Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Zosimus]

Roll on the floor laugh my fat *** off at the fact that you couldnt come up with a come back so you attack my obesity issue, even though Ive lost over 30 pounds. Its ok I will be a healthy weight soon and Ill get revenge but nice try trying to escape from having to come back with an intelligent answer.

So no response to the you-committed-a-logical-fallacy part of the argument?

 

[Zosimus]

Yet you are making a statement of fact right after the video you used to support said fact.

Yes, because the information casts doubt on the previous claim that the Out of Africa theory is correct. Perhaps it is, but the data are not sufficient to conclude such a thing.

Considering there are remains that date back 130k years, 80ks doesn't really effect the out of African theory much

I think you don't understand the theory that you are defending. Since the Out of Africa theory postulates that humans arose in Africa at least 100,000 years ago and migrated from there some 80,000 years back, a finding of 130k BP teeth in Asia tends to undermine the theory in question.

Uhm... you understand the difference between undermine and disprove.... don't you?

 

[Zosimus]

No, zosimus.

My background in science is in applied science, so I just want to know HOW something work, HOW to use something, and HOW to avoid making a mistake.

In computer science, it is not so much as life-and-death situation, but in my earlier career as civil engineer, lives are at stake, so I have to make sure I meet the safety requirements in design and in construction, because you really don't want a building or a bridge to collapse, by taking shortcuts. i am required to understand the materials being used in construction, and require testings and knowing their limits, as much as people who actually do the physical works.

I have neither the time nor the patience to learn "this philosophy" or "that philosophy".

I don't give a s### about the verification-ism as a philosophy. I am talking about science methodology of testings, I am not interested in any fricking philosophy of any "-ism".

I am sure that I have already told you that I am not interested in philosophy.

The problem is that science is just a branch of philosophy. So you cannot at once say that you care nothing for philosophy and defend science with a rabid crusader-like zeal.

And engineering has far less to do with science than you might think. A case in point is the u-boats built by German engineers. The vessels had to submerge to at least 100 meters in depth, but German engineers knew nothing about the science of metal fatigue or how to combat it. Thus, the engineers simply overbuilt each u-boat and many of them could go deeper than 200 meters. This is not a triumph of science as much as a triumph of human spirit.

 

[Zosimus]

He can do whatever he wants. It's the pseudoscience that bothers me the most. And the people who push it.

All science is pseudo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All science is pseudo.

Only in your mind.

 

[Zosimus]

No, the Ancient Greeks and Egyptians invented science long before the Christians existed.

No, science as we know it did not exist more than 100 years ago. Even the word scientist didn't exist before 1834.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't do this for pride, but it's more like service. The substance is what you have to provide in order to see the truth. Too many people have put their faith instead on atheism, their wrong science (evolution) and living their all too short lives in despair. In the end, that is what you'll end up with.

"According to the Bible, do you reap what you sow? The principle of sowing and reaping is common throughout the Bible, because it is something that humanity can relate to. The practice of working the ground to gain a harvest is nearly as old as humanity itself. Part of Adam’s curse was that the ground would bring forth thorns and thistles in response to his work and that “by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food” (Genesis 3:19). Adam understood the concept of “you reap what you sow” both literally and figuratively."

I don't know what service you think you're providing.

Atheism has nothing to do with verifiable evidence for creation or evolution.

Enough with the deflection and Gish Gallops.

Do you have verifiable evidence for creationism, or not? Do you have any evidence at all?

 

[Zosimus]

This is a stupid reply. I was addressing scientific peer reviewed studies. So, in order to make it look more undestandable: what criteria do you use to reject scientific peer reviewed research is some area and not in others?

Well, it's really simple. Most Published Research Findings Are False, so generally simply someone posting a peer-reviewed scientific paper means nothing. However, if the person is serious, I may ask about the randomization procedure that was used. You see, 80 percent of non-randomized studies are later convincingly refuted. So if the person cannot answer how the randomization process took place, the peer-reviewed research (yes, the hyphen is required) is immediately considered to have a P(H) of 0.2 as an a priori probability. Then the research is evaluated to determine whether the claim, even if it were true, would lead to the conclusions claimed by the poster. In most cases, the answer is a resounding no. So, unless I am trapped in a burning house and this hypothesis is my only chance of survival, I'm not likely to give it much more than an amused tilt of the head.

And what is the next logical step after you found out you can afford it? Do you google around to check common people feedback or scientific feedback?

You want me to boil down all of prescriptive decision theory to a one-liner that you can try to wrap your head around? All right. Let's do a sample decision theory on cancer treatment.

Let's imagine that you have malignant melanoma. Your doctor has suggested chemotherapy. You would like to determine whether this is a good idea. You might start by noting that chemotherapy is only 2.1 percent effective according to some peer-reviewed research. You might also note that some articles indicate that Chemotherapy...doesn’t work as well against melanoma as it does in some other types of cancer. You will then make a table:

Chemotherapy works - cost
Chemotherapy doesn't work - cost

So if the chemotherapy works, you will likely gain an additional 120 days of life. The cost is around $5,400. Then you will need to factor in whether your insurance will cover some or all of that cost. If the chemotherapy doesn't work, then you'll end up puking out your guts for awhile and feeling very bad with no gain in life and a cost of $5,400.

The question now is whether the chance of getting an additional 120 days of life is worth $5,400 (less insurance coverage) and of course the discomfort associated with chemotherapy. This is a subjective decision. One person might figure that he wants to live as long as possible to see his grandchild born whereas another person will not make that decision.

This is the essence of decision theory. You estimate costs and benefits and try to make a rational decision in the face of uncertainty.

Now let's consider whether you want to take resveratrol for cancer. There are 17,600 studies that indicate that resveratrol indicates apoptosis in cancer. The cost of even the best resveratrol (Longevix) is only about $32 a bottle. It is unlikely, however, that your insurance will cover any of this. On the bright side, no one has suffered nausea and vomiting from resveratrol so that's a plus. Then you put that in a decision matrix and work on that. Personally, from my point of view, the fact that resveratrol is substantially cheaper than other options and contains less severe side effects is a good indication that this is a good bet.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Look at it this way. If someone comes up to you and says, "If you say slooweebob three times tonight, an alien will come to visit you within the next 12 months and give you $100 million," even though your personal belief in the truth of that statement is quite low, there is a good argument to be made in favor of saying slooweebob three times because A) the cost to you, if wrong, is nothing and the benefit, if right, is great.

I can only base my knowledge on your examples. And they are, honestly, trivial even without multiple choices. If they are all like that, it is ming boggling that there are organization asking money to prepare people to pass it.

Well, most people think the test is going to be easy. So they come in and take a free test and score in the 350 range. They know that the median applicant to the university they want to go to is scoring 710. So they think that they must score 710 or better to have a 50 percent chance to get in. This is false, but you cannot dissuade these people (nor should you try). Then you charge them a lot of money, help them get their scores higher, and move on to the next. That's the system.

Nope. I ask how much they cost. And usually their cost is proportional to them having an MBA or not. Not to their ability to solve problem which in most cases do not show any obvious list of choices.

Again, if you believe in science, then you should believe that a good GMAT score correlates well with the student doing well in the study program. I will be the first one to point out that correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, this system has been independently accepted by dozens of universities based on their own internal, proprietary information. They probably know something that I don't.

 

[Zosimus]

i think my use of "ironic" is perfectly valid in this case.

By the way, you seem to ignore that "alright" is actually an English word. Not standard, but correct. With "English", I mean from Cambridge UK, not from Peru, obviously.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/alright

Cambridge is not authoritative. The authoritative source is the Chicago Manual of Style.

I guess it is not on your automatic spell checker for the same reason, either. i wonder what you would output without it. Can you use spell checkers during a GMAT test, assuming there are general culture questions in it ?

No, there are no spell checkers during the GMAT analytical writing assessment.

By the way, let me briefly turn it on and check the word alright. Nope, no corrections, I am afraid. My iPad knows English better than you

You see, the problem is that you are involved in appeals to authority without understanding what you are talking about. Let's look at the sentence you just put up there.

"My iPad knows English better than you."

What does this mean, exactly? You know what you meant to say, and I think I do too. However, have you considered the ambiguity involved in this sentence? What are the possible interpretations of the sentence?

A) My iPad knows English better than you know English.
B) My iPad knows English better than my iPad knows you.

You see? It's ambiguous. You don't even realize how the words that come out of your keyboard create potential confusion; much less are you prepared to mitigate this confusion.

On another forum, just yesterday, someone said: "Christians kill more people than Muslims." Did the speaker mean that Christians kill both people and Muslims, that Muslims are not people, and that Christians kill more people than Muslims? Perhaps...or perhaps not. The simple addition of the word "do" would have solved the ambiguity.

So I would point out to you the purpose of that little English word do. You see, had you said, "My iPad knows more English than you do" all the ambiguity would have disappeared! However, you're not interested in doing things the right way much less in avoiding ambiguity. If I pointed out that your sentence was missing the word "do" you would run off and find some wannabe expert from Cambridge who would say that the do is optional.

The problem is that you are ill-qualified to evaluate the worth of the advice you google.

 

[viole]

Well, it's really simple. Most Published Research Findings Are False, so generally simply someone posting a peer-reviewed scientific paper means nothing. However, if the person is serious, I may ask about the randomization procedure that was used. You see, 80 percent of non-randomized studies are later convincingly refuted. So if the person cannot answer how the randomization process took place, the peer-reviewed research (yes, the hyphen is required) is immediately considered to have a P(H) of 0.2 as an a priori probability. Then the research is evaluated to determine whether the claim, even if it were true, would lead to the conclusions claimed by the poster. In most cases, the answer is a resounding no. So, unless I am trapped in a burning house and this hypothesis is my only chance of survival, I'm not likely to give it much more than an amused tilt of the head.

So, your peer lonely reviewed article about gravitational influence travelling faster than light's, could be very well false.

You want me to boil down all of prescriptive decision theory to a one-liner that you can try to wrap your head around? All right. Let's do a sample decision theory on cancer treatment.

Let's imagine that you have malignant melanoma. Your doctor has suggested chemotherapy. You would like to determine whether this is a good idea. You might start by noting that chemotherapy is only 2.1 percent effective according to some peer-reviewed research. You might also note that some articles indicate that Chemotherapy...doesn’t work as well against melanoma as it does in some other types of cancer. You will then make a table:

Chemotherapy works - cost
Chemotherapy doesn't work - cost

So if the chemotherapy works, you will likely gain an additional 120 days of life. The cost is around $5,400. Then you will need to factor in whether your insurance will cover some or all of that cost. If the chemotherapy doesn't work, then you'll end up puking out your guts for awhile and feeling very bad with no gain in life and a cost of $5,400.

The question now is whether the chance of getting an additional 120 days of life is worth $5,400 (less insurance coverage) and of course the discomfort associated with chemotherapy. This is a subjective decision. One person might figure that he wants to live as long as possible to see his grandchild born whereas another person will not make that decision.

This is the essence of decision theory. You estimate costs and benefits and try to make a rational decision in the face of uncertainty.

Now let's consider whether you want to take resveratrol for cancer. There are 17,600 studies that indicate that resveratrol indicates apoptosis in cancer. The cost of even the best resveratrol (Longevix) is only about $32 a bottle. It is unlikely, however, that your insurance will cover any of this. On the bright side, no one has suffered nausea and vomiting from resveratrol so that's a plus. Then you put that in a decision matrix and work on that. Personally, from my point of view, the fact that resveratrol is substantially cheaper than other options and contains less severe side effects is a good indication that this is a good bet.

Why is this so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is that you seem to rely on peer reviewed (scientific) research in random ways. What gives you confidence about which one is reliable? By the way, I live in Switzerland. Which means I do not to have to worry about the costs of anything, with the possible exception of my insurance costs, which are independent from the illness I might get in the future.

Look at it this way. If someone comes up to you and says, "If you say slooweebob three times tonight, an alien will come to visit you within the next 12 months and give you $100 million," even though your personal belief in the truth of that statement is quite low, there is a good argument to be made in favor of saying slooweebob three times because A) the cost to you, if wrong, is nothing and the benefit, if right, is great.

Nope. i have been told that if I say slooweebob fourth times tonight, I will get the same 100 millions from the same alien. Or nothing. What should I do, in your opinion? What does decision theory say about that?

Well, most people think the test is going to be easy. So they come in and take a free test and score in the 350 range. They know that the median applicant to the university they want to go to is scoring 710. So they think that they must score 710 or better to have a 50 percent chance to get in. This is false, but you cannot dissuade these people (nor should you try). Then you charge them a lot of money, help them get their scores higher, and move on to the next. That's the system.

May I ask? Are you one of those corporate big business managers CEOs thing, or do you just teach how to get there?

Again, if you believe in science, then you should believe that a good GMAT score correlates well with the student doing well in the study program. I will be the first one to point out that correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, this system has been independently accepted by dozens of universities based on their own internal, proprietary information. They probably know something that I don't.

Probably. That is not so difficult

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Cambridge is not authoritative. The authoritative source is the Chicago Manual of Style.

Chicago? Is that in England? I am trying to speak English. Not Chicagoish. Or Illinoisish.

No, there are no spell checkers during the GMAT analytical writing assessment.


You see, the problem is that you are involved in appeals to authority without understanding what you are talking about. Let's look at the sentence you just put up there.

"My iPad knows English better than you."

What does this mean, exactly? You know what you meant to say, and I think I do too. However, have you considered the ambiguity involved in this sentence? What are the possible interpretations of the sentence?

A) My iPad knows English better than you know English.
B) My iPad knows English better than my iPad knows you.

You see? It's ambiguous. You don't even realize how the words that come out of your keyboard create potential confusion; much less are you prepared to mitigate this confusion.

On another forum, just yesterday, someone said: "Christians kill more people than Muslims." Did the speaker mean that Christians kill both people and Muslims, that Muslims are not people, and that Christians kill more people than Muslims? Perhaps...or perhaps not. The simple addition of the word "do" would have solved the ambiguity.

So I would point out to you the purpose of that little English word do. You see, had you said, "My iPad knows more English than you do" all the ambiguity would have disappeared! However, you're not interested in doing things the right way much less in avoiding ambiguity. If I pointed out that your sentence was missing the word "do" you would run off and find some wannabe expert from Cambridge who would say that the do is optional.

The problem is that you are ill-qualified to evaluate the worth of the advice you google.

You just made appeal to authority in the same post. Lol.

So, do you insist that "alright" is not an English word?

You really look like the black knight in that Monty Python movie

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

again, what is the evidence for creation?

One of the main things creationists talk about is how science backs up the Bible even though the Bible is not a science book. For example, God created fully adult creatures so we know that the chicken came before the egg or the oak tree before the acorn.

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

1. 
   Genesis 1:11,12
   Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. 
   Genesis 1:21
   So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. 
   Genesis 1:25
   And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.

 

[McBell]

One of the main things creationists talk about is how science backs up the Bible even though the Bible is not a science book. For example, God created fully adult creatures so we know that the chicken came before the egg or the oak tree before the acorn.

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

1. 
   Genesis 1:11,12
   Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. 
   Genesis 1:21
   So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. 
   Genesis 1:25
   And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.

if you were to put one tenth of the energy you use for ratification into searching out and understanding the truth....

 

[Vorkosigan]

One of the main things creationists talk about is how science backs up the Bible even though the Bible is not a science book. For example, God created fully adult creatures so we know that the chicken came before the egg or the oak tree before the acorn.

The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism.

1. 
   Genesis 1:11,12
   Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. 
   Genesis 1:21
   So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

1. 
   Genesis 1:25
   And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.

I think you are afraid that if the bible is wrong about this, then maybe it's wrong about everything else, may be there is no heaven, and that scares the sh*t out of you.

 

[jonathan180iq]

One of the main things creationists talk about is how science backs up the Bible even though the Bible is not a science book. For example, God created fully adult creatures so we know that the chicken came before the egg or the oak tree before the acorn.

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense... Science does not back up this idea at all.
Surely you have to realize that what you're referring to is simply "magic". A whole tree, grew out of the Earth, without a seed and without a simpler tree-like organism preceding it in lineage. That's what you're saying. That's ridiculous.

http://www.bomengids.nl/uk/tree-evolution.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants

http://forestry.about.com/od/ancientforests/a/Evolution-Of-Forests-And-Trees.htm
https://sites.google.com/site/paleo...onilophytes/cladoxylopsida/pseudosporochnales
https://nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133293&org=NSF

Genesis 1:11,12
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

A description written by nomads of a world that they understood - this does not in any way reflect the actual nature of reality or of biology.
If this Biblical description is accurate, then evidence of this would be present in the fossil record. It is not.

Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

You do realize, I hope, that the "winged birds of the air" would not have air to fly through (or breathe) were it not for the millions of years of plant respiration by billions upon billions of cyanobacteria which must have predated them... The same is true of the marine ecosystems that would have had to be in place ahead of time in order to support the fish and "creatures of the sea" in order for them to survive.

Have you really never bothered to ask yourself where the water and air came from? Isn't that something that 3 year olds ponder when they're staring out the window on a drive through the woods to grandma's house?

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God took entirely complex and differentiated organisms and placed them into environments that he had preconstructed to support their existence, but for some reason we don't consider those more primitive organisms, the very basis of Ecological energy transfer, to be as important to the story...Perhaps explaining how and why more complex organisms were able to evovle and survive would help you understand why your Biblical assertion is just looney.

http://eschooltoday.com/ecosystems/ecosystem-trophic-levels.html

The phrase “according to its kind” occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.

And how, pray tell, can you achieve a complex genetic code without first having a primitive and simpler one?

Also, what is reproductive integrity?
Also, what is a kind?

All life - all organisms - are of the "living" kind. So, isn't fair to argue, using your own logic, that life can adapt and change into other forms of life? Simple mosses can evolve into simple grasses, which can evolve into simple bushes, which can evolve into simple trees, which can evolve into redwood forests? Can't grass evolve into vegetable?

Do you like corn? I sure do, especially on the grill! Did you know it is an evolved organism, changed over just a few generations through artificial selection from what was essentially a wheat grass into the vegetable that you and I know and love today?

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/breeding-corn-teosinte

 

[Vorkosigan]

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense... Science does not back up this idea at all.
Surely you have to realize that what you're referring to is simply "magic". A whole tree, grew out of the Earth, without a seed and without a simpler tree-like organism preceding it in lineage. That's what you're saying. That's ridiculous.

http://www.bomengids.nl/uk/tree-evolution.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants

http://forestry.about.com/od/ancientforests/a/Evolution-Of-Forests-And-Trees.htm
https://sites.google.com/site/paleo...onilophytes/cladoxylopsida/pseudosporochnales
https://nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133293&org=NSF




A description written by nomads of a world that they understood - this does not in any way reflect the actual nature of reality or of biology.
If this Biblical description is accurate, then evidence of this would be present in the fossil record. It is not.



You do realize, I hope, that the "winged birds of the air" would not have air to fly through (or breathe) were it not for the millions of years of plant respiration by billions upon billions of cyanobacteria which must have predated them... The same is true of the marine ecosystems that would have had to be in place ahead of time in order to support the fish and "creatures of the sea" in order for them to survive.

Have you really never bothered to ask yourself where the water and air came from? Isn't that something that 3 year olds ponder when they're staring out the window on a drive through the woods to grandma's house?



God took entirely complex and differentiated organisms and placed them into environments that he had preconstructed to support their existence, but for some reason we don't consider those more primitive organisms, the very basis of Ecological energy transfer, to be as important to the story...Perhaps explaining how and why more complex organisms were able to evovle and survive would help you understand why your Biblical assertion is just looney.

http://eschooltoday.com/ecosystems/ecosystem-trophic-levels.html



And how, pray tell, can you achieve a complex genetic code without first having a primitive and simpler one?

Also, what is reproductive integrity?
Also, what is a kind?

All life - all organisms - are of the "living" kind. So, isn't fair to argue, using your own logic, that life can adapt and change into other forms of life? Simple mosses can evolve into simple grasses, which can evolve into simple bushes, which can evolve into simple trees, which can evolve into redwood forests? Can't grass evolve into vegetable?

Do you like corn? I sure do, especially on the grill! Did you know it is an evolved organism, changed over just a few generations through artificial selection from what was essentially a wheat grass into the vegetable that you and I know and love today?

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/breeding-corn-teosinte

Your patience is admirable.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Your patience is admirable.

Eh, I have a 5 year old and a kid in 4th grade. We spend lots of time talking about stuff like this.

 

[Zosimus]

So, your peer lonely reviewed article about gravitational influence travelling faster than light's, could be very well false.

You err because you assume that all scientific articles are findings. If, for example, someone published an article pointing out that the math in another article was done incorrectly, this is not a "finding."

What is hard to understand is that you seem to rely on peer reviewed (scientific) research in random ways.

Untrue.

What gives you confidence about which one is reliable?

By the way, I live in Switzerland. Which means I do not to have to worry about the costs of anything, with the possible exception of my insurance costs, which are independent from the illness I might get in the future.

Although you do not consider it a cost, the suffering that one might go through upon administration of chemotherapy is nevertheless considered a "cost" for the purpose of decision theory.

Nope. i have been told that if I say slooweebob fourth times tonight, I will get the same 100 millions from the same alien. Or nothing. What should I do, in your opinion? What does decision theory say about that?

This is an illustrative example. The point is that when the cost of something is low and the expected gain is high, the probability that a claim is true becomes a non-factor for the purposes of making decisions.

May I ask? Are you one of those corporate big business managers CEOs thing, or do you just teach how to get there?

I teach the GMAT test. I went on a blind date with this girl but found her completely unattractive. She seemed to like me and seemed to sense that I wasn't that into her, so she tried to sweeten the deal by getting me a better job. After a great deal of cajoling, she convinced me to go to her work and interview for a job. Part of that process involved me taking GMAT test 14, on which I scored nearly perfect. I got the job, and GMAT has been good to me ever since. What's the problem?

 

[Zosimus]

Chicago? Is that in England? I am trying to speak English. Not Chicagoish. Or Illinoisish.

The Chicago Manual of STYLE is a manual of STYLE, a quality you apparently lack. No one says that using the word "alright" or even "aint" without an apostrophe is not possible. These usages are, however, condemned by the Chicago Manual of Style and the GMAT Test very closely follows the Chicago Manual of Style, perhaps because the University of Chicago is part of the Graduate Management Admissions Council, which is the governing body for the test in question.

You just made appeal to authority in the same post. Lol.

Not so.

So, do you insist that "alright" is not an English word?

I do not. I have simply pointed out that it is in bad style.

I don't see much of a resemblance.

 

[viole]

You err because you assume that all scientific articles are findings. If, for example, someone published an article pointing out that the math in another article was done incorrectly, this is not a "finding."

Who cares? That is sufficient to invalidate the concusions of the article you claimed to have destroyed relativity. Which is not surprising, considering that relativity is pretty much alive and the theorem that proves you cannot send information faster than light's still hold. Despite all attempts to disprove both of them.

Or do you think that relativity is alive because of a mass conspiracy amongst scientists who, for some reason, love it so much they could not live without it?

Ciao

- viole