing water, not unless you live in a hole.

but the question was, what precautions have you taken with the hour or so notice you were given,  that you couldn't take now, having noticed the strong winds and rain by looking oiyt of the window?


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

The danger would depend upon on where one is? And that would dictate what one does to assure safety. There are people who live in low lying coastal areas. Flooding from the storm and the rain combined creates safety concerns. There are people who work on the water, high seas are a danger. Swollen drainage areas due to both the storm surge and rain causes backup flooding for driving and homes in lower lying areas. In those areas people need to get out before the flooding happens. High winds do cause problems when blowing over trees (which does happen) downed power lines cause travel out of such areas very dangerous so having knowledge as to the potential has impact on those getting to safer areas early. Of course you know this...or maybe you don't.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> The danger would depend upon on where one is? And that would dictate what one does to assure safety. There are people who live in low lying coastal areas. Flooding from the storm and the rain combined creates safety concerns. There are people who work on the water, high seas are a danger. Swollen drainage areas due to both the storm surge and rain causes backup flooding for driving and homes in lower lying areas. In those areas people need to get out before the flooding happens. High winds do cause problems when blowing over trees (which does happen) downed power lines cause travel out of such areas very dangerous so having knowledge as to the potential has impact on those getting to safer areas early. Of course you know this...or maybe you don't.


but that not at all answering my question, which of those apply to you and what have you done to mitigate them in the last hours or so, that you couldn't do now ?


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> but that not at all answering my question, which of those apply to you and what have you done to mitigate them in the last hours or so, that you couldn't do now ?


You edited your post and added the question being specific to me.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> You edited your post and added the question being specific to me.


and ? I edited my post before you answered by 11 minetes, the question still stands!

your telling me about how useful it was having notice of storm barry, and I'm inquiring what practicial use that actually was to you ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> I used to do a section in my management training course, on risk evaluation, and people dependent on personality were either in the toatly flippent or deeply paranoid camps, or commonly totally flippent about high risk and deeply paroinid about about slight risk, and I used to try and get people to evaluate risks objectively.
> 
> in this country, your chance of meeting an untimley end, that any death that's not linked to old age. is 1in 100,000 in any year. the odds start to drop dependent on life style and environment, if you smoke, if you ride a motorbike, in you work in construction or live next to a munitions factory etc.  but they are still reassuringly high, that this year is not your last.
> 
> ...


The problem is that those statistics - while accurate - miss the variability of the risk. When a big tornado hits an area, it's a sudden and extreme risk to many people at once. It ends up being a bit like that asteroid strike in some ways. And knowing what to do when one is about can dramatically shift the risk during that period.

Looking at risk on an annual basis can actually mask the risk. There's a very low chance of any one person dying in any given year, but if you work the probabilities, the risk is cumulative (multiplying the chance of not dying year over year).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> so a bit of strong wind  and some  heavy rain then   !  24 inches of rain doesn't mean 24 of standing water, not unless you live in a hole.
> 
> but the question was, what precautions have you taken with the hour or so notice you were given,  that you couldn't take now, having noticed the strong winds and rain by looking oiyt of the window?


You're apparently not familiar with what strong winds can do, nor with what risk flooding represents (to say nothing of the risk a flash flood represents). People do die in flooded areas, entirely because they didn't understand those risks or because they weren't aware of the risk of the flood occurring.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The problem is that those statistics - while accurate - miss the variability of the risk. When a big tornado hits an area, it's a sudden and extreme risk to many people at once. It ends up being a bit like that asteroid strike in some ways. And knowing what to do when one is about can dramatically shift the risk during that period.
> 
> Looking at risk on an annual basis can actually mask the risk. There's a very low chance of any one person dying in any given year, but if you work the probabilities, the risk is cumulative (multiplying the chance of not dying year over year).


it's an extreme risk for a very few number if people, that's makes the risk to the general population eof the area extremely low .

your risk is aways a factor of how likely is it to happen to you and the consequences of it happening. that results in a very low risk of death by tornado. that doesn't change much if you look at it cumulatively, provide you look at the risks your using for comparison cumulativly as well. say 70 years of car crash deaths v 70 years if twister deaths for the same population.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> and ? I edited my post before you answered by 11 minetes, the question still stands!
> 
> your telling me about how useful it was having notice of storm barry, and I'm inquiring what practicial use that actually was to you ?


So information should be ignored unless it proves to be useful? That's going to make it tricky to determine which is the useful information. Sometimes, the usefulness is that it tells you you're not at risk.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> it's an extreme risk for a very few number if people, that's makes the risk to the general population eof the area extremely low .
> 
> your risk is aways a factor of how likely is it to happen to you and the consequences of it happening. that results in a very low risk of death by tornado. that doesn't change much if you look at it cumulatively, provide you look at the risks your using for comparison cumulativly as well. say 70 years of car crash deaths v 70 years if twister deaths for the same population.


So, your advice to people in tornado-prone areas is just to ignore the tornadoes??


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're apparently not familiar with what strong winds can do, nor with what risk flooding represents (to say nothing of the risk a flash flood represents). People do die in flooded areas, entirely because they didn't understand those risks or because they weren't aware of the risk of the flood occurring.


people drown in bath because they didn't understand the risk if bbathibg while very drunk. the issue is what level of risk are you realistically exposed to, not is it remotley possible


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, your advice to people in tornado-prone areas is just to ignore the tornadoes??


no if one was coming my way id move, in much the same way as I would if it was a big truck
, my advice to people who lived in a tornado area, would be to take sensible precaution but accept there are far high risks in your life that you might want to worry about first,,  so quit smoking/ drinkingg and sugar if you really want the most years out of your life, as all of those will most surly reduce your life span if measured cumlativly and in sure that alcohol related deaths exceed twister deaths in any given year or cumulatively


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> and ? I edited my post before you answered by 11 minetes, the question still stands!
> 
> your telling me about how useful it was having notice of storm barry, and I'm inquiring what practicial use that actually was to you ?


LOL...you may not believe it jobo but I don't spend a great deal of my time checking on your posts, edits you do, or time my any of my responses to any of them.

Knowing a tropical storm now upgrade to a hurricane just in the past few minutes is a probability in my area I did following in the past 30 hours;
at my business, removed all the flags and banners we have in the front of the building to prevent them from being tattered in the abnormally high winds. Removed the lettering in the marquis signs so as to now lose them due to the abnormally high winds. Picked up and stored inside some of the outside equipment in our outside training areas to protect them from the abnormally high winds. 

At my home; picked up and stored the outside furniture and loose yard items we have. Added several additional braces to the wood fence around the perimeter of my yard to assure it not being blown over in the abnormally high winds. Closed the shutters to protect the windows on the house from flying debris from the winds or the possibility of spinoff tornadoes. 

Helped my brother who lives in a lower lying area do some sandbagging due to the possibility of flooding in his area.
Helped a elderly neighbor assure her home was protected by picking up her outside furniture and storing it for her and helped board her windows.

Filled up the generator, addition fuel containers, knowing we would mostly likely lose electricity for as much as 3 days.

Removed my boat from the inlet water dock and stored it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> no if one was coming my way id move, in much the same way as I would if it was a big truck
> , my advice to people who lived in a tornado area, would be to take sensible precaution but accept there are far high risks in your life that you might want to worry about first,,  so quit smoking/ drinkingg and sugar if you really want the most years out of your life, as all of those will most surly reduce your life span if measured cumlativly and in sure that alcohol related deaths exceed twister deaths in any given year or cumulatively


You really don't know how fast those things move, do you? Trying to outrun one is actually a good way to increase your risk.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> LOL...you may not believe it jobo but I don't spend a great deal of my time checking on your posts, edits you do, or time my any of my responses to any of them.
> 
> Knowing a tropical storm now upgrade to a hurricane just in the past few minutes is a probability in my area I did following in the past 30 hours;
> at my business, removed all the flags and banners we have in the front of the building to prevent them from being tattered in the abnormally high winds. Removed the lettering in the marquis signs so as to now lose them due to the abnormally high winds. Picked up and stored inside some of the outside equipment in our outside training areas to protect them from the abnormally high winds.
> ...


ok so you've rescued some furniture,  non if it life threatening to to you, !


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You really don't know how fast those things move, do you? Trying to outrun one is actually a good way to increase your risk.


I didnot say iud out run it, I said id move, but how does running increSe your risk as opposed to standing still,  if its coming straight at me, not being in the spot where is passing would seem to increase my chances considerably. do they move faster than big trucks, ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> ok so you've rescued some furniture,  non if it life threatening to to you, !


Moving at 70 MPH, it can be, actually. At the very least, it's a risk to his property - not all risk is death.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Moving at 70 MPH, it can be, actually. At the very least, it's a risk to his property - not all risk is death.


furnature isn't property,  but the whole nature if the thread is risk to person, isn't it?


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> ok so you've rescued some furniture,  non if it life threatening to to you, !


Hahahahaha. Typical.
It is such statements that make conversation with you difficult.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Hahahahaha. Typical.
> It is such statements that make conversation with you difficult.


If I don't put  My trash,  bin away promptly the kids will nick it , that's as relivant to risk assessment , as sayibg the wind may blow your deck chair away


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> In the past 30 minutes the winds have increased to approx 50 miles per hour sustained and increasing. Will be up to approx 70 mph. Raining heavy now. We will be under this for the next 10-12 hours. Rain fall is expected to be about 24 inches during that period of time. Electricity is down however we have a generator and fuel.


Does the municipality voluntarily pull the power for safety?


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So information should be ignored unless it proves to be useful? That's going to make it tricky to determine which is the useful information. Sometimes, the usefulness is that it tells you you're not at risk.


@jobo , you are the living definition of ignorance is bliss. You clearly have no idea how absolutely stupid you sound.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Does the municipality voluntarily pull the power for safety?


No... There are several different grids. Only if there is a concern on a particular grid until it is repaired. We have several trees that have been downed from twisters that has the power down.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> @jobo , you are the living definition of ignorance is bliss. You clearly have no idea how absolutely stupid you sound.


That's not me you've quoted and calling stupid ?
So it's either Gerry or your to stupid to work the quote button, up to this point, we were doing fine with out personal attacks


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> If I don't put  My trash,  bin away promptly the kids will nick it , that's as relivant to risk assessment , as sayibg the wind may blow your deck chair away


Hahahaha.
And the risk assessment isn't about the wind blowing anything away. It is about the thing being an object that causes damage to property and/or individuals.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So information should be ignored unless it proves to be useful? That's going to make it tricky to determine which is the useful information. Sometimes, the usefulness is that it tells you you're not at risk.


That's not what I said, nor is it a reasonable interpretation from the context of the discussion.
But , you takes in millions of bits of information in day and ignore the vast majority of it,


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Hahahaha.
> And the risk assessment isn't about the wind blowing anything away. It is about the thing being an object that causes damage to property and/or individuals.


Ok so what's have you evaluated the risk if your deck chair injuring a person as !  I mean that's almost incalculable , but you must have done it, to say you have assessed it


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> That's not me you've quoted and calling stupid ?
> So it's either Gerry or your to stupid to work the quote button, up to this point, we were doing fine with out personal attacks


Just trying to do you a favor Jobo.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> Ok so what's have you evaluated the risk if your deck chair injuring a person as !  I mean that's almost incalculable , but you must have done it, to say you have assessed it


a risk assessment is the combined effort of:

identifying and analyzing potential (future) events or actions that may negatively impact individuals, assets, properties, and/or the environment and
making judgments on the tolerability of the risk while considering influencing factors
Put in simpler terms, a risk assessment takes in account what can go wrong, how likely it is to happen, what the potential consequences are, and how tolerable the identified risk is. It also introduces control measures to eliminate or reduce any potential risk-related consequences.

So, the potential of the heavy winds and increased possibility of twisters or tornadoes causing the furniture to become airborne objects and causing damage to other parts of my property or someone else's property or even an individual was such that I secured them in a manner that I assessed to greatly reduced that possibility.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> furnature isn't property,  but the whole nature if the thread is risk to person, isn't it?


If it is own by someone it is property.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Just trying to do you a favor Jobo.


Do me a favour by calling me names , is tthat what you call it ?


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> If it is own by someone it is property.


I'm thinking you'll find that makes them possessions ,or possibly assets ?


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> a risk assessment is the combined effort of:
> 
> identifying and analyzing potential (future) events or actions that may negatively impact individuals, assets, properties, and/or the environment and
> making judgments on the tolerability of the risk while considering influencing factors
> ...


Very good, you can work Google  now apply that to how you assessed the likely hood of your deck chair injuring someone , you could start with find ding out how many deck chair/ wind related hospital admission there are in a year and how many flying deck chairs there are per casualty


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm thinking you'll find that makes them possessions ,or possibly assets ?


If you look up the definition for property as a noun you will find it defined as; “things owned by someone”, “a possession or possessions” as well as being “land and builds”.


----------



## Buka (Jul 13, 2019)




----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

I've just had a quick Google hurricane Harvey affected 13 million people and had a death toll of 88 which is shame, but at 12 per million , it's not a high chance of it being you or anyone you know , so not really worth getting in state worrying over


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> If you look up the definition for property as a noun you will find it defined as; “things owned by someone”, “a possession or possessions” as well as being “land and builds”.


Only if you use a thick persons dictionary,. but life's to short to re educate every one on the internet


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> Very good, you can work Google  now apply that to how you assessed the likely hood of your deck chair injuring someone , you could start with find ding out how many deck chair/ wind related hospital admission there are in a year and how many flying deck chairs there are per casualty


Google?

There is no need to do all the above.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Buka said:


> View attachment 22345


Wise advice , but I havent for much choice on here


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Google?
> 
> There is no need to do all the above.


But you havnt done any of the above  just took a wild guess at it


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> Only if you use a thick persons dictionary,. but life's to short to re educate every one on the internet


I took the definition from Cambridge.
I’m sorry but you don’t get to choose ‘your’ definition over ‘the’ definition.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> But you havnt done any of the above  just took a wild guess at it


The risk that any of my property could be an increased danger to others due to the unusually high winds during the course of the storm was enough for me to introduce the control measure to reduce that possible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> furnature isn't property,  but the whole nature if the thread is risk to person, isn't it?


You didn't read that very well - just looking for something to disagree with. The furniture is a risk (at 70 MPH) to his property. Could feasibly cause a risk to person, but risk to property affects people, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> a risk assessment is the combined effort of:
> 
> identifying and analyzing potential (future) events or actions that may negatively impact individuals, assets, properties, and/or the environment and
> making judgments on the tolerability of the risk while considering influencing factors
> ...


And typical risk mitigation plans balance potential risk against the cost of mitigation. Moving furniture is a very low-cost mitigation, so worth doing in almost any situation where there's some reasonable risk.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm thinking you'll find that makes them possessions ,or possibly assets ?


[URL="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/property"]Definition of property | Dictionary.com[/URL]

"that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner:"


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> And typical risk mitigation plans balance potential risk against the cost of mitigation. Moving furniture is a very low-cost mitigation, so worth doing in almost any situation where there's some reasonable risk.


At least to the reasonable and responsible person.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> I've just had a quick Google hurricane Harvey affected 13 million people and had a death toll of 88 which is shame, but at 12 per million , it's not a high chance of it being you or anyone you know , so not really worth getting in state worrying over


The death toll is lower because of risk mitigation. When people don't pay attention to them, the death toll, injury rate, and loss of property increases.

You know, that's really the point of this thread, I think, and you've missed it entirely.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> Only if you use a thick persons dictionary,. but life's to short to re educate every one on the internet


So, a dictionary only counts if you agree with it?


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The death toll is lower because of risk mitigation. When people don't pay attention to them, the death toll, injury rate, and loss of property increases.
> 
> You know, that's really the point of this thread, I think, and you've missed it entirely.


Nah...he knows. He just has to be correct...no matter what.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> well see post above, are these " things " more likely and if they are how more likely?.



See crime statistics with statistics of how likely it is you will die in a fire/how likely one is, flood, earthquake, hurricane, obesity or any other thing. 

To a lot of people they have more of a chance of dying to being overweight and related issues with it than being murdered, the overall violent crime statics of the U.S and U.K are pretty low  in comparison to other periods as far as i can recall. 


Obviously if you live in a place with constant gang shootings and stabbings etc it might be more likely you get attacked than a heart attack, but if you don't it could be the reverse or if you live in a rural place in the U.S natural disasters and animals might be more likely for you to die.

It really is more of a area/person/circumstance specific thing.   and to some degree someone living in a different circumstance cannot provide full advice or a extensive list of what to do as its really dependent on your situation.  Can only give them the skills to adapt to their situation really and to have them trust their own judgement etc.   (wording got a little jumbled up)


----------



## Buka (Jul 13, 2019)

Batten down them hatches, stay safe @ Danny.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 13, 2019)

Buka said:


> Batten down them hatches, stay safe @ Danny.


And @DANNY t, do not go out and practice forms on the rooftop in the wind. It'd make a cool scene, but somebody else's lawn chairs will want to test your stances.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> And @DANNY t, do not go out and practice forms on the rooftop in the wind. It'd make a cool scene, but somebody else's lawn chairs will want to test your stances.


Nah...those days are over. I'm content with sitting in my family room watching the wind blow through the trees. Unfortunately I keep losing the internet.  We are high, dry, and protected. So overall we are good.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> Do me a favour by calling me names , is tthat what you call it ?


By pointing out your faults.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 13, 2019)

The rain just made it to Middle TN.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2019)

Danny T said:


> I took the definition from Cambridge.
> I’m sorry but you don’t get to choose ‘your’ definition over ‘the’ definition.


Ownership and ckasse


dvcochran said:


> By pointing out your faults.


I've had two wives and a mother for that, and even they didn't call me stupid, but then you set fire to a bale of hay by not maintaining your tractors, so your probably the sort that knows what stupid is


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 13, 2019)

Attention all users,
Let's remember to debate the post, not the poster.  If you can't do that, points may well land upon you...  If you feel someone is violating the rules, use the Report function and let The Staff handle it. 

Jks9199
Adminstrator


----------



## drop bear (Jul 14, 2019)

jobo said:


> I've just had a quick Google hurricane Harvey affected 13 million people and had a death toll of 88 which is shame, but at 12 per million , it's not a high chance of it being you or anyone you know , so not really worth getting in state worrying over



Sort of. There are a few things that can effect your life without being life threatening.

So we had cyclone Debbie a bit back. And it shut everything down for 48 hrs. 

Which is 48 hrs of locked in the house with no power and eventually no water and no emergency services.

Now the issue with the lawn furniture isn't loosing it. It is having your deck chair going through your window and basically making inside outside. 

Which has some pretty craptastic results. Not the least then spending 48hrs hiding  in the toilet.

Now there was no power for two weeks or so and no water for one. A full tank of petrol and your barbecue filled up makes a huge difference. Shops don't just open up without power and your ATM card doesn't work. 

So that hour to run around can make a pretty big difference in the week coming.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 14, 2019)

jks9199 said:


> Attention all users,
> Let's remember to debate the post, not the poster.  If you can't do that, points may well land upon you...  If you feel someone is violating the rules, use the Report function and let The Staff handle it.
> 
> Jks9199
> Adminstrator


Got it.


----------



## jobo (Jul 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The death toll is lower because of risk mitigation. When people don't pay attention to them, the death toll, injury rate, and loss of property increases.
> 
> You know, that's really the point of this thread, I think, and you've missed it entirely.


this yet another  case of people using inducative logic to come to a conclusion that can not possibly be supported by the data, not adidn't and was my opening point that people generally have no idea how to accurately assess risk, so to come to any sort of thought out conclusion, you need to look at the numbers who did mitigate and what lmitigation they took and what effect that actually had on their fate

if your sayingthat the 88 people that unbfirtunety died  didn't mitigate and that's why they died then support that. !  its seems extremely unlikely that they were the only one's out if 13 million that didnt,

there's no data at all to show that mitigation made any difference at all to the death toll,  what's far more logical is they were just extremely unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can't mitigate 100000 to one bad luck,  you just cant,neither would any one with any sense invest any money on a horse with those odds, but then people think its sensible to invest time/money in trying to mitigate the same extremely unlikely event


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2019)

jobo said:


> this yet another  case of people using inducative logic to come to a conclusion that can not possibly be supported by the data, not adidn't and was my opening point that people generally have no idea how to accurately assess risk, so to come to any sort of thought out conclusion, you need to look at the numbers who did mitigate and what lmitigation they took and what effect that actually had on their fate
> 
> if your sayingthat the 88 people that unbfirtunety died  didn't mitigate and that's why they died then support that. !  its seems extremely unlikely that they were the only one's out if 13 million that didnt,
> 
> there's no data at all to show that mitigation made any difference at all to the death toll,  what's far more logical is they were just extremely unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can't mitigate 100000 to one bad luck,  you just cant,neither would any one with any sense invest any money on a horse with those odds, but then people think its sensible to invest time/money in trying to mitigate the same extremely unlikely event


You're asking me to prove a statement I didn't make. You clearly don't understand, and I'm tired of trying to help.


----------



## jobo (Jul 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're asking me to prove a statement I didn't make. You clearly don't understand, and I'm tired of trying to help.


I'm asking you to support a point you made about the effective of risk miutigations in hurricanes in general and hurricane Harvey in particular. 

perhaps if you actually made a statement of your opinion rather then being evasive we could discuss that ?


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Jul 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Sort of. There are a few things that can effect your life without being life threatening.
> 
> So we had cyclone Debbie a bit back. And it shut everything down for 48 hrs.
> 
> ...



Facts. A couple of MREs served me really well a few years back when Hurricane Sandy hit Long Island. A little preparation goes a long way!


----------



## drop bear (Jul 15, 2019)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Facts. A couple of MREs served me really well a few years back when Hurricane Sandy hit Long Island. A little preparation goes a long way!



Well that is still an anecdote not fact. But yes good point.

(Sorry but I do like to stay consistent)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Well that is still an anecdote not fact. But yes good point.
> 
> (Sorry but I do like to stay consistent)


Anecdotes aren't not facts. It's a fact (from his point of view, because he knows it's true). To us, it's an anecdote that may or may not be fact.


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Anecdotes aren't not facts. It's a fact (from his point of view, because he knows it's true). To us, it's an anecdote that may or may not be fact.


well maybe, facts are things that are independently verifiable, just because he know it to be " true" doesn't make it a fact. other wise ghosts and magic etc would be facts, as plenty if people believe these to be true


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> well maybe, facts are things that are independently verifiable, just because he know it to be " true" doesn't make it a fact. other wise ghosts and magic etc would be facts, as plenty if people believe these to be true


Something can be true (and, by common definitions) a fact without any way to verify it. It is a fact that I had a cup of coffee this morning, though there’s no way for you to verify that with any reliability.

What that means is that you can’t reliably treat it as fact.


----------



## Buka (Jul 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Something can be true (and, by common definitions) a fact without any way to verify it. It is a fact that I had a cup of coffee this morning, though there’s no way for you to verify that with any reliability.
> 
> What that means is that you can’t reliably treat it as fact.



I'm having coffee right now. Here's to you, bro. 

Or am I?




Yeah, I am. Or is that really me? Anyway, here's to you.


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Something can be true (and, by common definitions) a fact without any way to verify it. It is a fact that I had a cup of coffee this morning, though there’s no way for you to verify that with any reliability.
> 
> What that means is that you can’t reliably treat it as fact.


well facts are reliable or they are not facts,  your coffee consumption could easily be verified if it ever became of any importance, that it wasn't means it just w memory, memory is quite unreliable as I discover every time my keys aren't were I believe I left them, either that or I have a poltergeist


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Something can be true (and, by common definitions) a fact without any way to verify it. It is a fact that I had a cup of coffee this morning, though there’s no way for you to verify that with any reliability.
> 
> What that means is that you can’t reliably treat it as fact.


Are you sure you had that coffee? Ever meet Morpheus?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2019)

Buka said:


> I'm having coffee right now. Here's to you, bro.
> 
> Or am I?
> 
> ...


The real - and only valid - question is, "What's in the coffee, Buka?"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> well facts are reliable or they are not facts,  your coffee consumption could easily be verified if it ever became of any importance, that it wasn't means it just w memory, memory is quite unreliable as I discover every time my keys aren't were I believe I left them, either that or I have a poltergeist


Facts are reliable. Whether you can rely upon something as a fact depends what you know (and/or can verify).

How would you verify I had coffee this morning? There's no real evidence of it, beyond my statement of it. It's still a fact, but you can't really rely upon it as such. You could safely accept it as a fact if you know I have coffee every morning, or just because it's such a bland claim as to not be worth bothering to doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a fact you cannot verify.

This is why we have to be cautious using anecdotal evidence. We can listen to it, but have to question whether the claims included are bland enough to be taken at face value, or bold enough we need something else to give us reason to accept them. We don't know whether a given anecdote is factual or not, but our lack of knowing it doesn't change whether it's true or not.


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Facts are reliable. Whether you can rely upon something as a fact depends what you know (and/or can verify).
> 
> How would you verify I had coffee this morning? There's no real evidence of it, beyond my statement of it. It's still a fact, but you can't really rely upon it as such. You could safely accept it as a fact if you know I have coffee every morning, or just because it's such a bland claim as to not be worth bothering to doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a fact you cannot verify.
> 
> This is why we have to be cautious using anecdotal evidence. We can listen to it, but have to question whether the claims included are bland enough to be taken at face value, or bold enough we need something else to give us reason to accept them. We don't know whether a given anecdote is factual or not, but our lack of knowing it doesn't change whether it's true or not.


it's a fact i  cant,verify  I'm several thousand miles away, however it isn't a fact than can't be verified , though possibly not now as it's to latI. as the window for verification has now past it is not a fact, you have nothing to rely on but a hazy memory. memories and facts are not at all the same thing. and truth and fact are not the same thing, truth is just your memory of an event, a fact as hopefully we have now establish is something that can be verified by something else other than your memory


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 16, 2019)

Schrodinger's fact: as none of us (even gerry) have a way of knowing if he had coffee this morning, until proof is found, it is both a fact and not a fact that gerry had coffee this morning.


----------



## jobo (Jul 16, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Schrodinger's fact: as none of us (even gerry) have a way of knowing if he had coffee this morning, until proof is found, it is both a fact and not a fact that gerry had coffee this morning.


that's a misunderstanding of schrodinger message. in which he was mocking the idea that things exist in a superposition of states, until the act of observation or measurement calapse the wave function and force it to choose on reality or another. as gerry presumably observed his coffee being drunk   or not being drunk, he would have collapsed the wave function at that point. further proof at this time would not changethat out come  as the superpostion of states was resolved some hours ago


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's a misunderstanding of schrodinger message. in which he was mocking the idea that things exist in a superposition of states, until the act of observation or measurement calapse the wave function and force it to choose on reality or another. as gerry presumably observed his coffee being drunk   or not being drunk, he would have collapsed the wave function at that point. further proof at this time would not changethat out come  as the superpostion of states was resolved some hours ago


Yup, I'm aware schrodinger was trying to mock the thing he accidentally helped popularize. And that this isn't a 1 to 1 comparison of the two. I was making a joke.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> it's a fact i  cant,verify  I'm several thousand miles away, however it isn't a fact than can't be verified , though possibly not now as it's to latI. as the window for verification has now past it is not a fact, you have nothing to rely on but a hazy memory. memories and facts are not at all the same thing. and truth and fact are not the same thing, truth is just your memory of an event, a fact as hopefully we have now establish is something that can be verified by something else other than your memory


It would have been too late at the time I posted that, originally.

My point is just that things don't cease to be facts simply because we don't know they are facts. Something can be facts to those who know them, and undetermined as fact for someone else.

You are correct that truth and fact are not the same thing. I don't think you're correct that truth is your memory of a thing - that can in fact be a non-accurate memory (in fact, it's almost guaranteed to be inaccurate in some way), so memory may be neither truth (except insofar as it's true that's your memory) nor fact (except insofar as it's a fact that's what you remember). Truth and fact are related, but not quite synonymous. Whatever my memory of the event, however, the facts don't change depending upon whether a specific person can verify them or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's a misunderstanding of schrodinger message. in which he was mocking the idea that things exist in a superposition of states, until the act of observation or measurement calapse the wave function and force it to choose on reality or another. as gerry presumably observed his coffee being drunk   or not being drunk, he would have collapsed the wave function at that point. further proof at this time would not changethat out come  as the superpostion of states was resolved some hours ago


Collapsed wave functions make coffee taste better. I always add at least two, right after the cream.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It would have been too late at the time I posted that, originally.
> 
> My point is just that things don't cease to be facts simply because we don't know they are facts. Something can be facts to those who know them, and undetermined as fact for someone else.
> 
> You are correct that truth and fact are not the same thing. I don't think you're correct that truth is your memory of a thing - that can in fact be a non-accurate memory (in fact, it's almost guaranteed to be inaccurate in some way), so memory may be neither truth (except insofar as it's true that's your memory) nor fact (except insofar as it's a fact that's what you remember). Truth and fact are related, but not quite synonymous. Whatever my memory of the event, however, the facts don't change depending upon whether a specific person can verify them or not.



I really think they do. You would need to verify a fact or it is an anecdote. 

An anecdote can be true. But is not a fact without evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I really think they do. You would need to verify a fact or it is an anecdote.
> 
> An anecdote can be true. But is not a fact without evidence.


That's the missing distinction, db. I may not know it is fact, but it's a fact, anyway. I just can't use it as such without some verification. 

It does depend which definition of fact you use, though. I found one that supports what you and @jobo are saying (from Google): 

"a thing that is known or proved to be true". 
By this definition, a fact is a fact to the individual who knows it to be true. These two are closer to my argument (from Merriam-Webster): 

"something that has actual existence" (space exploration is now a fact)
"an actual occurrence" (prove the fact of damage)
So the first one depends upon whether we know it to be true or not, while the other is objective: something is a fact if it occurred, not being dependent upon our knowledge.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's the missing distinction, db. I may not know it is fact, but it's a fact, anyway. I just can't use it as such without some verification.
> 
> It does depend which definition of fact you use, though. I found one that supports what you and @jobo are saying (from Google):
> 
> ...



Ok. So I gave your statement to one of my coaches who is trained in logic. And absolutely a guy you should train with if you ever come to Australia. 

His response.

"Ok.. so..

Truth is analytic, so generally it applies to propositions..

Truth is usually a quality of propositions

There are ‘kinds’ of truth

For example a truth can be conditional 

“Today is Sunday” is false

But there will be conditions where that will be true


Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’

So in science it would go in this order

Hypothesis,
Speculation really

Then fact,
Empirical observation 

Example, fish species a swims better in 29 degree water then 30 degree water

Inferences are greater then fact, but can be wrong, inference have the ability of prediction, they are considered higher then fact because multiple facts are required to make an inference

Example 

Fact 1
Fish x survive better in 29 degrees

Fact 2
Pond 1 is 32 degrees 

Fact 3 
Pond 2 is 29 degrees 

Inference,
Fish x will survive better in pond 2 then pond 1

Then above fact you have laws, like the law of gravity, it is true across all times and is completely consistent 

Then above law you have.. believe it or not theory
(When people say ‘that’s just a theory’ they mean to say, ‘that’s just a hypothesis’)
Theories require multiple laws, and sometimes inferences between laws

Example 
The theory of relativity describes and contains many laws


Don’t quote me on this one, I think if it’s a priori (usually maths) they are called Theroms
Eg, a triangle has 3 sides
And if they are a posteriori they are usually empirical 

So science uses models to describe the natural world

Logic uses deduction from premises to conclusions
(Though premise are not usually deductive, they usually use inductive or analogical reasoning for example)

So if you think of a word like necessary, it’s an analytical word, if something is necessary, it means for it not to be true there is a contradiction..

My brother is male is necessarily TRUE because if it was false, there would be a contradiction 

So terms like ‘true’ typically are analytical, so they are logical in nature, they refer to reasoning using mathematical deduction 

And terms like Fact are scientific in nature, they refer to empirical observations 

Colloquially, they are all misused

But.. in conclusion you’re a right

To bring ‘memory’ into it makes it more stupid and nonsensical.. You’re then in the field of cognitive science, you’re talking about the equipment we see the work through

Challenging memory is like saying the telescope is broken in science 

Propositions need to be falsifiable in science..

10 mins ago, the whole world was created, including your memories, including historical  facts.. you can’t falsify it, not can you verify it

Clams about memory should be made in the fields cognitive science, psychology, philosophy of mind, maybe law 

Claims about truth should be made in the field of logic

Claims about facts belong to science"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. So I gave your statement to one of my coaches who is trained in logic. And absolutely a guy you should train with if you ever come to Australia.
> 
> His response.
> 
> ...


I like his explanation. It uses yet a different definition of the term "fact". We have to acknowledge there are multiple definitions, and they can vary wildly. The definitions used in formal disciplines are often much different from the common usage. The term "theory" is a good example of this. If I say I have a theory about something, it can mean something quite different if I'm just saying "I have a theory about why the team lost" or I say (in a group of scientists), "I have a theory that explains the collapse of waveforms on observation".

So, while he's not wrong, the definition of "fact" used in formal logic is not necessarily common usage. While we exercise logic, we don't have to use the formal terminology folks trained in the field are using.

All that said, I'm quite enjoying this education. Thanks!


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I like his explanation. It uses yet a different definition of the term "fact". We have to acknowledge there are multiple definitions, and they can vary wildly. The definitions used in formal disciplines are often much different from the common usage. The term "theory" is a good example of this. If I say I have a theory about something, it can mean something quite different if I'm just saying "I have a theory about why the team lost" or I say (in a group of scientists), "I have a theory that explains the collapse of waveforms on observation".
> 
> So, while he's not wrong, the definition of "fact" used in formal logic is not necessarily common usage. While we exercise logic, we don't have to use the formal terminology folks trained in the field are using.
> 
> All that said, I'm quite enjoying this education. Thanks!


I thought is was pretty spot on. Empirical evidence and all. It is what I am accustomed to in the working world. I don't like the idea that it is ok to have different definitions for words like fact. It really grey's the purpose of the word.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 17, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I thought is was pretty spot on. Empirical evidence and all. It is what I am accustomed to in the working world. I don't like the idea that it is ok to have different definitions for words like fact. It really grey's the purpose of the word.


But there are different definitions, that's the reality. Some are just nuanced versions of the same thing, but the real point of this discussion has been that there are two conflicting definitions (and I was able to find both in common dictionaries). That's true of many words and terms - especially where they are in common use and part of the jargon of a professional group (scientists, philosophers, lawyers, etc.).


----------



## jobo (Jul 18, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> But there are different definitions, that's the reality. Some are just nuanced versions of the same thing, but the real point of this discussion has been that there are two conflicting definitions (and I was able to find both in common dictionaries). That's true of many words and terms - especially where they are in common use and part of the jargon of a professional group (scientists, philosophers, lawyers, etc.).


but even if you accept the widest possible definition of fact, people generally commonly misuse it. I've had lots and lots of people  ( my x wife for one)tell me for a fact there is petrol in their car, when there isn't, there belief that there is is not a fact, even though they know it's true .they are just wrong, what they mean is they have no explanation for why there isn't ,which is the commonly  because their memory or fuel gauge can't be trusted, 

, vast amounts of time and trouble could be saved if they just said I don't know, if I say are you actually sure  they get cross and ask if I think they are an idiot, the answer to which when I have tracked out 10 miles to tow them home and they had a spare gallon in the boot is yes, I do think their an idiot.

or they confuse fact and opinion, it may be a fact they put twenty pounds in last Thursday, but it's only an opinion ( quite possibly an opinion reached through logic but still not a fact) that there is  5 pounds worth  left today and they really should have trusted the red line on the fuel gauge


----------



## Buka (Jul 18, 2019)

The more you run over Schrödinger's cat, the flatter it gets. Or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2019)

jobo said:


> but even if you accept the widest possible definition of fact, people generally commonly misuse it. I've had lots and lots of people  ( my x wife for one)tell me for a fact there is petrol in their car, when there isn't, there belief that there is is not a fact, even though they know it's true .they are just wrong, what they mean is they have no explanation for why there isn't ,which is the commonly  because their memory or fuel gauge can't be trusted,


That's kind of in line with my original point. Things don't become facts because someone "knows" them to be true. And they don't stop being facts because someone doesn't know them to be true. Of course, that's still using the definition I started with.



> , vast amounts of time and trouble could be saved if they just said I don't know, if I say are you actually sure  they get cross and ask if I think they are an idiot, the answer to which when I have tracked out 10 miles to tow them home and they had a spare gallon in the boot is yes, I do think their an idiot.
> 
> or they confuse fact and opinion, it may be a fact they put twenty pounds in last Thursday, but it's only an opinion ( quite possibly an opinion reached through logic but still not a fact) that there is  5 pounds worth  left today and they really should have trusted the red line on the fuel gauge


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 24, 2019)

DB wrote: Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’

This is part of the problem.  In the above statement, the car is not really red.  It APPEARS red because of how the light is absorbed and reflected back to the eye.  Change the light source and the "color" changes because it is reflected differently (one reason why witnesses say a car was a much different color when identifying it than it appeared to be, streetlights etc. change the perception of what they saw). So, in many cases, a "fact" as you used it in this definition is incumbent upon a certain perspective and perception filter that may differ for different people.


----------



## jobo (Jul 24, 2019)

punisher73 said:


> DB wrote: Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’
> 
> This is part of the problem.  In the above statement, the car is not really red.  It APPEARS red because of how the light is absorbed and reflected back to the eye.  Change the light source and the "color" changes because it is reflected differently (one reason why witnesses say a car was a much different color when identifying it than it appeared to be, streetlights etc. change the perception of what they saw). So, in many cases, a "fact" as you used it in this definition is incumbent upon a certain perspective and perception filter that may differ for different people.


that's not really a sound point, colour is always to do with the reflectivity of the object to certain waves lengths, with out that there is no colour at all ,as fact a car is most definitely red, as you can compare it with a colour chart as a source of verification. the sky on the other hand is not blue, as there is no sky no matter what colour you think it is ,also a fact.

if you have a group of witnesses,to an event depending on their memories , you will not get the same " facts" from them, the more witnesses you have the less certain you can be what happened to who , by the what and when .

in fact the surest way of spotting colusion, is that they all agree with the fundamentals ,

I had an unfortunate accident in my car, by the time the police showed up, I'd convinced three witnesses , that they had seen a big black dog run across in front of me, I told one , he told the others, then they all agreed they saw the dog and gave a detailed description of it, it's appearance , it's speed and it's direction ,people are so easy to  manipulate


----------

