Vaccine

[dad4]

The Science of upcoming elections

You know how the causation fallacy works no....it's easier to disprove the negative.

If I claim masks work, but then cases are skyrocketing in the place where I chose as an example, it's a clear example of how masks don't work, at least under said broad definition, so now I have to explain away why.

If I claim cases are low because of masks, however, that's a fallacy because something else might have caused it.

Similarly, if I claim treats work to keep dogs happy, if my dog is grumpy after I've given him a treat, it goes to show that treats do not in fact work to keep dogs happy because there is a clear exception...I now have to qualify my statement somehow (in the afternoon, after a nap, only corgis etc).

But if I claim my dog is happy because I gave him a treat, that is not necessarily the case because my dog may be happy for other reasons, and not just the treat. Now, you can argue that the most obvious reason why the dog is happy is because I just gave him a treat (using Occam's razor) but I can also argue he's happy because I just walked through the door.

Word spam again.

A single data point can only dismiss a single cause hypothesis.

It fails miserably when there are multiple causes.

Example:

H0: avoiding donuts helps you lose weight.
Ha: avoiding donuts has no impact on weight.
Evidence: yesterday, I ate a pound cake instead of my usual donuts. I still gained weight.
Bad conclusion: donuts have no impact on weight
Correct conclusion;: donuts are not the only cause of weight gain.

 

[Grace T.]

As a tangent here...does Occam's razor apply here when there are two reasonable explanations?

I suppose it depends how one is using it. Philosophically it has to be used as between 2 because otherwise you can't do a comparison. The only thing that need be shown is that one explanation is far more likely and obvious than the other.

 

[NorCalDad]

I suppose it depends how one is using it. Philosophically it has to be used as between 2 because otherwise you can't do a comparison. The only thing that need be shown is that one explanation is far more likely and obvious than the other.

I would like to think our dog likes both treats and me walking through the door....of course I could just be fooling myself.

 

[dad4]

I would like to think our dog likes both treats and me walking through the door....of course I could just be fooling myself.

Confirmation bias is fine, as long as it jumps up and licks your face.

 

[Grace T.]

Word spam again.

A single data point can only dismiss a single cause hypothesis.

It fails miserably when there are multiple causes.

Example:

H0: avoiding donuts helps you lose weight.
Ha: avoiding donuts has no impact on weight.
Evidence: yesterday, I ate a pound cake instead of my usual donuts. I still gained weight.
Bad conclusion: donuts have no impact on weight
Correct conclusion;: donuts are not the only cause of weight gain.

Flawed logic....again...sigh.

Your "correct conclusion" is not proven by the syllogism. You've committed the same error (again). You listed nothing in the syllogism that goes to prove that donuts caused weight gain. You also haven't shown that pound cake increases weight (unless the pound cake is the only thing that you ate yesterday). While "donuts have no impact on weight" is a bad conclusion, now you just avoided the test because the test wasn't with donuts. You have failed to prove that "donuts are not the only cause of weight gain" because you haven't proven that "donuts cause weight gain"....you are making an assumption of facts not in evidence (which you may absolutely be convinced is true and may in fact be true but you haven't proven). You have set up a test with poundcake when you needed to do it with donuts.

Here's how it's properly done:

A1: avoiding donuts helps you lose weight
E1: I ate a donut and still lost weight.
Disproven conclusion: Avoiding donuts alone is the only thing that can help you lose weight.
Bad conclusion: Eating donuts help you lose weight
Good conclusion: Avoiding donuts is not solely responsible for weight loss.

Guess you are great at math, bad at logic...did I ever tell you I got a perfect score on the Lsat (it's mostly a logic and reasoning test) Now your out of your element on my turf. It's not only bad logic but it's bad science: your evidence has nothing to do with the assertion trying to be proven.

 

[Grace T.]

I would like to think our dog likes both treats and me walking through the door....of course I could just be fooling myself.

That's why Occam's razor is sloppy.

 

[dad4]

Flawed logic....again...sigh.

Your "correct conclusion" is not proven by the syllogism. You've committed the same error (again). You listed nothing in the syllogism that goes to prove that donuts caused weight gain. You also haven't shown that pound cake increases weight (unless the pound cake is the only thing that you ate yesterday). While "donuts have no impact on weight" is a bad conclusion, now you just avoided the test because the test wasn't with donuts. You have failed to prove that "donuts are not the only cause of weight gain" because you haven't proven that "donuts cause weight gain"....you are making an assumption of facts not in evidence (which you may absolutely be convinced is true and may in fact be true but you haven't proven). You have set up a test with poundcake when you needed to do it with donuts.

Here's how it's properly done:

A1: avoiding donuts helps you lose weight
E1: I ate a donut and still lost weight.
Disproven conclusion: Avoiding donuts alone is the only thing that can help you lose weight.
Bad conclusion: Eating donuts help you lose weight
Good conclusion: Avoiding donuts is not solely responsible for weight loss.

Guess you are great at math, bad at logic...did I ever tell you I got a perfect score on the Lsat (it's mostly a logic and reasoning test) Now your out of your element on my turf. It's not only bad logic but it's bad science: your evidence has nothing to do with the assertion trying to be proven.

More word spam. You wouldn't need so many words if you had a strong point and made it succinctly.

In your Japan example, you have two input variables: mask use and variant. Recently, one of the inputs changed (BA.5) , while the other remained constant (Mask use).

For some reason, you use this to make a claim about the variable which remained *fixed.*

Since when does a change in an output variable prove anything about a fixed input variable?

 

[Desert Hound]

More word spam. You wouldn't need so many words if you had a strong point and made it succinctly.

In your Japan example, you have two input variables: mask use and variant. Recently, one of the inputs changed (BA.5) , while the other remained constant (Mask use).

For some reason, you use this to make a claim about the variable which remained *fixed.*

Since when does a change in an output variable prove anything about a fixed input variable?

The problem is you assume the masks is the reason Japan had lower deaths vs other locations.

 

[watfly]

And just like that LA stands down on it's mask mandate

"Now his failure is complete"

UCLA is still requiring masks and it sounds like they will be mandatory to stsrt the fall school year.

 

[Grace T.]

More word spam. You wouldn't need so many words if you had a strong point and made it succinctly.

In your Japan example, you have two input variables: mask use and variant. Recently, one of the inputs changed (BA.5) , while the other remained constant (Mask use).

For some reason, you use this to make a claim about the variable which remained *fixed.*

Since when does a change in an output variable prove anything about a fixed input variable?

You were the one that laid out your example. I was just pointing out your error in reasoning which is the same as with masks and Japan. You always wave things away when you’ve been show up

same reasonIng flaws. As with the pound cake example, you are assuming as hound point outs that death follows masks instead of some other factor. The Philippines has a hard mask mandate and had a bad result. So did peru. Norway didn’t and ended up well.

and I’ve just been trying to get you to admit some daylight: that while masks may have been useful in the past pre vaccine now given how contagious it is masks (especially cloth ones) are of less utility.You seem to be going there which makes me happy

“any chance you are for scuba today?”
“yes we are for scuba”
“No way jose”
“Yes way jose…but we are going out with him”
“no problem leuban. As long as you are for scuba I am appy”.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

He's a bad dog.

That sounds sort of sad. Poor puppy. Surely it's more rich, complicated, situational. I know Gary Larson is obviously best suited for this terrain. But seeing as how we've been left to fend for ourselves I'm picturing something along the lines of Mr. Peabody and Sherman, with a lapsed Catholic flair.

Here, Mr. Peabody, try this parsimony biscuit treat. its simple, yet deeply satisfying.

Sherman, that's just a crumbly little wafer. We obviously need to have another discussion about the distinction between simple and stingy. Honestly, next thing I know you'll be asking me to drink Kool-Aid from a Dixie cup.

What do you mean, Mr. Peabody?

Never mind. Now be a good boy and run along Sherman. Oh, and if you see Shrodinger's cat let me know, won't you? I've been wanting to chase that elusive feline around the block for some time now.

Sure, Mr. Peabody. How will I know when I find her?

Nobody's quite sure Sherman. It's one of those mystery in a riddle in an enigma things. Try looking sideways.

If you say so Mr. Peabody.

 

[dad4]

The problem is you assume the masks is the reason Japan had lower deaths vs other locations.

You two are the ones who thought Japan made a good poster child for the anti-mask argument.

If you only now realize that Japan doesn't make your case for you, that's your problem.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

The Huanan market was the epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 emergence

Geographical clustering of the earliest known COVID-19 cases and the proximity of positive environmental samples to live-animal vendors suggest that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the site of origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.

zenodo.org

This, and the companion paper in the same issue, were nice pieces of work. But, since Occam's razor came up, they are perfect real world examples. We have our current simplest explanation. And we have infinite narrative space surrounding alternatives that cannot be falsified. Imagination strips off its clothes and runs naked through the buttercups.

 

[crush]

 

[dad4]

This, and the companion paper in the same issue, were nice pieces of work. But, since Occam's razor came up, they are perfect real world examples. We have our current simplest explanation. And we have infinite narrative space surrounding alternatives that cannot be falsified. Imagination strips off its clothes and runs naked through the buttercups.

You and I disagree about which way Occam's razor cuts in this case.

Maybe it was a live animal market, but there are a whole lot of live animal markets, and only one virology research center doing gain of function research on bat viruses.

So, maybe the virus was transported 1000 miles in a crate with pangolins, but none of the other live animal markets got a sample.

Or maybe the workers who moved the lab live near a market, and it happens to be that one.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

You and I disagree about which way Occam's razor cuts in this case.

Maybe it was a live animal market, but there are a whole lot of live animal markets, and only one virology research center doing gain of function research on bat viruses.

So, maybe the virus was transported 1000 miles in a crate with pangolins, but none of the other live animal markets got a sample.

Or maybe the workers who moved the lab live near a market, and it happens to be that one.

It's not a which way it cuts thing for me. That's not it. The thing for me is that Occam's razor, since it came up, is as good as far as it goes, but outside of a strict logical construction, as far as it goes isn't very far. You invoked two alternatives, but the non-falsifiable narrative space, like I said, is infinite. Restriction enzyme free cloning designed to mimic natural viral recombination junctions around the S RBD, using sub-optimal primers to leave no G/C bias that the hounds will be sniffing for. I'm not making that up. Bring it to the market and dump it on your racoon dog BBQ plate. Why go to all the trouble to release a low IFR virus? Anything from I don't like Mondays to whatever plot you want to imagine. Doesn't have to be buttercups. Could be black dahlias. Or a bad case of FDS, gain of function murmurings, and a blotter of bad acid. Its the who killed JFK for our times. Maybe Oliver Stone will make a movie.

 

[crush]

 

[kickingandscreaming]

This, and the companion paper in the same issue, were nice pieces of work. But, since Occam's razor came up, they are perfect real world examples. We have our current simplest explanation. And we have infinite narrative space surrounding alternatives that cannot be falsified. Imagination strips off its clothes and runs naked through the buttercups.

Who supplied the data that was used?

 

[espola]

You and I disagree about which way Occam's razor cuts in this case.

Maybe it was a live animal market, but there are a whole lot of live animal markets, and only one virology research center doing gain of function research on bat viruses.

So, maybe the virus was transported 1000 miles in a crate with pangolins, but none of the other live animal markets got a sample.

Or maybe the workers who moved the lab live near a market, and it happens to be that one.

Occam's Razor does not like "maybes".

 

[Bruddah IZ]

My friend has been working for her particular city for close to 5 years now and was one of the biggest pro mask advocates around early on (to keep kids in school in the fall of 2020) but go on....cling to your religious beliefs....with every word you just prove my ongoing point about you: you believe the establishment experts you agree with are the "experts"....everyone else is a snake oil salesman, regardless of their credentials.

Shocking isn't it?

 

[Bruddah IZ]

LA County is cancelling its absurd new mask mandate. Thank you to all who fought back.

Earlier this week the cities of Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, El Segundo, and Manhattan Beach announced they would refuse to enforce Barbara Ferrer’s order. And just moments ago, Ferrer backtracked and cancelled it.

This is the turning point we’ve been working towards. It effectively stops Newsom from issuing another statewide mandate, eager as he might be to do so.

It’s reminiscent of when my home school district, Roseville Joint Union, passed a Resolution to ignore Newsom’s school mask mandate. Neighboring districts followed suit and it snowballed from there; humiliated, Newsom was forced to rescind the order.

It’s also similar to our triumph over his student vaccine mandate. After we stopped Senator Pan’s mandate bill, I called for Newsom to rescind his own Executive Order. Hours later, he did just that – a major embarrassment after months of showcasing the “first in the nation” mandate.

Notably, the current resistance is happening in some of the bluest parts of the state. In Long Beach, Democrats outnumber Republicans 144,000 to 44,000.

*Sign up below and I’ll update you on our fight to end all mandates

LA County cancels mask mandate in face of opposition

JULY 28, 2022 LA County is cancelling its absurd new mask mandate. Thank you to all who fought back. Earlier this week the cities of Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, El Segundo, and Manhattan Beach announced they would refuse to enforce Barbara Ferrer's order. And just moments ago, Ferrer...

blog.electkevinkiley.com