The "Effectiveness Question" Again...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he means 'formally' trained (regardless of style(s)) but for some reason has not presented the question that way. Just keep running in circles.
I get the sense he means “traditionally trained”. Which - in my opinion- is a somewhat meaningless distinction.
 
It is not that they didn't get things right it is that they also got things wrong and basically struggled to tell the difference.

Dowsing is still being promoted as viable through the same method people used to detect poisonous mushrooms.

I mean imagine you tried that but had someone who was allergic?

It would throw your method out.
false positives are allowed for in the scientific method
 
false positives are allowed for in the scientific method
False positives are a reality in measurement. It is the result of an equation. Sometimes the input data is flawed/contaminated and effects the results.
When you say they are 'allowed' it sounds like they are intentionally induced. Not so. They just happen as part of the measurement and/or error in measurement.
Figuring out that they are indeed false can be a challenge sometimes.
 
False positives are a reality in measurement. It is the result of an equation. Sometimes the input data is flawed/contaminated and effects the results.
When you say they are 'allowed' it sounds like they are intentionally induced. Not so. They just happen as part of the measurement and/or error in measurement.
Figuring out that they are indeed false can be a challenge sometimes.
allowed and INTENTIONALLY introduced are clearly different concepts, they are '' FIGURED'' out by repeatability

my point is the '' scientific method'' has been around since the beginning of human civilisation` otherwise we would still be living in caves and eating poisonous mushrooms
 
Last edited:
allowed and INTENTIONALLY introduced are clearly different concepts, they are '' FIGURED'' out by repeatability

my point is the '' scientific method'' has been around since the beginning of human civilisation` otherwise we would still be living in caves and eating poisonous mushrooms
Agree. In the context that we understand it today, SM has not been around all that long. Much of 'civilization' was just figuring out how to survive. So few variables were known, it is understandable how much of history got off on tangents based on a few peoples very strong, but very wrong belief's. The Salem witch trials or Flat earth (which is still a belief by some???)are good examples.
Very often profit drives human expansion/contraction regardless of the SM evidence. The false positive is used as a product in and of itself. That can make some weird stuff happen.
 
Agree. In the context that we understand it today, SM has not been around all that long. Much of 'civilization' was just figuring out how to survive. So few variables were known, it is understandable how much of history got off on tangents based on a few peoples very strong, but very wrong belief's. The Salem witch trials or Flat earth (which is still a belief by some???)are good examples.
Very often profit drives human expansion/contraction regardless of the SM evidence. The false positive is used as a product in and of itself. That can make some weird stuff happen.
no the scientific method is exactly the same now as its always been, it just took a lot longer to gather the data and usually resulted in a lot more death and injury, unless its the pharmaceutical industry we are talking about, they still seem to wait 20 years and count the dead to decide if something was a good idea or not

That there's people who have deep superstition in positions of power is still a significant barrier to the progress of man kind as its always been. i remember a deep shiver of terror going down my spine when i found out that the man with his finger on the nuclear button (GWB) was known to pray for gods guidance on matters of international affairs (like who to nuke) his partner in '' crime'' our very own tony blair admitted that he invaded iraq as its was gods work he was doing
 
Last edited:
False positives are a reality in measurement. It is the result of an equation. Sometimes the input data is flawed/contaminated and effects the results.
When you say they are 'allowed' it sounds like they are intentionally induced. Not so. They just happen as part of the measurement and/or error in measurement.
Figuring out that they are indeed false can be a challenge sometimes.
I think he meant "accounted for". Which a good scientific approach attempts to do, at least.
 
It is not that they didn't get things right it is that they also got things wrong and basically struggled to tell the difference.

Dowsing is still being promoted as viable through the same method people used to detect poisonous mushrooms.

I mean imagine you tried that but had someone who was allergic?

It would throw your method out.
your dismissal of dowsing is the very opposite of the scientific method, you could say dowsing has never been shown to work under controlled conditions, but you would be wrong, it has, if a very small number of people getting a greater return than allowed by chance is a positive result

there's also the fact trained water engineers in this country do, or at least did very recently use dowsing to find pipes and leaks, presumably because they found it to worked, digging a lot of holes in completely the wrong place would soon put a stop to the practise if it didn't

that then leaves you with a phenomena that science cannot as yet adequately explain. that has been the driver behind scientific discovery since the year dot

it may be that there are other sensory factors and prior knowledge and experience in play that allow pipes to be found and that dowsing is mostly irrelevant to the exercise and that the controlled conditions cut these off. but if wandering around with two sticks in your hand allows you a positive out come, then its hard to say it doesn't work, even if its just a method of focusing other aspects
 
Last edited:
I think he meant "accounted for". Which a good scientific approach attempts to do, at least.
no i meant ALLOWED, if you dont allow false positives ( ie things that disagree with your hypothesis) into your data set set, then there's significant conformational bias in your study
 
no the scientific method is exactly the same now as its always been, it just took a lot longer to gather the data and usually resulted in a lot more death and injury, unless its the pharmaceutical industry we are talking about, they still seem to wait 20 years and count the dead to decide if something was a good idea or not

That there's people who have deep superstition in positions of power is still a significant barrier to the progress of man kind as its always been. i remember a deep shiver of terror going down my spine when i found out that the man with his finger on the nuclear button (GWB) was known to pray for gods guidance on matters of international affairs (like who to nuke) his partner in '' crime'' our very own tony blair admitted that he invaded iraq as its was gods work he was doing

Using your analogy, how long do you think the pharmaceutical industry, or even witch doctors have been around? Mankind goes back much further, well before any semblance of SM.
That you feel praying is illogical is not at all surprising. I want the leaders of our country's making life decisions for millions of people without any and all types of counsel; yea that is what I want.
Go ahead and give me your jaded response that we all know is coming.
 
Using your analogy, how long do you think the pharmaceutical industry, or even witch doctors have been around? Mankind goes back much further, well before any semblance of SM.
That you feel praying is illogical is not at all surprising. I want the leaders of our country's making life decisions for millions of people without any and all types of counsel; yea that is what I want.
Go ahead and give me your jaded response that we all know is coming.
im rightly suspicious of people who have imaginary friends, its cute but a bit sad with loney children, its down right a worry if they have life and death power over you,

its not even that they believe in a higher power that's the main worry, its that they think the higher power talks to them. surely he or she would be to busy running the cosmos to worry where you've left your car keys or if you should nuke north korea

there's some frighteningly high % of the american public who believe the book genesis is literal, finding that level of ignorant supersticion in goat herders in afghanistan is one thing, in the most technological nation on earth it takes some getting your head round
 
Last edited:
Using your analogy, how long do you think the pharmaceutical industry, or even witch doctors have been around? Mankind goes back much further, well before any semblance of SM.
That you feel praying is illogical is not at all surprising. I want the leaders of our country's making life decisions for millions of people without any and all types of counsel; yea that is what I want.
Go ahead and give me your jaded response that we all know is coming.
rudimentary medical treatment goes back to the beginning of mankind, if you want to call them witch doctors ok,
 
im rightly suspicious of people who have imaginary friends, its cute but a bit sad with loney children, its down right a worry if they have life and death power over you,

its not even that they believe in a higher power that's the main worry, its that they think the higher power talks to them. surely he or she would be to busy running the cosmos to worry where you've left your car keys or if you should nuke north korea

there's some frighteningly high % of the american public who believe the book genesis is literal, finding that level of ignorant supersticion in goat herders in afghanistan is one thing, in the most technological nation on earth it takes some getting your head round
Most technological nation on earth. Coincidence?
 
Wildly different from SM.
im beginning to think we can add '' the scientific method'' to the list of things you don't understand !

why don't you tell me what you think it is therefore and why rudentary medical advances in the pliocene, does not count as the SM
 
im beginning to think we can add '' the scientific method'' to the list of things you don't understand !

why don't you tell me what you think it is therefore and why rudentary medical advances in the pliocene, does not count as the SM
I never said anything of the sort. I merely said it is not nearly as old as you incorrectly imply. Answer a question with an answer; what it Your definition of SM? (it seems your mind is indecently going somewhere else)
I use it regularly in my line of work, it cannot be performed without using scientific method to define process.
 
Most technological nation on earth. Coincidence?
what, you think gods give you the gift of technoligy cause you pray a lot ?

meanwhile afghanistan who also pray a lot get invaded by your advanced technology, with a frightening death toll, i suppose god takes sides and its their fault for choosing the wrong dessert religion to follow

the level of delusion get more scary by the minute
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Discussions

Back
Top