Only if its the version without the K and he'll turn his nose up at the ch kind. He's a bad dog.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
As a tangent here...does Occam's razor apply here when there are two reasonable explanations?
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.
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.
Confirmation bias is fine, as long as it jumps up and licks your face.
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.That's why Occam's razor is sloppy.
More word spam. You wouldn't need so many words if you had a strong point and made it succinctly.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)
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
DA
The problem is you assume the masks is the reason Japan had lower deaths vs other locations.
UCLA is still requiring masks and it sounds like they will be mandatory to stsrt the fall school year.
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
GOLD
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.
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
GOLD
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.
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
GOLD
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.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Who supplied the data that was used?