Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/19/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    William, rumors of Bill Dwyer's demise have been greatly exaggerated! ;-) I don't know who Mary Ann is or was, but Bill is still going strong at age 78. Dennis
  2. 3 points
    And I'm not too proud to admit that I started leaning into the corners by the end of the second vid. J
  3. 2 points
    These are not solutions. "Solution" 1 is nothing else than a short recapitulation of the paradox: Aristotle: If I move the smaller circle I am moving the same centre, namely Α; now let the larger circle be attached to it [...] it will have invariably travelled the same distance [i.e. case 1: the smaller circle forces the larger circle to travel only the distance of the circumference of the small circle] [...]Similarly, if I move the large circle and fit the small one to it [case 2: the large circle forces the smaller circle to travel the distance of the circumference of the large circle] [...] nowhere does the greater stop and wait for the less in such a way as to remain stationary for a time at the same point [Aristotle doesn't understand how in case 1 the large circle is forced to travel the smaller distance] the smaller does not skip any point [neither does he understand how in case 2 the smaller circle is forced to travel the larger distance] [...]When, then, the large circle moves the small one attached to it, [in other words, when the large circle forces the small one] the smaller one moves exactly as the larger one; when the small one is the mover, [that is, the small circle forces the large one] the larger one moves according to the other's movement. Compare that with your "solution" 1: If the smaller circle depends on the larger one (Case I), then the larger circle forces the smaller one to traverse the larger circle’s circumference. If the larger circle depends on the smaller one (Case II), then the smaller circle forces the larger one to traverse the smaller circle’s circumference. This is the simplest solution. It is clear that this doesn't tell us anything new that Aristotle hadn't written already. That "solution" 2 and "solution" 3 are not solutions, I've already shown in earlier posts. In fact they are also just recapitulations of the paradox.
  4. 2 points
    Ultimately all scientific hypotheses and theories are validated by 1. observation and measurement 2. laboratory experiment and testing 3. clinical testing which generally uses some statistical form of hypothesis test. The bottom line is: the predictions have to match what nature shows through either observation or experiment. Science of any kind has to be subject to testing and potential empirical falsification. Obviously the details of the experiments and observations depend on what is being studied. Some things can be corroborated by conditions in imposed in the laboratory. Other things have to be observed and measured as they happen naturally. Astronomy, as you pointed out, is such a science. So is cosmology. Particle and Field physics are tested in such installations as CERN. Chemistry is tested in the lab. Biology is test both in the lab and in the field. The essential thing that distinguishes the physicals sciences (that work) is ultimate empirical testing and possible falsification, from philosophy which is all vapor and abstraction. Mathematics is a peculiar thing. It is not a science because it is not empirical but its claims have to be validated by proofs which are formulated by mathematicians, then read and checked by other mathematicians. Checking a proof for correctness is empirical even though all of the subject matter is abstract.
  5. 2 points
    Well, okay, then, I'll just believe that guy's opinion rather than my own observations of what happened at the time. Yeah, his charts and graphs nullify the things that were being said at the time. I didn't hear those things because your Doctor Kimball C. Atwood didn't look for them, but instead presented charts and graphs. And I haven't seen interviews of Marshall or Warren in which they discussed the dogmatic mindset that they faced, because your Kimball C. Atwood didn't see such interviews. If he didn't look for them, find them or see them, then they never happened. It's settled science that it's just a silly myth. Everyone was actually very nice and open minded to the ideas of Drs. Marshall and Warren. It was all smooth sailing. And it's all very "nuanced" to take a subject which, by its nature, involved mostly oral expressions of resistance to new ideas, then to not look for any evidence of those expressions, then to not find any of them, and to conclude that it was all a myth! Were absolutely certain that it was a myth. Atwood's comments prove it. Let's say "myth" some more just to make it even more true. Max, you're demonstrating the illogic and pompous stupidity that we're criticizing. Your linked source doesn't address the actual issue, but attempts to bypass it with non sequiturs, obfuscation, equivocation, and sloppy assumptions. J
  6. 2 points
    You are saying either A always causes B, or A never causes B. It can't be A caused B in this particular case. Causes have contexts. The elderly woman in my example probably had weak bones. The weak bones would be a context. It is not necessary to say vaccination always causes autism in order to say vaccination caused autism in this case.
  7. 2 points
    It's a truncated transcript. In their own words ... There will be supporting testimony if this is true. Which 'the shot'? At which point in infant life was this shot given, by whom, where? Vaccination records are kept, the family will have access to this. Which was the 'trigger' shot of the vaccine schedule? -- did the triplets complete the vaccines schedule? Was it done at a doctor's office or clinic? Did the parents seek medical opinion on the triplets' sudden change in behaviour/development? The parents will have access to those medical files if so. What is the diagnosis, and when was it given -- what year? By whom? Knowing that, you can get a better picture of the family's position. It is a possibility that each triplet reacted to "the shot" in the similar way. It is a possibility that otherwise genetically-identical children each was later given a diagnosis of autism. One question I would seek an answer to was if the family recorded contemporaneous video of the children, near the time of their 'trigger' event. Given the opportunity, the details sort themselve out. Discussion is possible without slanging or defamation. Notice, I did not say it is causation. I asked a question. You can always come up with your own answer. In so doing, when you do a probability analysis, you should declare your priors, in a kind of Bayesian enterprise. I take the question in two parts, with two possible dependencies. The dependencies are 'triplets with autism' and 'triplets with documentation of 'immediate onset' autism after 'the shot' as claimed. For the first question, "Are autism rates in triplets, twins, quadruplets, etc measurable with precision?" The second: "Given the 'rate' of autism diagnoses shared within twins/triplets/etc 'sets' ... as measured, is it a statistical abnormality to have three geneticially-similar infants show signs of autism?" I'll come back to answer the questions posed, which answers necessitate a view of the entire video.
  8. 2 points
    Have you actually seen, comprehended and accepted the existence of the original formulation of the "paradox"? You still seem to be operating on Merlin's molested version. You seem to want to operate on that false version. Yes, and those "some" are you and Merlin, and not only have you treated it as a brain teaser, but one which you prefer to reconstruct at whim to your own liking, keeping what you wish from the original formulation while arbitrarily discarding parts that displease you. YOU can't see it in reality. WE can easily see it. We have the visuospatial/mechanical abilities to grasp it. Go back and look at the beginning of this thread. We weren't stumped and "theorizing," but immediately identified reality. Hundreds, if not thousands, of others all over the interwebnets have done the same. We all get it. You do not. You cannot grasp reality in this case. Your mind is not set up to handle it. The rest of your babbling is your weak ego trying its hardest to not accept the reality that you are visuospatially/mechanically deficient. You're indulging in nothing but self-grading. You've begun by selecting yourself as the standard of cognition, given yourself an A, and judged everyone else (except Merlin?) to have failed. They've all invented the same lying false fake "solution." It might be a conspiracy. They're up to no good. The reality of it cannot be -- must not be -- rhat Tony is lacking in any way. That idea must not be considered. J
  9. 2 points
  10. 2 points
    Now let's ride world-class auto racing track, High Plains Raceway, a 2.55 mile track developed and owned by a handful of Colorado car clubs. I am in the white helmet on the same INTERCEPTOR, up ahead. We are following me onboard a modern 1050cc Triumph Speed Triple. Unlike my 750cc VFR, this bike has major power for the straights, modern wide tires, fantastic suspension. The Triumph's sound is cleaner and a higher pitched whizzing. You can see the Triumph's rpm needle, her sound is the one going up and down with that needle. Mine is the foghorn sound. The gauge displays mph. The long straight is only 0.65 miles long and I can consistently reach about 130mph on the old VFR once the tires are warmed up and I get in the groove. Here I am pushing harder than on Squaw Pass, a public road. On the street, about 75-80% is my maximum. This is 90-95%. I want to keep my vintage bike, I don't want to crash, but it is acceptable to crash. There is an ambulance on site on the track days that I attend. Clockwise ...
  11. 2 points
    It is time now to ride my V4 1986 VFR750F INTERCEPTOR up Squaw Pass. Our course is outlined in red on the maps. We travel uphill and west, away from Denver, from the right to the left. We begin at 8,430' elevation, just northwest of Evergreen, Colorado, and climb 315' in one minute and 54 seconds. The speed limit is 30mph but we will cover 1.63 miles, averaging 52mph. 25mph is the slowest we will go, in the tightest three turns. Then 70 and 80mph in the straights. For example after passing the car we're in a long straight and at the end of it, when we are directly beside the yellow sign advising an imminent "15mph" hairpin right, we are still traveling at 80mph. (Funny thing about brakes, they work supernaturally well when you're going steeply uphill!) The GoPro™ video camera is Chesty™ mounted at about my sternum. I'm crunched leaned over, so my eyes are only a few inches higher. Pretend you are really there, my passenger, and see if you can feel some of what the terror and adrenaline is like. This will help: We are in elk, bear and deer country. If an elk walks out on a straight we are going to die. If a bear is in the road in a corner, we will crash and he is going to try to kill us when he gets back on his feet. We will try to shoot him when he comes to kill us, but it's a 50/50 thing who emerges from crash-stun first.
  12. 1 point
    LOL. Slippage is not a solution; it is a mere restatement of the paradox.
  13. 1 point
    Hypotheses are only accepted as hypotheses. This you have here done. Proof creates theory. This is evidence that your applied idea of the scientific method is dogmatic. --Brant
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    Back in the 80s, the medical and scientific communities ridiculed the hell out of doctors Barry Marshall and Robin Warren for going against the "settled science" that no bacterium could live in the acids of the human stomach, and that ulcers were caused by spicy foods and stress. Even after proving their case on helicobacter pylori, it took the snarky authorities years to accept reality, let go of their pissy mindsets and judgments of Marshall and Warren as kooks and snake oilers. Which mindset is more disturbing and dangerous, that of kooks who make false speculations and come to mistaken, unsupported conclusions, or that of people who pose as authorities and impede or shut down advancements because of their own brand of kookiness? Whose ulterior motives are worse, the creep trying to make a buck off of families of affected children, or established authorities whose reputations and pocketbooks will suffer when, say, Tagamet is instantly no longer bringing in billions easing ulcers? J
  16. 1 point
    Your distrust of Dr. Russell Blaylock seemed to be based on your trust of majority opinion and/or government approval. I reject the whole idea of trust except where it is unavoidable. Question: What is your definition of 'quack'? How did you reach your conclusion that Dr. Russell Blaylock is a quack? He has the standard credentials, went to medical school and all that. Let me guess. You consider him a quack merely because he says things contrary to the establishment. Did I guess right?
  17. 1 point
    William, In today's culture? The hell you don't. Try it sometime. Look at your own reaction just now. And this is after a lot of snark softening. The hostility of those who ask questions these days is not gratuitous. There's a lot of history there. And it ain't been pretty for your side over time. Your side deserves to be called Big Brother bootlickers. They earned it through long-standing repeated actions. Michael
  18. 1 point
    A few comments on the Claas Relotius affair. Summary: Relotius has been making up stuff, with emphasis on anti-Trump stuff, for years and publishing it in Der Spiegel in Germany (60 articles or so). Relotius won CNN's 2014 Journalist of the Year Award (best print category). The story was “Murderers are Carers” and published in Switzerland, but I haven't discovered if this was made up, too. At first blush, it's reasonable to assume at least parts of it were. Good job, CNN! For people who don't have the time to read 80 articles or so in one sitting off an RSS feed (like supplied above ), here is the most juicy stuff: Winner of CNN’s ‘Journalist of the Year’ Admits He Fabricated Stories and The Relotius Scandal Reaches a Small Town in America This last is cute because it lists some far out fantasies Relotius made up., But wait! There's more! It Gets Better–> CNN’s “Reporter of the Year” Claas Relotius Embezzled Donations Away from Syrian Street Children From the article (but sourcing Der Spiegel): I want to remind readers that modern day reporters in the mainstream no longer check their facts, especially if they come from another reporter. They can't be concerned. They have more important things than journalism to do. This guy Relotius has been the source for the fake news mainstream reporters for years, but all the while he was totally making shit up. During all that time, nobody thought to check his facts. Think about that for a minute. Everything you read from the fake news mainstream media--everything, all of it--is subject to this kind of vulnerability. Reporters are no longer reporters in that arena. They are copy/pasters with a political agenda, and with their toady noses stuck right up the rear ends of their crony corporate masters. Michael
  19. 1 point
    It wasn't ok for Phil to call Ellen a cunt, but it is ok to call WSS a pedophile, with numerous (highly vulgar) variations on that theme? Note that if it were "pedophile-enabler" or "useful idiot" I'd have no objection...I'd disagree, but wouldn't feel any need to speak up. What's with the special treatment? You may as well let Lindsay Perigo join. Mr. Letendre desires that WSS not address (or interact with) his posts on OL. However, this is a public forum, and he has no control over the guest list. There are plenty of other places he can express his views while maintaining control over the dialogue. Evidently the poor dear needs a safe space. He could try Facebook, for instance. Or he could host his own site (Kahmi has hers, and she deletes Jonathan's posts as soon as they're made...as is her right). FWIW, my own attitude towards interacting with him has long been guided by a quote attributed to Mark Twain: Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
  20. 1 point
    Happy Rational Holidays to all who celebrate ...
  21. 1 point
    Just to put a nice tail on this story: Michael
  22. 1 point
    Do your children bring your posts to school for "show and tell?" I'm sure they are mighty proud of strong, brave Internet Dad.
  23. 1 point
    Carol, Yes, we did, as I remember too, used to talk very enjoyably. Mostly on literature. I'm sure, if time permitted, we could still talk very enjoyably, mostly on literature. On politics, however, we've not been of similar viewpoint, although I think we didn't get into our differences. On Trump, and what's "for the best of America and freedom," I see no chance of agreement, and I don't have time for a discussion. There are big bad biological schemes underway with the goal of eliminating mega millions of people, and for the last year I've been devoting much time to helping counteract those schemes, in the small ways I can help. (Primarily biologic theoretic ways.) I got into posting again here because I was curious to see what was being said, especially by Michael, about the mid-terms. And then I couldn't resist the "Aristotle's Wheel Paradox" thread. But I'll probably be vanishing again soon. Just a couple points: Regarding what Rand's reaction to Trump would have been. I think that she'd have reacted negatively at the start but then come around - unless she got stubborn, having once expressed negativity. But I think that she'd have been horrified at the thought of Hillary Clinton as President, and at some point, with accumulating evidence about Trump, would have reversed on him and become a fan with some reservations. Second, your comment "[Rand] preferred real men with minds and morals, preferably good-looking ones" reveals a gulf between your assessment of Trump and mine. I think that Trump is about as "real man" as it gets. Grizzly-bear-power "real man." I also think that he has a mind, not an abstract theoretic one, but a very shrewd logistic and practical one - badly needed in the current historic context. And that he's a man with morals, strong morals. See things Michael's said on that subject. As to "good-looking," he sure isn't my idea of male aesthetic ideal. However, I enjoy seeing his body language, how he handles himself - stance, gestures, expressions. In charge and can do. Just the sort this country desperately needs at the helm now, in my view. Ellen
  24. 1 point
    Actually, I think Objectivism was infiltrated by Cointelpro (counterintelligence program of FBI) a long time ago (Peter Schwartz has the perfect attitude of an asset.) They recognized Objectivism as a radical movement far better than Objectivists did, and certainly without naivete about the benevolence of the US Gov't. The pattern of schisms was very easy to amplify. Given his ties to the Mossad, Yaron Brook is likely an asset, too.
  25. 1 point
    I believe 9/11 was carried out by the corporatists intelligence agencies such as any police or military organization under the UN may have carried it out or part of it. I believe the Jews are being scape-goated for the corporatist agenda of destroying The Rights Of Man, as necessary for a full implementation of globalization. The ultimate goal is to destroy The Rights of Man and undermine the three main religions, Jewry, Muslim, Christianity and its various derivatives. This is necessary to undermine common law so that we can all be ruled by statute. I wish I had a nickle for every cop, lawyer, professor, doctor, engineer, actuary, nurse, school teacher or any other professional member that thinks they will be at the head table with the banksters when this is all over.