Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
So the lies continue, and the truckers will honk as long as they must to drown out the lies
But the thing you said was the biggest lie isn’t. (See above)
You’re not even defending it. Strike 1
Created:
Posted in:
So the lies continue, and the truckers will honk as long as they must to drown out the lies.
So strike 3.
So far you have conceded that:
- Vaccines are safe.
- Vaccines are effective.
- The government is not making people health decisions for them.
Let’s see how much more we can get you to conceed.
"protecting vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers"That has to be one of the greatest lies in modern Democracy.
It’s not really a lie though; for two reasons: firstly unvaccinated individuals at the time - and now - have put the biggest burden on health services. Hospitals resources taken up by unvaccinated individuals make it harder to get vaccinated people care if they have, say, a heart attack.
Secondly (recall you have conceded number 2), at the specific time, vaccinated individuals were much less likely to have break through infections, and infect others: meaning that being around vaccinated people only would absolutely reduce individual your risk.
Thirdly: transmission unfettered by vaccinations leads to variants. Reducing case count by removing unvaccinated individuals from locations that can widely already ; protects (or would have protected) individuals by reducing possibility of variants coming from unfettered transmission.
So in this case; there no evidence that this was actually it meaningful untrue to any degree, which renders your accusation that this is the greatest lie in modern democracy, is just patently absurd, and indicative of an troll arguing bad faith.
I await your capitulation on this point.
Created:
Posted in:
So the lies continue, and the truckers will honk as long as they must to drown out the lies
I’m sorry that pointing out reality makes you uncomfortable, no amount of wild assertions and name calling makes it true.
There is no enforced vaccination - no governmental mandate that individuals must be vaccinated; no overriding of your personal health decision.
You’re just making wild accusations, and not defending them: feel free to make an argument at any time - this is your second wild dodge - thus strike 2.
Created:
Posted in:
So the lies continue, and the truckers will honk as long as they must to drown out the lies
But it’s not a lie. They’re not vaccinated. No one is forcing them. The government is not making their health decisions for them; this is just deliberate misrepresentation without any attempt to defend the nonsense assertions . This is just bad faith trolling - Strike 1.
Created:
Posted in:
Unqualified politicians shouldn't be making personal health decisions normally entrusted by doctors."protecting vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers"That has to be one of the greatest lies in modern Democracy.So the lies continue, and the truckers will honk as long as they must to drown out the lies
And you keep changing the subject - the 5th time the claim you made was that vaccines where neither safe nor effective. A claim you still won’t defend.
So given this is now strike 3. We can now continue this conversation with the presumption that you concede that vaccines are both safe and effective.
Now we can cover the rest of this nonsense.
Vaccines being required in order to do specific things is not making a personal health decision for an individual. You and your doctor are still making that choice. This makes what you said a silly straw man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's trillions of tons of CO2 out of quadrillions of tons of breathable air. Proportions matter more than raw numbers.
Why do you think proportions matter?
The way co2 heats the earth is that a molecule of co2 allows visible light to pass through it, and absorbs and reflects infrared that hits it. The warning effect thus depends solely on how many molecules of co2 are in the atmosphere.
Percentage wise, it's about a 30% increase (it would be a 100% increase if the CO2 concentration went from 1 ppm to 2 ppm). It's a .012% increase if you subtract the following equation:.040% CO2-.028% CO2.
Yes: 280-450ppm is about a 30% increase. The weight of co2 in the atmosphere; the number of physical molecules of heating carbon dioxide has increased by 30%
CO2 traps heat, but not enough heat for a small concentration to be responsible for temperature increases of 4 degrees Celsius.
You’re fixated on concentration - the concentration doesn’t change the effect - only the total number of molecules.
I also would like to on what basis you feel that a trillion tons of co2 is “not enough”, it seems not to be based on any scientific or discernible argument.
If a planet has a lot of atmosphere (irrespective of what gas is in the atmosphere, but just that there is a gas in the atmosphere), then that planet will on average trap more heat than a planet with no atmosphere. This is why Venus is warmer than Mercury despite being father away from the sun, it has 20000x more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does. It's also why Mars, despite having an atmosphere 990000 ppm of CO2 is fairly cold when if it had Venus's atmosphere thickness, it would be 282 degrees Celsius (The Summary Page (indiana.edu)). This site claims that it's atmosphere thickness that matters with temperature of a planet irrespective of the type of gas that's in the atmosphere.
This is correct - your interpretation however misunderstands the word “irrespective” which in this context nears “not considering”, rather than “is not impacted by” carbon content and gas makeup has an impact on temperature - but not considering the makeup - thick atmospheres hold more heat than thin ones.
Earth's atmosphere is only about .4% CO2. If the amount of CO2 doubled, our atmospheric pressure would go from 1013.2 mb mb to 1017.2 mb. If the amount of CO2 increases by 30% (what has happened), then our atmospheric pressure goes from 1013.2 mb to 1014.2 mb. If a 1 mb increase in pressure leads to a 2-degree Celsius increase in temperature, then 100 extra mb in pressure leads to a 200-degree Celsius increase in temperature. Denver would be a frigid nightmare if this was the case; it's atmospheric pressure is 150 mb less than sea level (Does Denver Colorado have high air pressure? – SidmartinBio).
What on earth are you talking about? The increase in temperature is not due to increasing pressure - it’s due to co2 absorbing and reflecting infra red radiation.
I don't understand how the scientific consensus is right on climate change based on the evidence they have presented.
Given the above, the issue is with your understanding, not the evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
Here is the actual lie from an actual tyrant about "stopping the spread.""protecting vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers"That has to be one of the greatest lies in modern Democracy.It's not about health to these tyrants. It's all about power.If it was about health, they would be talking about natural immunity rates, exercise, good eating, and not mandates.Talk about healthy diets and exercise. Talk about building your immune system. Talk about taking vitamins.So the lies continue, and the truckers will honk as long as they must to drown out the lies
Your making outrageous and silly claims, to cover up the failure of previous outrageous and silly claims. I’m not falling for this attempt to derail reasoned debate
You made a stupid claim - I refuted that claim; and you’re now trying to not talk about the claim by changing the subject: please see my above post for why your original claim is nonsense.
This is the fourth time you changed the subject to avoid defending your claim; and I’m going to call it as strike 2
Created:
Posted in:
More lies from the fascist left. Unqualified politicians shouldn't be making personal health decisions normally entrusted by doctors.
Again - changing the subject for a third time. In reasoned discussion, you make a claim and then defend it. Making a claim, then repeatedly changing the subject and calling people names.
You cant safely self-inject like insulin or epinephrine, and it still doesn't stop the spread of a deadly virus. The politicians lied and said it would stop the spread when it clearly does not. They are still lying about this. Vaccinated people are allowed to carry the virus to anyone at-risk with no consequences.
You made a stupid statement, I disproved it. You changed the subject, I called you out, you made the stupid statement again, I repeated the disproof it. You changed the subject, I called you out: you are now making the stupid statement again.
Actual data from reality show it’s safe (as severe adverse events are incredibly rare), and effective (as it demonstrably shows a significant reduction of risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization and death).
The argument that anything that requires a medical professional must be unsafe is idiotic; and believing that only vaccines that completely eradicate a disease completely can be considered “effective” is equally stupid.
So let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and call this strike one.
Created:
Posted in:
There is nothing silly about making the point that a drug normally administered by a doctor shouldn't be prescribed by an unlicensed politician.
There is - but that would be changing the subject For the second time. You said that vaccines are neither safe nor effective - and used a silly point to defend it. Given that you’re not defending that silly claim - I can only presume that you agree that your argument was dumb, right?
Created:
Posted in:
They still aren't. You cant safely self-inject like insulin or epinephrine, and it still doesn't stop the spread of a deadly virus, despite the fascist propaganda.
Actual data from reality show it’s safe (as severe adverse events are incredibly rare), and effective (as it demonstrably shows a significant reduction of risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization and death).
The argument that anything that requires a medical professional must be unsafe is beyond idiotic; and believing that only vaccines that completely eradicate a disease completely can be considered “effective” is equally stupid. This ridiculous misrepresentation is just an example of dishonest bad faith trolling.
Making a silly point; changing the subject when it is disproven, and the repeating the stupid point again when challenged, is not indicative of good faith argument.
The tyrannical rule is lying to you as are others in this thread.
I think you’re confused about what tyranny and fascism are. You’re like a trust fund baby complaining that he is being abused because his parents won’t buy him a new Mercedes.
Things you don’t like != Tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
CHEMOTHERAPY: Shouldn't be mandated by politicians.ANESTHESIA: Shouldn't be mandated by politicians.
You were claiming the vaccines weren’t safe and effective. I’m concluding by your obvious deflection that you agree that your argument that claimed that they weren’t was categorically incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
The vaccine is neither safe nor effective. A drug that is so dangerous that it requires a licensed medical practitioner to administer it and then watch you for 30 minutes to make sure you don't die from an adverse reaction and is so ineffective that you can carry around the virus and still spread it around and kill all people around you shouldn't be mandated by a government official with zero medical training.
Actual data from reality show it’s safe (as severe adverse events are incredibly rare), and effective (as it demonstrably shows a significant reduction of risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization and death).
The argument that anything that requires a medical professional must be unsafe is beyond idiotic; and believing that only vaccines that completely eradicate a disease completely can be considered “effective” is equally stupid. This ridiculous misrepresentation is just an example of dishonest bad faith trolling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
HONK!
All of that is true, but a lot of is one offs; a lot of them are shouting at people wearing masks; or enforcing masks indoors. I was wearing my mask outside and got shouted for it, to which my response was that it was -20c and I’m wearing it because I can’t feel my cheeks any more.
Didn’t make it all the way down to parliament; but only a few blocks away; one point that has to be stressed is some of these horns are literally deafening. I feel for anyone living there.
It’s the typical reactionary paradigm. The world is changing, social hierarchies are changing; the economy is shifting, you can get fired for making racist or sexist jokes at work; and the trucking industry is about 17 Elon musk tweets away from being automated. The overwhelming majority of truckers are vaccinated, a small minority of anti-vaxx cranks started pushing back 8! the mandate; and the fringe groups and conservative sh*t stirrers - including from the US jumped into to steer and exploit the protests.
Obviously - they’re white and the Ottawa police are sort of idiots (handled much better in Toronto). All it would take for RCMP to come in and start cracking heads is someone to wave a “Give First Nations drinkable water” banner.
This is just culture war stuff; a convenient stand in; the canard de jour; a placeholder cause to which energy can be focused with a fig leaf of rationality when the real issue is grievance over all the things they feel they’ve lost or are losing. It starts in a rational place, but does end there.
It’s not about freedom. I mean wtf lol. This is a trust fund baby throwing a tantrum: objecting that they can’t simply do whatever you want without consequences - and conflating living with almost total personal freedom, which now require minor constraints in a pandemic - with examples of actual assaults on freedom.
Some First Nations communities have been under boiled water advisories for decades, the country engaged in cultural genocide where they are still digging up the bodies; if the issue they take with the Canadian government is not that, but the idea that they require you that a safe and effective vaccine in order to cross the border - then they have no concept of what freedom or oppression means.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not going to ignore your lies. You lie often and I will continue to call you out as the bullshit artist you are.
What I said is true and accurate - and actually broadly consistent with the video. I get it - my point makes you uncomfortable to you have to hurl accusations and insults at me to make it go away.
Created:
Posted in:
False. Most of the truckers protesting are already vaccinated. I already posted a clip about what they want, and none of it is what you are lying about in this thread.
You appear to have ignored the bulk of my post, which is actually accurate - if you’re only interested in bad faith responses and trolling - I will continue ignoring you.
Created:
Posted in:
They’re fighting for freedom and against fascism in the same way a 300lb guy shouting at his wife when she gives him one less slice of cheese on his 2lb burger is protesting against starvation.
It’s “fighting for freedom” and “fighting against fascism” for those who haven’t actually experienced anything close to resembling a loss of actual freedom, or fascism in any meaningful sense.
If you actually talk to them (I was down there last week, and had a chat), their issue isn’t with the specific role and limits of the government, they just don’t want to get vaccinated; they’d be cool with the government banning masks, hijabs, or arresting anyone protesting for clean drinking water, or any one of a billion other conservative aligned forms of government overreach. It’s just another big ol’ bad faith canard that people are using to justify hating on political opponents for irrational reasons under a fig leaf of reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Good point. CO2 is rising, but not by a large enough amount.
Why does that matter - your point was that if co2 rises, then plant absorption would balance it out. If co2 is rising - then that is clearly and indisputably not happening. Right?
How can plants be balancing out the rise in co2 if they are not balancing out the rise in co2?
This is true, but I fail to see how an increase in CO2 concentration of .012% can lead to a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature. If you multiply both sides by 20, you would be arguing that a mere .24% increase in CO2 concentration would lead to a 40 degree Celsius increase in temperature. There are probably cities with a concentration of CO2 exceeding .6% that aren't on fire due to the hot temperature.
Because it’s not the concentration that matter - it’s what the effect of that concentration does.
That increase of 120ppm, corresponds to a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which isn’t a 0.24% increase, but around a 30% increase.
Carbon dioxide traps heat. Can’t you imagine that a trillion tonnes of extra carbon dioxide would trap a bit more heat in the atmosphere?
If CO2 concentration caused a planet to be warm, then Mars would be a very hot planet because the atmosphere there is 990000 ppm of CO2.
I think your issue is a lack of scientific understanding. Walk me through what factors you feel effect how substantial or weak a greenhouse effect is?
Let’s think of a glass cabinet test rig. You supply heat to it with a lamp. You have an atmosphere inside, you can pump in and pump out carbon dioxide.
Venus has a strong lamp, the atmosphere in the cabinet is very thick (it’s under lots of pressure), and is almost all carbon dioxide. It will heat up a lot
Earth has a medium strength lamp, it has a fairly thick atmosphere inside, you increase the amount of co2 in the cabinet by 30%, it will heat up a little.
Mars has a weaker lamp, it has almost no atmosphere (nearly a vaccine), though what it has has almost all carbon. It heats up a tiny amount - the low pressure simply doesn’t have the heat capacity to retain as much heat.
Created:
Posted in:
They’re not fighting fascism. They’re Democracy Karen’s here to speak with the manager.
Created:
Posted in:
Absolutely not. If you have defective brain chemistry and you have chemical impulses that lead to your extinction, what you feel isn't important at all.
That’s only you’re feeling - so it’s clearly unimportant.
But as we established. We are destroying ecosystems. People rely on those ecosystems. It causes economic harm, and social upheaval, which is bad for humans, and why we should care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
As Greyparrot has blocked me, I don’t want to debate him. I’ll strengthen your positions instead. Value judgments have almost everything to do with natural selection when it comes to many species.
GP appears to be a troll who uses a specific set of argument tactics to derail reasoned conversations, by using over the top and clearly ridiculous hyperbolae to make a point; then constantly change the subject and deflect so that he has to defend nothing - as he’s doing here by raising hyperbolic statements about survival, and then constantly weave and dodge all subsequent conversations about the topic, without returning to discuss any of the points he’s raised; hence the constant repetition interspersed with baiting attempts.
He seems to block anyone who notices this, and tries to drag him back to the conversation.
I am trying to bring him back to the conversation about ecology, and climate change, but he seems not to be interested.
I mention this primarily as an aid to how to deal with this particular style of argument. It’s a very difficult trolling style to combat.
Created:
Posted in:
Has no bearing on natural selection. It either survives or it does not. Your feelings don't matter.
The first part is completely irrelevant. The middle part is meaningless tautology. The latter part is bullshit - because our collective feelings about what is important is critical to determining actions.
At this point, I’m not even sure why you’re here; we’ve clearly established the need to maintain and preserve ecosystems, and established your objections are largely irrelevant. Is there any purpose to continually changing the subject and avoiding defending anything you just said?
Created:
Posted in:
And another capitulation!
Important things survive, that's the end of the discussion really. Your feelings don't matter.
What a load of utter incoherent rambling nonsense. Sometimes I think you’re saying things that are this stupid on purpose just to utterly confound people who are here in good faith.
“Importance” is a human concept that we attribute to things - so it’s based on our feelings (it has no meaning in nature - nature doesn’t care) as is your conclusion that we shouldn’t take any actions - so you’re using your feelings to argue our feelings don’t matter - which is odd, and it’s all completely separate and unrelated to whether something survives.
Some Things survive some things don’t - a fair amount of this thread is about whether certain things surviving Impact us, and whether it would be beneficial for us to do something about it.
This doesn’t seem to be a point as much as something you’re trying to hide behind, so you don’t actually have to defend your actual beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
And another capitulation on another point. Given up on the importance of the ecosystem to us, the irrelevance of natural selection
And back to the troll repetition!
People lie all the time about what they really want and what is "vital." It's how they resolve dissonance. The proof is in the pudding as they say.
Even were this thunderous buffoonery correct - which it is not - it is also completely irrelevant to what is being said
Whether or not we are hypocrites about anything doesn’t impact whether various things are important or not.
You’re using this to try and change the subject away from all the points you’ve capitulated on.
Created:
Posted in:
The sky is blue
Lol wrong
There are 1000m in a kilometre
lol wrong.
You will die if you fire yourself into the sun wearing just a Hawaiian shirt
Lol wrong.
Your ability to say something is wrong, does not make something wrong. Don’t let me stop you from spending four pages to avoid a debate whilst on a debate website, but no - it’s not wrong because:
Natural selection is a process by which alleles in a population change frequency due to survival benefit they confer to their possessor.
It has no relevance as to whether we as humans rely on something or not.
But hey, what division tactic are you going to try next. You went with changing the subject (failed), repeatedly throwing out george Carlin (failed), telling me I’m wrong (failed).
I can only hope that mayhaps you will actually enter a good faith reasoned discussion before you decide that literally flinging feces at passers by in order to avoid defending your position is all you have left.
Created:
Posted in:
You forgot to make a stupid banal comment about George Carlin. Don’t worry - you still managed to avoid the argument
According to natural selection, the answer is clearly no.
Natural selection is a process by which alleles in a population change frequency due to survival benefit they confer to their possessor. It’s completely irrelevant as:
It is unrelated to whether an ecosystem is destroyed or not; only how organisms change during and after (note: they typically mostly die)
It is also unrelated to whether an ecosystem is important to us as humans (which is based on economics, culture, carrying capacity and logistics).
This is already covered under the above: Is climate change happening (yes), are we destroying important ecosystems (yes), is that important (yes), should we care? (Yes - it has massive implications)
When are you going to stop consuming the top 25 of that list? Until then, it's all empty platitudes and bullshit.
This is also irrelevant and covered above. Is destroying an ecosystem okay because people are sometimes hypocrites about climate change (no).
Do I want to lose weight: yes. Is fitness and decreasing my BMI important for my long term fitness: yes. Do I exercise enough: no. Do I eat too much pizza: yes.
The latter does not impact the former.
I could have a very large sociological discussion about how the configuration of society and capitalism effects it; but given that you have made no effort to argue with any good faith, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even get this far.
Created:
Posted in:
Carlin and his enlightened audience knew this, much to the consternation of the monkeys that would criticize him.
Irrelevant troll.
Please refer back to previously established arguments.
Is climate change happening (yes), are we destroying important ecosystems (yes), is that important (yes), should we care? (Yes - it has massive implications), did you interpret the maths wrong in Venus (yes), did you get your understanding of the properties of limestone wrong (yes), does it matter that major climate change has happened before (no), does it matter that ecosystems have been destroyed before (no), is destroying an ecosystem okay because humans protect themselves from the environment (no), is destroying an ecosystem okay because they’ve been destroyed before (no), is destroying an ecosystem okay because people are sometimes hypocrites about climate change (no).
Your current trolling is an obvious deflection from your total capitulation on all these points.
Created:
Posted in:
It's fine. there's plenty of people that find Carlin's humor exposing climate fraudsters and prophets of doom. But don't forget to drop your offering into the collection plate on your way out. Al Gore needs a new solar panel for his mansion. The grand poobah of the religion of climate doom.
Called it!
And again - completely dodged everything.
I’m not biting in the obviously dishonest troll bait attempt.
Ecosystems have been destroyed long before humans, and will continue to be destroyed. You don't get to choose. Natural selection chooses. And man is part of nature.
Obvious trolling again. Are you able to engage in good faith.
The argument is about whether we are destroying an ecosystem (we are), and whether we should care (we should), and why (because we will be harmed).
We do indeed get to chose whether we destroy an ecosystem - you said so yourself.
And drawing you back to the first post - while you maybe anxious to dress up in bondage gear and drive across the desert, most rational human beings would prefer not to cause massive social, political and economic upheaval; regardless of whether the earth will be fine.
Carlin and his enlightened audience knew this, much to the consternation of the monkeys that would criticize him.
Not biting at your obvious attempt to derail the conversation. But hey, go ahead repeating it a million times.
Created:
Posted in:
I can only offer you the same advice Carlin gave us. Go spend some time alone with nature. Be a host for the thousands of things that want to consume your body, and then come back with your pretentious bullshit and start talking about how much of a threat to the planet you feel today.30 Billion chickens agree.I can tell you are no fan of Carlin because he exposes frauds. In a funny way of course.
What you’re doing here is particularly bad faith trolling. While everyone else appears to be having a discussion in good faith, your replies are specifically targeted to try and derail the conversation. I’m going to explain the detail - but a nice little summary is that you have completely failed to say anything particularly valid, you haven’t addressed a single thing anyone has levelled at you, much less actually defended anything - but you simply post repeatedly as if you had.
It’s particularly hard for someone who is honest to deal with this; because really, what can you say to someone who is arguing as if everyone else is saying nothing. You clearly understand and appreciate that you’re ignoring the details everyone is saying, missing the point by just enough to sound as if you have - it’s just intentional pissing one peoples heads and telling them it’s raining.
For example: you started off just lobbing little argument grenades, and sniping - this is where you just throw out an objection, with the goal of saying as little as possible, for making others arguing in good faith to say as much as you can make them.
If you pay attention you’ve failed to defend everything you’ve said:
-Your argument that climate change is fine because previous apocalypses haven’t killed everyone (patently dumb).
-Your argument that Venus was 70 degrees completely missed the point (and was simply pulled of the web, and I doubt you understand the maths)
-You made an error with misunderstanding thermal breakdown of a given material.
-You confuse protection from nature with destruction of nature.
-And you confuse individuals being hypocrites - with the validity of one portion of what they are being hypocrites about.
Obviously; you have defended none of this, and are simply made replying as if you said something valid.
Same again in this reply, you’ve just made the same reply you just said a couple of posts earlier, and instead of defending what you said, or addressing what I said, you’ve just tried to bait the conversation with dangling statements about George Carlin.
That’s a particularly shitty troll move; but typically effective, where you drop in something hoping that people can’t resist addressing it, knowing that if they do, it’s derailed the conversation.
If you want to have an actual discussion on climate change, feel free; I encourage it. What you’re doing is not that; in fact, what you’re doing is going out of your way to completely avoid having an actual discussion.
I can reasonably predict that instead of actually defending what you said: and explain why you feel that there is no difference protecting ourself from nature and destroying an entire ecosystem (you can’t because it’s an obvious attempt to troll), you’re just going to reiterate the same thing again, you’re going deliberately avoid the discussion - and continue trolling.
Created:
Posted in:
People with basic herd instincts often predictably virtue signal that they are ecological Luddites (lies to get accepted into the herd), but in the end, they all make trips to the same strip malls when nobody is there to call them out on their bullshit.
This is exactly what you’re doing. It’s simply right wing virtue signalling. Oppose facts, oppose the reality, throw out strawman, find random quora quotes you don’t understand to oppose any questioning of your orthodoxy.
I mean - you’re not really questioning the data, you’re not even really questioning the outcome; merely trying to bash people who believe it.
Like I said, the stupid strawman that just because nature is dangerous, or is unlikely to kill everyone -means that it’s fine to destroy large parts of it - is still pretty stupid, regardless of how much value you attack to virtue signal your own happy group of luddites.
But given that you’re just really suggesting that it’s fine to wreak whatever ecological damage we want to the world because people who think we’re committing ecological damage go to strip malls: is really about the level of rational thought we have all come to expect.
Created:
Posted in:
That's entirely plausible. Man has been terraforming the planet to become a human biome from the first shelter built, and will continue to do so.This planet is still entirely hostile to humans and needs further taming.
There is somewhat of a difference between building a house to keep you warm and dry, and causing systemic ecological collapse across multiple biomes; reducing key biodiversity in key ecosystems, and damaging the underlying carrying capacity of the land, and will inevitably uproot current economies and agriculture.
I’m not Sure why you’re so irrationally hell bent on downplaying climate change with this type of ridiculous nonsense; given the current environment, it seems A case of monkey see monkey do; but the bottom line here is that climate change is unquestionably going to bring about unprecedented economic and social upheaval that vastly dwarfs the impacts of adjusting our energy policy today - adjustments that we’re literally going to have to make anyway over the next century.
Your time here would be best served thinking, rather than googling half relevant quora answers that align with the party line that you feel compelled to defend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
CO2 is going up slightly
CO2 has increased from around 280ppm to 415ppm, which is an increase of almost 50% in the last 100 years. This is not “slightly”.
But - before we change the subject - it shouldn’t be, right. You just said that plants would be increasing their absorbtion by growing larger - co2 is rising and they’re clearly not - so what you said is incorrect.
but if there are only 120 ppm in the atmosphere more (.012% extra), I fail to see how this would single handedly lead to temperature rises of 2 degrees Celsius. This would be like saying if 1.2% extra of the atmosphere was CO2 (100x the increase than in our planet), then this is somehow supposed to lead to temperatures increasing 200 degrees Celsius. I'm not saying the scientific consensus is wrong, I just don't know why they would be right with such a small CO2 increase nominally and I don't think it's wise to believe something just because smarter people believe in something. Otherwise, we would let the smartest 1000 people in the world be the sole dictators of the world.
This is also bad logic.
The amount of co2 in the atmosphere is now at 415ppm. At 415ppm cyanide - we’d all be dead. The concentration is not relevant - it’s the impact of that concentration, and the total volume it represents that is important.
120ppm corresponds to nearly 1,000,000,000,000 tones of carbon dioxide. While 120ppm may not sound like a lot, we’d both agree that one thousands gigatonnes in the atmosphere is a substantial amount, no?
Created:
Posted in:
So what? Humans once ate passenger pigeons to extinction while chickens are now one of the most populous birds in the world. Nobody cares.
So let’s ignore the earlier hilariously idiotic attempt to justify inaction by downplaying the significance of mass extinctions; this is sort of hilarious too.
Firstly, perhaps it maybe lost on you; but there is a difference between a single random species going extinct, and a critical species upon which major ecosystems depend going extinct: the latter is kind of a big deal as historically it triggers what is known as “ecological collapse” - because the death of coral isn’t limited to coral - but to all the species that depend on them, and all the species that depend on those.
Who cares? Coastal communities that economically depend on them, or on other species that depend on them ; all of us on the grounds that coral helps absorb carbon dioxide, anyone who is adversely impacted by the knock on effects of the collapsed ecosystem. Finally - all of us, because if an ecosystem collapses, the people that depend on it have to then rely on another ecosystem to survive: which would place additional burden other already stressed ecosystem.
But hell, if you think we can all live of battery farmed chicken, and that large scale ecological disruption from climate change is fine, drop your crypto and go for shares in Buy N Large.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
I hate myself, as my obscene wealth, good looks and 10 inch penis prevent woman from really appreciating my genius level intellect.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah but to get to that emissivity, you would have to move the earth to Venuses orbit so that the 70 degree Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature can start breaking the carbon out of the limestone. It's way too cold where Earth is in its current orbit for this to happen. A planetary catch 22.
Anyone who owns a kettle should be able to figure out that limestone doesn’t thermally decompose at 70 degrees.
Created:
Posted in:
If Venus had an atmosphere with the same heat emissivity as Earth, its average temperature would be about 70 Celsius. This follows pretty easily from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, since Venus gets about twice the solar energy, its temperature would be 2^0.25 times higher. Too hot for life.
Ignoring for a moment that you quoted this directly from quora, so I’m not entirely sure how much it you understand; Venus with a similar greenhouse effect as earth, would indeed be around 70 degrees (343k).
What you want to do, though, is the other way around and figure out what earth would be like with venuses emissivity - which is what Reece was implying.
Venus has a surface temperature of 495 Celsius - 770K, which if you apply Stefan Boltzman in the same way, would mean you have to multiple by 0.5^0.25 - or half the incident radiation, would would yield 770 x 0.84 - or 664K or 390 degrees.
Checking the maths with my astrophysicist friends - I am assured that this is indeed higher than 70 degrees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The equilibrium would balance. If there is more CO2 in the air, then plants can get bigger and absorb more CO2, leading to more CO2 being produced, but also more CO2 being consumed.Sorry I can't respond to everything you said, but I have a lot of comments to get to.
If that were true - then CO2 wouldn’t be going up - but it is. Hence what you said can’t be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Don’t worry about climate change: the earth has gone through major climate change and extinction events. The earth has been warmer before with higher carbon dioxide levels at the Permian-Triassic boundary - 30% of species survived that. Even the chixulub impact spared 25% species. Even when the majority of humans on the planet were wiped out by a super volcano, some still survived.
The bottom line here, is there is absolutely no need to worry or do anything about impending climate change that threatens our way of life or uproot life as we know it through scarcer food and water resources, extreme weather events, or wars resulting from changing climate - simply hope that you are one of the lucky few who always survive such events; and plan accordingly by storing up old dune buggies, rusty metal and bondage gear so that you can be properly prepared to prance around the desert if society collapses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Contention 1
This contention acknowledges rising co2 levels, acknowledges the role of co2 in heat capture - so it must acknowledge the world is heating up.
It’s hard to untangle the logic; but it seems the contention is that humans are not adding much co2 to the earth, so the contribution must not be due them.
This a particularly bad argument.
The carbon cycle has huge volumes of transfer from the air to other reservoirs. Too and from the sea, to and from trees, many of these are short term; for example carbon captured by trees and grass is returned when they decompose.
The issue with your logic is that it’s clear that the capacity for the earth to remove co2 from the air, exceeds its ability to remove it.
Natural sources adding and removing carbon have generally been in reasonable equilibrium - until humans started dumping vast quantities of co2 from long term stores into the air.
If, say, a river flood plain can only drain the volume of water from typical rainfall, but not much more; only a fairly small rainfall event in comparison to total river flow is necessary to cause flooding. The same way with humans - the volume of carbon releases naturally is huge; but human activity has pushed the earth beyond its ability to remove it. A big part of preventing the flood, or reducing its severity, is to improve river flow, or decrease the amount of water going in by an equivalent amount (which itself is an issue, as going too far will cause global cooling)
Given that we can neither prevent trees from rotting when they die, or stop volcanoes exploding - targeting carbon reduction to the places we can have the biggest contribution is automatically the most appropriate solution.
Note: the biggest source of long term carbon release is volcanos ; the remainder is short term exchange between oceans, plants and animals. We can meaningfully tell our contribution to this carbon in the atmosphere is going up, as the carbon in oil and gas has a different isotopic ratio than carbon cycling in the air; the ratio in the air is changing in a way that reflects higher content from fossil fuels
Contention 2
A collection of individuals not acting in a way you feel is consistent with their ascribed belief does not - in any way, shape, form or manner - indicate whether the thing they believe in is true.
For the conclusion to follow, humans would need to be physically unable to follow any path of action in consistent with a given belief if there were any other possible alternative.
We know that is definitively untrue
This contention acknowledges rising co2 levels, acknowledges the role of co2 in heat capture - so it must acknowledge the world is heating up.
It’s hard to untangle the logic; but it seems the contention is that humans are not adding much co2 to the earth, so the contribution must not be due them.
This a particularly bad argument.
The carbon cycle has huge volumes of transfer from the air to other reservoirs. Too and from the sea, to and from trees, many of these are short term; for example carbon captured by trees and grass is returned when they decompose.
The issue with your logic is that it’s clear that the capacity for the earth to remove co2 from the air, exceeds its ability to remove it.
Natural sources adding and removing carbon have generally been in reasonable equilibrium - until humans started dumping vast quantities of co2 from long term stores into the air.
If, say, a river flood plain can only drain the volume of water from typical rainfall, but not much more; only a fairly small rainfall event in comparison to total river flow is necessary to cause flooding. The same way with humans - the volume of carbon releases naturally is huge; but human activity has pushed the earth beyond its ability to remove it. A big part of preventing the flood, or reducing its severity, is to improve river flow, or decrease the amount of water going in by an equivalent amount (which itself is an issue, as going too far will cause global cooling)
Given that we can neither prevent trees from rotting when they die, or stop volcanoes exploding - targeting carbon reduction to the places we can have the biggest contribution is automatically the most appropriate solution.
Note: the biggest source of long term carbon release is volcanos ; the remainder is short term exchange between oceans, plants and animals. We can meaningfully tell our contribution to this carbon in the atmosphere is going up, as the carbon in oil and gas has a different isotopic ratio than carbon cycling in the air; the ratio in the air is changing in a way that reflects higher content from fossil fuels
Contention 2
A collection of individuals not acting in a way you feel is consistent with their ascribed belief does not - in any way, shape, form or manner - indicate whether the thing they believe in is true.
For the conclusion to follow, humans would need to be physically unable to follow any path of action in consistent with a given belief if there were any other possible alternative.
We know that is definitively untrue
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
My guy, not only have I been saying this all along, but also you engaged me. Who did I strawman?
You’ve been making the broad argument all along - here you are misrepresenting the nature of how samples are chosen and applied - implying it is just an arbitrary uncontrolled unscientific sample that doesn’t account for a multitude of factors, causal processes and groups
No. I have a 50% chance of death. It will either kill me or it wont
Lol no. That there 2 possible options does not mean they are equally likely. This demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of probability.
Categorically false.
No. This is basic probability of events with replacement. This is a basic high school maths example I cited, and if you think this categorically false would lead you to fail any probability segment of a mathematics course. The probability of a random selected ball being blue is total blue/total population.
Then how does this contradict my argument that the sampling is contingent on it's assumptive parameters, rendering it essentially guesswork?
Your “guesswork” conclusion is predicated on the assumptions being untested, unreliable, arbitrary or some combination rendering them easily incorrect. The reality, as shown, is that they can be systematically validated in order to correct for errors and sources of bias; rendering it a more reliable solution - not guess work.
I'm not making a repeated error of assuming risk statistics explicitly apply to me personally. I'm using myself as an exemplar for the individual.
You’re entire point is that the statistical data doesn’t account for your personal circumstances. Which means you’re viewing the risk statistics as if they should incorporate all your personal conditions to be valid. That’s the error you continue to make the conflation of personal risk and aggregated risk.
The issue is you’re not thinking about what the statistic means or how it applies correctly. Akin to complaining that cars are bad because they don’t fly.
Thus, non-predictive. If they do not explicitly apply to individual individually, then the sampling means squat to the prospects of the individual.
That group data doesn’t express your exact personal risk - which remains unknown - does not imply that the data itself “means squat”. That is another non-sequitor; it only “means squat” if the data has no value to or gives no benefit to an individual if they use or follow it.
Composite stats about poker hands will not tell me my probability of winning a specific hand exactly taking into consideration other players cards at the time; does not mean that the data cannot be validly used to instruct or inform actions.
Vaccines lower group risk. You could assume your change in risk is completely unknown, and base your actions and behaviours on arbitrary factors for which you have no factual basis to assess outcome - or you can inform your behaviour based on group decrease in risk - which is at least grounded on the factual basis that whilst not accounting for you personally is based on a collection of people that are similar to you.
In the former, you have no basis to conclude any action one way or another will be valid; in the latter, you have a factual basis that vaccines decrease the risk for your specific group, and the factual basis to conclude the vaccine reduces the risk from a statistically noticeable number of people statistically indistinguishable from you.
As such, whilst not representative of your exact risk - which you have little ability to quantify - it does indeed provide a definitive factual basis of risk reduction that applies to people that share predictive traits upon which you can base decisions. That determination is means substantially more than “squat”
Composite stats about poker hands will not tell me my probability of winning a specific hand exactly taking into consideration other players cards at the time; does not mean that the data cannot be validly used to instruct or inform actions.
Vaccines lower group risk. You could assume your change in risk is completely unknown, and base your actions and behaviours on arbitrary factors for which you have no factual basis to assess outcome - or you can inform your behaviour based on group decrease in risk - which is at least grounded on the factual basis that whilst not accounting for you personally is based on a collection of people that are similar to you.
In the former, you have no basis to conclude any action one way or another will be valid; in the latter, you have a factual basis that vaccines decrease the risk for your specific group, and the factual basis to conclude the vaccine reduces the risk from a statistically noticeable number of people statistically indistinguishable from you.
As such, whilst not representative of your exact risk - which you have little ability to quantify - it does indeed provide a definitive factual basis of risk reduction that applies to people that share predictive traits upon which you can base decisions. That determination is means substantially more than “squat”
No it doesn't. Only the fallacious reasoning based on misinterpretation unwittingly or not of statistics.
Straw man. As shown your interpretation of the ecological fallacy is so broad it applies to any case where composite statistics is used to inform specific actions of an individual as you so eloquently said, group stats are “non predictive”. This renders insurance a fallacious application of statistics; it renders medical decisions that take into account efficacy of medications fallacious. You’re painting the ecological fallacy as invalid whenever statistics are applied to an individual - given that almost every form of stats involve falling down to that - you basically invalidate statistics.
Don’t smoke or drink while pregnant - that is fallacious. Don’t inhale lead vapour as it harms your intelligence - fallacious. Don’t expose yourself to large amounts of radiation, as it increases your risk of cancer, or immediate risk of death. Don’t drink and drive. Wear a seat belt. All fallacious conclusions.
The statement “don’t drink bleach” - expresses the risk based on aggregated stats; and is fallacious by this logic too too. After all, how do we really know your personal risk factors in that scenario. Aggregated stats aren’t predictive of individual outcomes.
Don’t smoke or drink while pregnant - that is fallacious. Don’t inhale lead vapour as it harms your intelligence - fallacious. Don’t expose yourself to large amounts of radiation, as it increases your risk of cancer, or immediate risk of death. Don’t drink and drive. Wear a seat belt. All fallacious conclusions.
The statement “don’t drink bleach” - expresses the risk based on aggregated stats; and is fallacious by this logic too too. After all, how do we really know your personal risk factors in that scenario. Aggregated stats aren’t predictive of individual outcomes.
Statistics once again do not predict outcomes. They capture trends.
Bare assertion - and irrelevant - the above post you largely ignored details how statistics can be used predictively.
Reproducibility of any given event using statistics has not and cannot be sufficiently controlled.
Bare assertion - and irrelevant. The above posts cover the mechanisms and approaches that allow statistics can be predictive despite not having individual events being reproducible.
In fact - an entire explanation using dice in a warehouse demonstrates this, as does the sampling explanation covered above. You have simply dismissed these both with empty assertions, or reiterating the same claim these explanations disprove. This is yet another example of your disjoint, incoherent argument strategy.
In fact - an entire explanation using dice in a warehouse demonstrates this, as does the sampling explanation covered above. You have simply dismissed these both with empty assertions, or reiterating the same claim these explanations disprove. This is yet another example of your disjoint, incoherent argument strategy.
Good to see you've presented a distinction between the "pick" reflecting a 95% probability and the ball itself having a 95% chance of being a particular color.
Straw man - at no point, at any time throughout this entire post, and all my replies have I ever, at any point - confused the two: the reason I haven’t, is that in this the specific example - the latter has no practical meaning.
No, only FALLACIOUS REASONING.
Bare assertion. Note: in all examples I have provided an explanation of why what you’re saying is untrue, or false. Simply all caps ranting at how wrong I am is neither valid, nor rational.
Yes, it does.
Bare assertion. I explained why it does not.
You accuse me of not understanding statistics, yet you make a statement like this? No, that is not the ecological fallacy.
He asserts again.
It’s a textbook ecological fallacy. Assuming trends on the individuals from the west are the same as for the group as a whole.
It’s a textbook ecological fallacy. Assuming trends on the individuals from the west are the same as for the group as a whole.
I do not require an explanation. I know what the fallacy is and how its applied.
He asserts again.
You do not understand the fallacy and are applying it too broadly. I’ve presented a detailed argument explaining what you’re getting wrong, how and why.
You’re responses have simply been asserting that I am wrong - an intellectually bankrupt response.
You do not understand the fallacy and are applying it too broadly. I’ve presented a detailed argument explaining what you’re getting wrong, how and why.
You’re responses have simply been asserting that I am wrong - an intellectually bankrupt response.
Avoid a "big part" of the fallacy? Reasoning can be fallacious in parts?
Evasion. I describe in detail how the fallacy is avoided. What I said either avoids the fallacy, or it does not. Complaining about specific verbiage instead of the argument is a red herring.
No, it doesn't because of the limitations of the sampling.
Assertion
No, it would only be valid if the argument was, "95% of the sample, according to our data, have died from the COVID-19 virus." The ecological fallacy would be imputed if this argument becomes predictive and renders that an individual ascribed to a group dictated by the parameters of the sampling has 95% chance of dying.
Assertion.
I have explained why this is not the case above. Your response has been to assert that I am wrong multiple times, and to deliberately evade my central thesis - addressing literally none of the substance of anything I’ve actually said.
If you’re not willing to offer anything but repeated assertion, no logic, no reasons, no justification - nothing of substance in response to my repeated efforts to consistently provided justification for everything I am saying; it is clearly you are intellectually incapable of having a debate.
I have explained why this is not the case above. Your response has been to assert that I am wrong multiple times, and to deliberately evade my central thesis - addressing literally none of the substance of anything I’ve actually said.
If you’re not willing to offer anything but repeated assertion, no logic, no reasons, no justification - nothing of substance in response to my repeated efforts to consistently provided justification for everything I am saying; it is clearly you are intellectually incapable of having a debate.
Both are ecological inference fallacies.
Bare assertion. A false assertion at that.
One makes an inference about a sub-set of individuals based on aggregate data; the other does not make an inference you as an individual - only the group you are part of. To say you personally have a risk of 95% because you are UFPM would be fallacious; contextualizing the risk as a group risk removes the individual inference.
This is a nuance I have been trying to beat you over the head with for the last 5 posts and which you still seem not to grasp.
But of course, each time I explain in detail, justifying the reasons why, you assert that I am wrong without justification.
One makes an inference about a sub-set of individuals based on aggregate data; the other does not make an inference you as an individual - only the group you are part of. To say you personally have a risk of 95% because you are UFPM would be fallacious; contextualizing the risk as a group risk removes the individual inference.
This is a nuance I have been trying to beat you over the head with for the last 5 posts and which you still seem not to grasp.
But of course, each time I explain in detail, justifying the reasons why, you assert that I am wrong without justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What you or I care about is not the subject of debate. Any impressions on my "tone" are entirely irrelevant; hence, unwelcome.
This is a debate site, your style and strategy makes it impossible to hold a discussion. In your previous two replies - and these subsequent three - you completely and systematically avoid addressing any portion of my primary argument or it’s justification - you barely even mention my central contention, nor any of the points used to under pin it - with the exception of a throwaway assertion for which you use to avoid dealing with anything I said - the remainder of your replies are side bars, unrelated to the central point and are dancing around the actual contention.
Your replies are systematically evading any actual discussion about what is being debated - and your ridiculous focus on raising 1000 sub arguments without any cohesive counter argument.
The strategy you employ not only allows you to not have a debate in any of the actual arguments raised; but seems deliberately targeted at driving an entire topic deliberately off the rails with incessant quote laddering, that precludes structured reply.
You may not like taking criticism of your ability and style; but the way you are attempting to respond is not really a debate on an argument - those things attempt to provide structured justifications or rebuttals on a point being raised or justified - it is a complete evasion of debate, confusing the blurting out that someone is wrong, is a substitute for an explanation - and calling you on out on behaviour antithetical to holding a debate on debate website is not just valid - it’s is necessary.
Your replies are systematically evading any actual discussion about what is being debated - and your ridiculous focus on raising 1000 sub arguments without any cohesive counter argument.
The strategy you employ not only allows you to not have a debate in any of the actual arguments raised; but seems deliberately targeted at driving an entire topic deliberately off the rails with incessant quote laddering, that precludes structured reply.
You may not like taking criticism of your ability and style; but the way you are attempting to respond is not really a debate on an argument - those things attempt to provide structured justifications or rebuttals on a point being raised or justified - it is a complete evasion of debate, confusing the blurting out that someone is wrong, is a substitute for an explanation - and calling you on out on behaviour antithetical to holding a debate on debate website is not just valid - it’s is necessary.
Your impressions of my style are irrelevant.
Assertion
Your incapacity to understand does not render incoherence.
Ad Hom. I explained their incoherence in the previous post. Insulting me instead of dealing with it is fallacious.
Your disjoint replies that fail to make a consistent argument at all - which I pointed out - makes it incoherent.
"Seem" is not an argument.
Non sequitor. The paragraph makes a point: the point is not rendered invalid because I used the word “seem”
Seem once again is not an argument.
Non sequitor. The paragraph makes a point: the point is not rendered invalid because I used the word “seem”
You require instruction on how and why humans and dice are different?
Straw man. I require you to explain why the cited difference impacts the comparison. You are misrepresenting my objection, and attacking this misrepresentation.
A non sequitur is a conclusion which doesn't logically extend a premise or previously stated argument. I assumed you knew what it was. So when I declare your conclusion a "non sequitur" I am in fact stating that your conclusion does not reflect my premise or previously stated argument. That is, the dispute is not the "validity" of probability.
Irrelevant / What you cited was a statement not a conclusion; thus non-sequitor doesn’t apply.
Nope, not even in the slightest.
Assertion.
Probabilities represents the occurrence of an event with respect to ALL KNOWN possible events.
Irrelevant. Two descriptions can be true at the same time. Also a non-sequitor - that my description is wrong does not follow from your description.
an estimation of an event given known conditions by summing the impacts of [all known] factors that cause the results of an event to be different.
False. Factors that cause the events absolutely need not be known to estimate probabilities. The point of my statement is that the opposite is true - and indeed a key reason why probability is useful .
Not an objection; they're questions. Does it matter? You tell me.
Then it’s irrelevant.
And how have you controlled for this?
This is covered in the above parts of the post which you ignored (note: this is an example of your disjoint incoherence which precludes reasoned debate - taking items in isolation not caring or forgetting that they are covered as a wider part of the argument)
You mean your attempt to compare people to dice? People aren't dice isn't an empty objection; it's a fact.
Another text book Straw man. My objection is not that you said humans were dice, or that they are the same as dice. My contention is that claiming the conclusion that my comparison is invalid does not follow from the premise that humans are dice are different in multiple ways - a non sequitor.
Your argument would only be valid if a key difference has a critical impact on the comparison being drawn. Which it doesn’t.
Your argument would only be valid if a key difference has a critical impact on the comparison being drawn. Which it doesn’t.
Do you know what an objection is? Because that wasn't one. It was clarification.
“an expression or feeling of disapproval or opposition; a reason for disagreeing.”
It was indeed an objection; by definition. An empty one as it provides no justification. It was a clear expression of opposition, and suggested a reason for disagreeing.
It was indeed an objection; by definition. An empty one as it provides no justification. It was a clear expression of opposition, and suggested a reason for disagreeing.
How does one test for this representation?
Covered in the remainder of the posts you dismissed. Again - this is why your posts are disjoint and incoherent.
Then you've submitted an irrelevant point to the purview of this discussion.
No: you contended I meant something I did not, and attacked it. The issue is not my relevance, but that you made a straw man.
This is nonsensical.
Bare assertion. Why?
If the risk is not an explicit prediction of what would happen to an individual personally, why would would it be an explicit prediction considering a composite of individuals?
For the reasons I detailed at length my previous post, and to which I was redirecting you.
This is FALLACIOUS REASONING.
Bare assertion - you provide no attempt to justify the conclusion. The conclusion that the reasoning is fallacious does not follow from your question, even if rephrased - rendering this yet another Non sequitur.
"Seem" is not an argument.
Non sequitor. The paragraph makes a point: the point is not rendered invalid because I used the word “seem”
You have the detail, but not the validation.
Bare assertion. What part of my validation do you not agree with?
This acknowledgement of your limitations doesn't speak to fact, much less validate your reasoning in lieu:
Bare assertion. I’ve explained why it’s accurate and valid. Saying it isn’t, is not a valid argument.
No, it was an argument. You stated an effect and cause. Here, let me try:
It wasn’t an argument - which requires premise and conclusion. Neither premise nor conclusion were present - it simply described seatbelts in the context of group probability.
I also explained why it was wasn’t circular (which you ignored)
I also explained why it was wasn’t circular (which you ignored)
A bullet proof vest….
Straw man. You misrepresent my argument again despite me correcting you.
Try:
A bullet proof vest does not decrease your chance of death by being effective in every single scenario where bullets are involved - but by effective in a specific subset of those scenarios.
Not circular.
Try:
A bullet proof vest does not decrease your chance of death by being effective in every single scenario where bullets are involved - but by effective in a specific subset of those scenarios.
Not circular.
The argument above which has not been substantiated with valid reasoning.
He asserts…
Income = measure of logic?
Straw man. The point is that success of actuarial predictions speaks to the validity of those predictions.
Proving "too much"?
The fallacy of “proving too much”. Not heard of it
Non sequitur and straw man arguments ARE NOT mutually exclusive. And I know what each are.
An argument may misrepresent your position AND not follow from the premise - but your only stated objection was that it misrepresented your position (which it didnt), which makes it a straw man, and not a nonsequitor.
No, they don't.
Bare Assertion.
No, they're not. Absent of sufficient controls, samples are composites of individual instances; not predictive.
My first principles analysis of populations and methodology explains the controls, and why they are sufficient. Your reply here implies doing so is indeed predictive.
Your objection misrepresents my argument - as if I don’t argue the addition of sufficient controls - that’s a straw man.
Your objection misrepresents my argument - as if I don’t argue the addition of sufficient controls - that’s a straw man.
I've seen above and not it does not.
Bare assertion.
And the reasoning you believe justifies this is fallacious.
Bare assertion.
I do not entertain FALLACIOUS REASONING.
Bare assertion
No, it isn't. The dispute is whether the sampling of so-called "group data" can justify a "predictive argument" about an individual who has been ascribed to said group.
You've straw-manned this dispute. That isn't just an accusation.
No. Very no.
You suggest I made a straw man “by suggesting that the dispute is over whether statistics can account for individual factors.”
You then go in to say that the reason statistics can’t draw valid inferences is because, and I quote “It does not take my immunology into account. My hygienic habits into account; my nutrition; my physiology; my medical history, etc.“
Suggesting that your objection to the use of statistics is built upon the ability of statistics to take into account individual factors - when your primary stated objection is that statistics do not take into account individual factors is very much not a straw man.
You even go on to say:
You suggest I made a straw man “by suggesting that the dispute is over whether statistics can account for individual factors.”
You then go in to say that the reason statistics can’t draw valid inferences is because, and I quote “It does not take my immunology into account. My hygienic habits into account; my nutrition; my physiology; my medical history, etc.“
Suggesting that your objection to the use of statistics is built upon the ability of statistics to take into account individual factors - when your primary stated objection is that statistics do not take into account individual factors is very much not a straw man.
You even go on to say:
Yes, the fallacious reasoning (ecological inferences) from sampling group data doesn't take "my xx into account."
This fallacy is your main contention about the fault in statistical population prediction. This is clearly and indisputably accurately framing the discussion - you’re basically telling me that this is your issue right after effectively saying that it is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Depends.
Does a risk of 1% in the population means you personally have a risk of 1% - no.
Does a risk of 1% mean that, as a member of that population you can express your risk as part of the population as 1% - yes.
They don’t actually mean the same thing.
That broad population wide 1% number - doesn’t really mean anything - it’s too broad to have use. When we break down that risk in far more detail with more detailed risk factors with more accurate sampling: where age, co-morbidities, obesity, etc - are factored in; then expressing your risk as a member of that smaller and more granulated population, for which causation is better understood - is still not expressing your exact specific personal risk based on all your factors - but It is a much more reasonable estimation of your risk because the most common influencing factors that could substantially change your risk have been factored in - leaving fewer factors and fewer conditions that could cause a deviation.
Or to put it another way; if my risk based upon being a 40 year old, non-obese, non smoking high income Canadian resident, with no known co-morbidities, is approximately 0.01%, that’s a more reasonable estimate of my true risk, because of how many things it includes.
My true risk maybe 80%, as tomorrow we could find outthat the need to get the last word in arguments is the most critical causal factor of death from Covid - or perhaps some genetic predisposition ends up being a better risk predictor - but with those factors being unknown today, and merely theoretical; it’s much more reasonable to conclude that this population estimate is closer to my actual risk than not.
It’s important to point out, though, that this is not drawing a conclusion about my personal risk based solely on the risk to group I am part of - it encompasses other reasoning and information about what has been measured and how over and above having group data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ecological fallacy, in epidemiology, failure in reasoning that arises when an inference is made about an individual based on aggregate data for a group.
Are you reading what I’m saying?
It would seem not, given your replies generally seem to be implying I’m making specific inferences about individuals….
You seem to keep mixing and matching two different things…
I mean - there are circumstances when you can: for example, if you have additional causal relationships established, and account for various heterogeneity factors; but that’s not really my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this is much different than claiming that each ball has a 95% chance of being blue
Provided the ball is randomly selected and the population is 95% blue at the time of drawing, Any every ball you draw has a 95% chance of being blue.
I can pick an arbitrary ball - which happened to be from the top - and say a 95% chance of being blue. Which would be true.
What would be invalid is to state balls from the top are 95# blue. Because that is making statements about sub sets.
What is unclear is what you even mean by “each ball has a 95% chance of being blue”, other than as a clunky description of one the above two conditions - the statement doesn’t make any sense. I’m not sure what if even means, as in the context of the example, the probability doesn’t apply to any specific ball, but only to a given selection of a ball.
This is the nuance Athias misses, and my entire point throughout: 95% mortality risk is applied to you as a member of a population - an arbitrary ball from the box. As a UFPM - given the conditions I cited in the post above - argues has a 95% mortality - that is, with no other information, as a UFPM, he is an arbitrary selection from the group, and that’s his associated population risk. It’s every bit as valid as saying an arbitrary selected ball from a box is blue.
This is not to say that all UFPMs that debate in debating websites, who are 6’3, and has all his exact specific circumstances have a 95% mortality. And correcting his constant conflation of the two is the entire purpose of my replies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there is a 100% chance that if one of those 95 blue balls is picked at random, it will be blue and a 100% chance that if one of the "not blue" balls is picked at random, it will NOTbe blue
This is tautology. If the ball you pick is blue if is blue. If the ball you pick is not blue it is not blue.
Probability is about the if - a point you evade by magically bypassing the bit the probability applies to.
If the you pick ball is blue it is blue. But the chances of you picking the blue ball vs a not blue ball is 95%
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Firstly given that I have justified them to my personal satisfaction is all i can really do in the absence of anything argument. and given you made no attempt to justify anything at all; this reply appears largely irrelevant, as how it fits in with whether what I said is valid or not, is particularly unclear. This would indeed make this weird thread of questioning a red herring.
Secondly - if 95% of balls in a box are blue - the probability of any individual box being blue is 95%. That’s mathematics. Likewise if the true rate of death of all individuals is a group - the probability of an individual in that group dying - knowing nothing else - is also 95% for the same reason. This is applying the same principle in the statement you Quoted and agreed with two posts ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why?
I explain the specific issue with your statement, and why it doesn’t apply - justifying the reasons I take issue with what you said.
Don’t confuse that with a throwaway accusation that contains neither reasoning nor justification
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
For what specific reason do you believe my argument is a red herring?
I red herring is generally a relevance thing; that what I’m saying is orthogonal or irrelevant to what’s being said - given that what I’m saying, directly applies to the points being made, for the reasons I’m outlining - it doesn’t appear to be.
Throwaway dismissals like this are themselves fairly meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Here's my argument in a nutshell: Individual A's being ascribed to Group A DOES NOT MEAN that Individual A is subject to the sampling results of group A. Case in point:P1. 95% of an unvaccinated sample of French Polynesian men have died from COVID-19P2. Athias is an unvaccinated French Polynesian man.C. Therefore, Athias has a 95% chance of dying of COVID-19.
You should have led with this unmitigated disaster of a straw man (this is not the argument anyone uses to justify vaccination data) with your first reply - you needn’t have bothered with the rest of the meaningless chaff.
If the true chance of death due to Covid in a population - P(death) is 95%, if you are part of that population - you have a 95% chance due to Covid. (If 95% of balls in box are blue, any given ball from the box has a 95% chance of being blue.)
If a subset of a population contains a similar distribution of the underlying risk factors as the whole population the p(death)=P(death): if the same of UFPMs contains a similar distribution of traits as the whole population - the conclusion follows.
There are a series of sampling mistakes that you’re example is possibly inferring - however provided you’ve taken at least one grade 12 statistics lesson - you can avoid them.
If the sample was from a single island; it risks over sampling traits unique to people on that island - not the wider population. If the sample size was very small, it risks being wrong just by chance.
Health data informs sample selection - we know genetics (race and geographic location), health (obesity, chronic conditions), age, socioeconomic status, where you live can apply have an impact on health outcomes - the sample must include a broad selection of those to be confident that the sample is a true representation of the population.
A subset can be chosen to broadly cover all of those conditions - either directly via intentional sample or as they are picked up in the remaining random selection - and thus can be reasonably concluded to be representative of the population.
Sampling error can occur, normally through some systemic bias (like those who survive don’t want to answer questions), or where an event being monitored occurs so rarely that it can be highly impacted by a very small cluster of individuals - this tends to always result in undersampling; and this forms part of the confidence interval as it’s mathematical expressable.
It’s also testable as such a efficacy predictions can be compared against future deaths (and wider death statistics - something that continues to be done for vaccinations, and yields fairly consistent results.
So if the sample is valid, and satisfies all the conditions above, yes - without knowing anything else about you - your risk is 95%. We can (and most stats do) better subdivide risk of a given population to better quantify your risk based on known factors - to be more representative of the breakdown of known risks - UFPM may have different death rates in the US than say, those living in Tuamoto.
This reasoning is fallacious because the sample results of P1 have no bearing on my chances of living or dying. The sample results are nothing more than a composite of discrete individual results compiled under some arbitrary category. It does not take my immunology into account. My hygienic habits into account; my nutrition; my physiology; my medical history, etc. THE SAMPLE RESULTS ASSUME HOMOGENEITY UNDER ITS PARAMETERS. That's the reason it's called an ECOLOGICAL INFERENCE FALLACY--A STATISTICAL FALLACY--which is a form of division fallacy in which conclusions rendered about an individual is determined solely on the analysis of a group to which they are ascribed.
Repeating the error in all caps, doesn’t make it any less an error.
Firstly, you continue to make the constant and repeated error of assuming risk statistics apply or are being applied explicitly to you personally, and are claims about your personal risk. Your risk is 95% - not you personally accounting for your hygiene habits, immunology, or whatever predilection for licking windows exists - but you as in a random member of a given population and knowing no other information. Some get more granular, and therefore are more likely to be accurate - but all of them apply to you, not as Athias the individual personally, but as a ball plucked from a population. Misrepresenting how that statistic is applied - by asserting that risk parameters are making specific statements about your risk with all known and unknown factors considered - which it is not - makes this a straw man. That you dont seem to understand this premise is why I keep saying you don’t appear to understand statistics.
Risk statistics do not make the claim that every member of a population is at the same risk. Nor do they assume there aren’t disparate risk strata that are not accounted for in data (that’s why there are continual statistical studies hunting for risk subdivisions), it’s a statement about you as a member of that population, given the remaining subdivisions are unknown.
Secondly - your reasoning here invalidates the entire field of statistics. The very concept of risk as measured can’t work with this reasoning; your argument suggests you can’t apply population probability to individuals at any level - which given the general predictive success of many such statistics at predicting outcomes at the individual level- is clearly patently false - making this a case is proving too much, as well as a straw man above.
Indeed, you invalidate a very basic example of high school probability: if 95% of balls in a bucket in a warehouse are blue - the chances of a ball picked from someone random part of the warehouse will be blue is 95%. Your argument invalidates that basic maths. The ecological fallacy doesn’t cover this application of statistics - but covers statements such as - the chances of picking a blue ball from the west of the warehouse is 95% - which is the ecological fallacy.
Like you have throughout above with your examples of nonsequitor and circular reasoning seem to both misunderstand and misapply this fallacy.
The fallacy is typically used in relationship to a variety of correlations in the population that appear at the level of a population, but disappear because of subdivision within the population. It’s about structural trends that are missed or overlooked in population data: for example, assuming that thin people have the same risk of diabetes as fat people because the statistics incorporate both sets. The ecological fallacy disappears in cases when those subdivisions can be largely ruled out, or are mostly accounted for - which is the entire purpose of all the rigorous data sampling employed. It is why granular subsets - obesity, age, race, etc, are factored in to your these risk factors; your risk of death as a 64 year obese old black man is not the same as a 16 year old Caucasian. Sampling to determine these risk factors as noted above - is a big part of the statistics - statistics break down risk to the various at risk groups for the purposes of avoiding a big part of the ecological fallacy - to prevent miscalculation of risk due to clustering. And disappears with my first point - that their level of applicability to an individual is generally caveated to known risk factors. It would be valid to say (given the above) that UFPMs generally have a 95% chance of death to Covid - but the ecological fallacy to say that all UFPMs taller than 6’3 also have a 95% mortality rate - and not the ecological fallacy that you, as a UFPM have a 95% mortality - even if you happen to be taller than 6’3. This is a nuance you continue to miss
Thirdly - the idea that group statistics have no bearing on individuals - seems to omit the fact that group statistics are the aggregated information about individuals. It does indeed have a bearing - doubly so for factors where we have an established causal mechanism of how a given factor impacts risk: like drunk driving, seatbelts; weighed dice - or vaccines; Triply so in cases where broader and granular risk factors have been determined and understood - because that data is much more likely to be closely representative of you, as a member of that population - as we can eliminate factors things like your hygiene, left handedness or predilection for licking windows as impactful; leaving the larger risk factors known - such as your age; obesity, racial profile, whether you are immuno compromised- and have other co morbidities.
The issue is you misconstrue exactly what it says.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Tone arguments are unwelcome.
I don’t care what you welcome or not - your style is disjoint, incoherent, and seems intended to discussion because you’re making a 1000 individual empty objections (you seem not to be making arguments) rather than a single cohesive counter argument.
You seem to have dedicated this entire post to completely avoiding my argument through this strategy.
Case in point: you define a difference between humans and dice : and then claim that this invalidates everything I said. No explanation of how and why: simply an empty objection you use to dismiss almost everything I said.
If you want to demonstrate how autonomy breaks the mechanism I describe or the conclusions I draw - go ahead; but simply asserting my argument doesn’t work because humans are autonomous, is mere assertion.
You seem to have dedicated this entire post to completely avoiding my argument through this strategy.
Case in point: you define a difference between humans and dice : and then claim that this invalidates everything I said. No explanation of how and why: simply an empty objection you use to dismiss almost everything I said.
If you want to demonstrate how autonomy breaks the mechanism I describe or the conclusions I draw - go ahead; but simply asserting my argument doesn’t work because humans are autonomous, is mere assertion.
Non sequitur.
Why? How? Without any explanation this is an empty argument.
No, probability is the estimation of an event's occurrence given known conditions. It doesn't express unknowns.
Again - no attempt to invalidate what I said - just an objection. Probability is both - the two statements mean the same thing: an estimation of an event given known conditions by summing the impacts of unknown factors that cause the results of an event to be different.
Why do you "have to"? Do you have to, or is it just a method to which you've grown accustomed?
Empty objection. Does it matter? How does it impact what I said, or how it works? Just object to a statement for some reason with no argument - without dealing with content.
And how have you determined which factors "make a difference?"
By analyzing the sample for corrections between an occurrence and various traits. I can spoon feed you on this if you wish.
Presumption with no substantiation. Representative of what? The individual or the parameters dictated by the sample?
An empty objection - I substantiate this in detail in the next paragraph (which you arbitrarily dismiss with another empty objection)
No need to express the imperfection of sampling; my contention isn't against the notion of perfection; my contention is against the irresponsible inferences based on fallacious reasoning.
Empty objection - And?
What is "testable"?
How representative the sample is of the population it is sampled from.
KNOWN BIOLOGICAL FACTORS =/= HOMOGENEOUS IMMUNOLOGICAL RESPONSE.
And? This is irrelevant to the point being made; given that is neither dependent upon, nor an assumption of anything I’m saying.
We've finally arrived at the actual argument. How is survival rate determined? What is "predictive" about these rates? If 10 percent of those with whom I've been arbitrarily grouped whether based on age, weight, ethnicity, etc. have contracted a virus and 1/100 of them died, what does this predict about me
This is literally explained in the paragraphs above - which you ignored. Indeed, the entirety of my exceptionally large posts I made is almost entirely geared towards explaining that risk is not an explicit prediction of what will happen to you personally, but an expression of the risk you have as a member of a group. As I keep saying, your issue - as typified by this response is that you don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the statistics.
It appears you have replied to everything, but read and understood nothing.
It appears you have replied to everything, but read and understood nothing.
The sample is heavily reliant on the ASSUMPTIONS of its parameters--notably, ceteris paribus, the results of INSTANCE being reproducible.
The above describes in detail the mechanism by which we can make valid statements about individuals despite not being able to reproducible and why we can consider them valid. My post was an answer to this very objection, and thus this vacuous, empty response, which is merely bare assertion with no attempt at explanation - is little more than saying “nuh-uh”, only with more Latin.
Limitations, again, don't speak to fact.
And? Feel free to tell me which part of that argument is untrue in the context of the example. Another vacuous, empty objection.
Circular reasoning. Your conclusion is the same as your premise.
Given that it’s description - not an argument presents reasoning - it’s very hard for it to be circular. That being said it’s clearly not circular even if I’m being charitable; I am contrasting stats changing based on across the board improvement; vs stats changing based on a subset changing - that’s not circular.
A population which does not speak to individual autonomous behavior. People are not dice.
Actually it does speak to it - it’s covered in the argument above that you dismissed. Another empty objection.
That is an impression; it's neither an observation nor a mode of logic.
Its an impression justified by the argument you ignore. Another empty objection.
Once again, people aren't dice.
Unjustified dismissal of another paragraph without any valid reasoning.
...I wouldn't know anything about that, now, would I
And?
Why would I need to find an actuary. If I'm going to appeal to authority, then I could do just well, appealing to my own.
An actuary’s income - and insurance in general - depend on the principle you think is clearly false - being true; it’s not an appeal to authority as much as pointing out you’re proving too much.
Non sequitur. It isn't my contention that a "specific set of conditions that determine whether you will live or die are unknown..." It is my contention that results of population sampling mean squat to an individual because the sampling results are dictated by the parameters of the sample AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL HIM OR HERSELF. AND FOR THIS REASON, SAMPLING RESULTS CANNOT BE PREDICTIVE for any particular individual.
Firstly, if that were true -it would make what I said a straw man, not a nonsequitor (you keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means). Secondly, this is yet another vacuous comment that strenuously states an objection - yet shows nothing.
What you say your contention is, and the contention you’re objecting sort of mean the same thing.
If the properties and outcomes of an individual are accurately expressed in the sample - sampling results will be predictive. Your argument is that the individual is an individual and has a unique set of properties and traits that are so unique so as not to be expressable within sample data - not only is that horseshit for the reasons I’ve cited; but that’s exactly what I was talking about.
What you say your contention is, and the contention you’re objecting sort of mean the same thing.
If the properties and outcomes of an individual are accurately expressed in the sample - sampling results will be predictive. Your argument is that the individual is an individual and has a unique set of properties and traits that are so unique so as not to be expressable within sample data - not only is that horseshit for the reasons I’ve cited; but that’s exactly what I was talking about.
Once again, probability doesn't express "unknowns"; it's a method of estimation using known conditions.
See above. Yes it does.
You are calling my argument "absurd" because you're engrossed in your fallacious reasoning, and any line of reasoning--albeit accurate--which undermines your fallacious reasoning, you will render "absurd."
I’m calling it absurd because you can clearly make specific probabilistic statements about an individuals based on the population - the justification for which has not yet been addressed.
A premises confirmed in fallacious reasoning for the reasons I've already mentioned.
Not really - as shown. You have asserted a series of empty objections without explaining or detailing anything.
Unsubstantiated. And even if we were to indulge your fallacious reasoning, your argument would still be incorrect given that an overwhelming majority of the unvaccinated have survived the exposure to this virus for over two years
Firstly the reasoning is clearly presented above, and other than your collection of empty objections - has not been challenged. Secondly - why does that statement have any impact or bearing on the validity of what I am saying? On what basis do you think that statistic is not part of the group statistics I am talking about. The explanation above relating to sampling extends to cover things like this.
This reply typifies your response here, it’s a bland and empty response that just states an empty objection- as if that is enough to be n argument - and makes no attempt to justify why the objection is valid, or even really show how it even applies.
This reply typifies your response here, it’s a bland and empty response that just states an empty objection- as if that is enough to be n argument - and makes no attempt to justify why the objection is valid, or even really show how it even applies.
You HAVE SHOWN NOTHING. You've only attempted to patronize my arguments with a hackneyed attempt at teaching me about statistics--a lecture I neither solicited nor required. You attempted to analogize probability of DICE TO HUMAN BEINGS WITH COMPLEX IMMUNE SYSTEMS. You've also been strawmanning this discussion by suggesting that the dispute is over whether statistics can account for individual factors.
See above. This is just a rant. If you can raise a specific objection to what I said, and point out what the logical flaw is; go ahead.
Also; this dispute is indeed about whether statistics can account for individual factors. Indeed, in paragraphs above you literally said “sampling results are dictated by the parameters of the sample AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL HIM OR HERSELF” below you literally say your objection to the statistics is “It does not take my immunology into account, it does not take my xx into account”. So please don’t accuse me of making a strawman by accurately representing a portion of the dispute.
You continue to throw out these sort of accusations of fallacies despite appearing neither to know what they mean, nor to actually apply them properly
Also; this dispute is indeed about whether statistics can account for individual factors. Indeed, in paragraphs above you literally said “sampling results are dictated by the parameters of the sample AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL HIM OR HERSELF” below you literally say your objection to the statistics is “It does not take my immunology into account, it does not take my xx into account”. So please don’t accuse me of making a strawman by accurately representing a portion of the dispute.
You continue to throw out these sort of accusations of fallacies despite appearing neither to know what they mean, nor to actually apply them properly
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No, you would be able to tell that 99% of your sample who were unvaccinated may have died before a vaccine, and only one percent with the vaccine. “Of the time" is beyond your pay-grade. And your sample "of the population" would mean nothing to the individual because a person will either survive or succumb--both of which cannot br controlled simultaneously, concurrently, or successively. And if my understanding of statistics serve me correctly, your numbers would be exaggerated.
Putting aside the obnoxious quote ladders that make it near impossible to engage In a discussion for a moment; the above post entirely, and the quoted section specifically illustrates that your understanding of statistics is profoundly failing you at a fairly fundamental level - so much so it’s hard to know where to begin. But let me try.
A regular dice with six sides, has a 1/6 chance of turning up any of the individual numbers. You can assess the overall likelihood by statistically analyzing multiple rolls. A specific roll, may have force, angle, direction, etc; that gives it a 99.99% chance of rolling a 6 at that specific time.
If you weight the dice, the same is true; the dice may show a 6 at least 50% of the time, but a given roll may have a 99.9% chance of rolling a 3 given a specific subset of conditions that are unknown.
Weighting a dice changes the probability of a given roll - even though the unknown conditions of that specific roll may only generate one outcome.
The same is true whether you have a single dice rolled 1000 times, or 1000 die rolled once - with the only caveat with the latter is for those dice to inform the probability of another they must be drawn from a similar population.
Just because I don’t know what the true probability of rolling a six given the specific conditions at the time, or for a specific dice for which the probability of its population is known does not alter the fact that the chance is 1/6; nor does it alter the fact that the chance increases to, say, 1/2 if the dice is weighted, facts you can determine on any individual dice no matter whether it’s ever been rolled before; before you roll it. That is true of a dice that you roll once, or 1000 die that you roll once each. The probability is the sum of all rolls in all potential conditions - many of which cannot be known or controlled.
Probability is not rendered invalid because of unknown conditions and factors - probability is literally an expression of those unknown conditions and factors when only composite data is known
Or to be more specific to vaccines, given that I can smell a strawman coming : You could take a warehouse full of random second-hand dice; each of which you can only roll only once; take a large random sample; weight half and roll them all. You have to make generalizations about an individual based on population without being able to control for outcome at an individual level. The most important thing is we know people vary so we need to know whether a sample is appropriate. If I take from one side of the warehouse, I may not get an accurate representation of the dice. Likewise the age of dice, may play a role, top or bottom of a box, Color, size; but we can adjust for factors we know make a difference, if we do that and randomly sample account for this; the remaining subset of randomly chosen dice should be representative - and will include enough of various factors of all individuals to be representative - exemplars are only missed out or under sampled if sufficiently rare to not appreciably impact the outcome. This is not to say the sampling is perfect; but it’s testable and, thus far, is based on known biological factors yielding predictive power - scientific.
Taking this control sample allows you to establish baseline probability of the warehouse - it provides an understanding of the overall state of the dice in the warehouse - with high levels of confidence that any specific dice will be represented by the population, or to be such a rare outlier that its existence doesn’t change the population probability - this baseline probability takes into account the underlying state and conditions of all the dice the sample - some dice may already be weighted, or weighting will not work on them, as an example.
The second weighted sample allows you to establish the change in baseline probability after the controlled parameter has been added. Both samples will contain similar populations of weighted dice, or ones for which the weighting will not work - you’ve corrected for age and size and colour, so providing picking any random 100 large black dice from the bottom of boxes at the far end of the warehouse is equally likely to turn up loaded size as any other random selection of 100 large black size from the bottom of boxes at the far end of the warehouse - those numbers won’t be appreciably different
If you pull a new random dice from the pile ; you can say with some confidence that the chance of you rolling a six increases by a certain amount if you weight the dice. This is true even if you don’t know the specific conditions of that dice. This is because the possible specific conditions and their probability of that dice being non standard is part of the baseline.
The increase in chances of rolling a six incorporates both of the possibility of you picking up a dice for which weighting has no impact, and one for which it does.
For example - if there are no weighted dice in the warehouse, weighting would improve chances of rolling a six by 100x, if there are weighted dice that are unaffected by more weighting - that number would go down to say - 80x.
Rolling Any given dice would be 80x more likely to turn up a six: a probability which incorporates the probabilities of a.) a weighted dice not rolling a six by chance, b.) a weighted dice turning up a six because of the intended action of weighting and c.) a weighed dice not showing a 6 because of some ineffectiveness if the weighting process due to the dice. The statistics applied to the individual is based on the principle that this dice is a member of the broader sample population; and is an expression of the break down of various conditions in that population. When you talk about the probability of the individual - that probability incorporates all those unknowns due to that sampling.
For Covid, if the illness and survival rate for your risk group (age, weight, etc), is 10% to become sick, and 0.1% to die, and that same risk group reduces to 1% and 0.01% - then your risk has dropped by a factor of 10.
You could have some unknown predispoition that means you will die with or without the vaccine; but it’s also more likely you have a predisposition that means you will live with the vaccine and die without; the statistics tells us that the prevelance of the former is at most 0.1% and latter is around 0.9%.
Unless you actually know what that predisposition is, and whether you have it - it’s only possible to express it as a probability determinable by a population - a probability incorporated into the quantified risk reduction. Your risk has still reduced by 0.9% because that is the probability of having a vaccine preventable disposition - even while the 0.1% remains.
Likewise with seatbelts. Seatbelts will improve your chances of survival. Not because any specific crash you are in yield less chance of dying, but because some types of crashes you can get in will be survivable with a seatbelt; the chances of occurrence of those types of crash can be determined, with the probability of risk incorporating your chances of getting into one of those, vs one where a seat belt will not help. As it is not possible to tell or control all the individual factors - it must be expressed as a probability based on occurrence within a population controlled for known factors.
Likewise, drunk driving ; the absurdity I point out here is down to your failure to appreciate the meaning of the numbers.
The statistics do not imply that on a given drive home on Sunday, where a specific accident - say a truck plows into you from behind - would be more or likely to occur whilst drunk or sober; but because there are a subset of accidents which can be caused by being drunk or prevented by being sober that have a given probability of occurring based on population statistics. The increase in risk from drunk driving incorporates that general change in risk given that it’s not possible to calculate or know all the factors to know the exact per journey risk - in exactly the same way that you can’t calculate all relevant physics for a dice.
That’s how probability works. The boiling down of unknown events in terms of a likelihood of occurring. For risk statistics - it’s all baked into the numbers. It’s the mechanism by which insurance companies can consistently and reproducibly make billions of dollars; by accurately assessing risk of an individual by virtue of analyzing the population they are part of.
I would highly suggest you find an actuary, and suggest that the risk to an individual cannot be determined by assessing occurrence in a population. If you’re lucky, they will be incapacitated from laughter so long you could steal their jaguar.
You can’t complain that your specific set of conditions that determine whether you will live or die are unknown so you cannot speculate as to the efficacy of a vaccine ; because expressing things you don’t know based on their chance of occurrence in a particular scenario is the whole freaking point of having probability and statistics in the first place.
It’s every bit as stupid as suggesting that you cannot say that weighting a dice increases the probability of turning up the weighted number on a given roll - because your cannot account for all conditions of the roll itself. That’s not what probability means.
Probability is inherently expressing differences in unknown or unknowable factors in numerical form based on their occurrence: and the fact that you’re objecting to an expressed probability based on the factors that are unknown or unknowable is showing your issue is not with vaccines, or any medical study - but with what probability actually is. This is why I’m calling your absurd argument absurd.
Quantum physics aside - it should be possible to reasonably determine exactly whether you would live or die with Covid if we had all the information - at which point we would cease to need terms like risk, or probability. We don’t. All we can do work under the testable and confirmed premise that there is some combination of random happenstance we can’t determine and non-random hidden risk factors which we can’t correlate to any discernible criteria.
This means all we can say is you have some derived probability of encountering such happenstance or having said unknown risk factors - a probability verifiably decreases with vaccination.
As shown above it is both accurate, valid and scientific to state that your risk decreases with vaccination - it’s not a statement on your exact specific personal circumstances or saying anything specific about a given outcome: that’s not what probability is - but the probability of you being a member of the population that through whatever hidden parameters or stats- ends up dying from COVID. That probability of being a member of that population after vaccination decreases (a probability derived from testable and falsifiable methodology) - which means that on a logical, mathematical, and scientific basis your risk is reduced.
You can’t complain that your specific set of conditions that determine whether you will live or die are unknown so you cannot speculate as to the efficacy of a vaccine ; because expressing things you don’t know based on their chance of occurrence in a particular scenario is the whole freaking point of having probability and statistics in the first place.
It’s every bit as stupid as suggesting that you cannot say that weighting a dice increases the probability of turning up the weighted number on a given roll - because your cannot account for all conditions of the roll itself. That’s not what probability means.
Probability is inherently expressing differences in unknown or unknowable factors in numerical form based on their occurrence: and the fact that you’re objecting to an expressed probability based on the factors that are unknown or unknowable is showing your issue is not with vaccines, or any medical study - but with what probability actually is. This is why I’m calling your absurd argument absurd.
Quantum physics aside - it should be possible to reasonably determine exactly whether you would live or die with Covid if we had all the information - at which point we would cease to need terms like risk, or probability. We don’t. All we can do work under the testable and confirmed premise that there is some combination of random happenstance we can’t determine and non-random hidden risk factors which we can’t correlate to any discernible criteria.
This means all we can say is you have some derived probability of encountering such happenstance or having said unknown risk factors - a probability verifiably decreases with vaccination.
As shown above it is both accurate, valid and scientific to state that your risk decreases with vaccination - it’s not a statement on your exact specific personal circumstances or saying anything specific about a given outcome: that’s not what probability is - but the probability of you being a member of the population that through whatever hidden parameters or stats- ends up dying from COVID. That probability of being a member of that population after vaccination decreases (a probability derived from testable and falsifiable methodology) - which means that on a logical, mathematical, and scientific basis your risk is reduced.
Created: