valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 8:27 PM, Lazyboy said: Well, somebody has to accuse you of what you really are doing. Where? As usual, you've got nothing. Microchip 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 (edited) On 1/28/2022 at 3:27 PM, Lazyboy said: One single high-profile, 30-year-old issue roughly aligning based on GPA data means basically nothing. You always bring zero to the table and complain about others who have put thousands of things out for everyone to share. You're literally starving yourself. Grab a Snickers, Groucho Skidmarx. Edited January 29, 2022 by valiantman Microchip 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paqart Posted January 29, 2022 Author Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 7:52 PM, The Meta said: You missed "portion" I respect your encyclopedic knowledge of the hobby, especially Valiant My criticism of your bias concerning this subject is well placed, and well meaning. Its gone past an intellectual exercise and into bias territory because of making absolute statements and claiming they're fact. Can't do that, it goes against the scientific principle Speaking as a "scientist" (I have a PhD from King's College, London), Valiantman has been correct in every post I've seen. The "scientific principle" you refer to is, I think, usually called the "scientific method". All it states is that methodologies are designed to test data and draw inferences from the results. It does not say that if all the data points in one direction, that scientists aren't allowed to believe it, or to accept it as the most likely explanation. "Science", or accumulated knowledge over time, tends to be modified as more data becomes known. Most scientific endeavors involve the investigation of questions that do not have conclusive answers due to insufficient data. That is why they are investigated. You wouldn't do a scientific study to determine whether a gold bar is a gold bar unless you had reason to think it wasn't. If you determined it wasn't gold, or wasn't as pure as stated in the assayer's report, you would have a reason to try and determine how many bars are similarly less than what they are supposed to be. In that case, you likely would not have access to every gold bar in existence and would be forced to estimate based on best available information. That is what is being done here. The idea that it is somehow unscientific to pursue this question is ridiculous. It perfectly suits the type of criteria used to launch many types of study in all scientific disciplines: 1) a question of value or utility, 2) incomplete data. It also doesn't make sense to expect a person to ignore available data for the sake of maintaining the appearance of neutrality. Neutrality does not mean "to sacrifice ones ability to think, or draw conclusions from available evidence". Neutrality is expected when evidence is gathered and evaluated. After that has been done, it is normal to state a conclusion from that data, usually indicating what the data most strongly suggests. If that data suggests a higher level of rarity than was previously thought to be the case, the "neutral" investigator is bound to state as much. Otherwise, he is no longer neutral in the most important way: by showing a bias against the evidence. That would go against the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 Peer review and independent study to get the same results Science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 Like I said, I don't have the intelligence and stamina to debate with the both of you, especially when its a collaborative bias, so bowing out After all, what do I know about science without a PhD? RockMyAmadeus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 (edited) Perhaps the data consistently points to the best answer and you just don't like it. That's what Occam thinks. Dunning and Kruger are also nodding. Edited January 29, 2022 by valiantman RockMyAmadeus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 10:03 PM, valiantman said: Perhaps the data consistently points to the best answer and you just don't like it. That's what Occam thinks. Dunning and Kruger are also nodding. Except its not You're fine with the small pool of results, I'm saying the pool is much larger than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 11:15 PM, The Meta said: Except its not You're fine with the small pool of results, I'm saying the pool is much larger than that Provide results from the larger pool. Simple. Don't say it. Do it. Microchip 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 10:16 PM, valiantman said: Provide results from the larger pool. Simple. Don't say it. Do it. Like I said, I'm nowhere near intelligent enough And I totally encourage many more people to do so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 I totally encourage everyone to provide all available data so that we can verify it. People who are bringing nothing are complaining about the ones bringing everything. Microchip, Lazyboy, RockMyAmadeus and 2 others 1 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 10:20 PM, valiantman said: I totally encourage everyone to provide all available data so that we can verify it. People who are bringing nothing are complaining about the ones bringing everything. Yes because you control the narrative You're such a Richard sometimes, you know that right? Do we have to go into how you quashed anyone being critical of the random number generator you created? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 11:23 PM, The Meta said: Do we have to go into how you quashed anyone being critical of the random number generator you created? Are you on hallucinogens? What are you even talking about? Microchip 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 10:26 PM, valiantman said: Are you on hallucinogens? What are you even talking about? That database or whatever you were showing off in CG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 11:26 PM, The Meta said: That database or whatever you were showing off in CG The actual CGC Census database? CGCdata.com - my website that CGC uses when they want to look at the history of their own CGC Census? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 And no I'm not on drugs. I have a memory issue, it makes explaining things difficult Which is why I'll say for the 3rd time now, I do not have the capacity or stamina for debate Its an honest condition, I'm not saying it as an out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 10:28 PM, valiantman said: The actual CGC Census database? CGCdata.com - my website that CGC uses when they want to look at the history of their own CGC Census? I honestly can't remember, sorry I just remember the gist of things What I do remember is someone confronted you on the bias of figures and you lost it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 Then why, oh why, would you ever argue with scientists? You're a one-legged man volunteering for a butt-kicking contest. Just stay on the sidelines, Hoppy Hopperson. Microchip and RockMyAmadeus 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 11:29 PM, The Meta said: I honestly can't remember, sorry I just remember the gist of things What I do remember is someone confronted you on the bias of figures and you lost it Someone confronted me with the equivalent of 2+2 is not equal to 4, and I got angry? Sounds about right. Idiocy needs to be fought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 10:30 PM, valiantman said: Then why, oh why, would you ever argue with scientists? You're a one-legged man volunteering for a butt-kicking contest. Just stay on the sidelines, Hoppy Hopperson. This is why I have a condition, I'm far from an idjit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalPSI Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 10:32 PM, valiantman said: Someone confronted me with the equivalent of 2+2 is not equal to 4, and I got angry? Sounds about right. Idiocy needs to be fought. No, thats just common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
