The overwhelming amount of data is crushing, concerning climate change, my latest passion. Especially ozone, contrails, and what is going on in the Earths atmosphere. Still busy researching.
Links and data here.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The plural of anecdote is data Part 2
I found this information about Anecdotal evidence a while back, and was reminded of it when I read this line, "Unfortunately, seeing something or experiencing it is not proof enough to believe in it.", from another blog, Osmosis Online.
While I avoid blog wars, or even discussing blog entries, I was moved to comment on this. And, with this non-evidence-based-blog, I can! With little compunction about having to back everything up with those pesky facts. Opinions are so much easier, no research, not fact checking, no peer review, just whatever you make up you can say.
So the first thing I do when I read something that seems like nonsense, is put it into Google and see what else comes up. No surprise on this one, there isn't a single page with the entry "seeing something or experiencing it is not proof enough to believe in it". Not even the blog that it came from. (It can take time for Google to index a blog entry). Let's try, "seeing something is not proof enough to believe in it"
No hits there either. At this point, it is obvious somebody made that up. Not only is it just a made up phrase, it is an original one. In the entire data base of Google, nobody has ever said that.
It is obvious to me that it is patent nonsense, something that Wikipedia would reject with no discussion. It has no supporting publications of any kind, and just looking at the phrase is enough for a reasonable person to say it is nonsense.
It's worse than nonsense, because the purported reason for it is to try and dissuade the reader from believing something, encouraging them to be skeptical.
One reason for not engaging in blog wars on these things. With out attention, they quickly fade away.
While I avoid blog wars, or even discussing blog entries, I was moved to comment on this. And, with this non-evidence-based-blog, I can! With little compunction about having to back everything up with those pesky facts. Opinions are so much easier, no research, not fact checking, no peer review, just whatever you make up you can say.
So the first thing I do when I read something that seems like nonsense, is put it into Google and see what else comes up. No surprise on this one, there isn't a single page with the entry "seeing something or experiencing it is not proof enough to believe in it". Not even the blog that it came from. (It can take time for Google to index a blog entry). Let's try, "seeing something is not proof enough to believe in it"
No hits there either. At this point, it is obvious somebody made that up. Not only is it just a made up phrase, it is an original one. In the entire data base of Google, nobody has ever said that.
It is obvious to me that it is patent nonsense, something that Wikipedia would reject with no discussion. It has no supporting publications of any kind, and just looking at the phrase is enough for a reasonable person to say it is nonsense.
It's worse than nonsense, because the purported reason for it is to try and dissuade the reader from believing something, encouraging them to be skeptical.
One reason for not engaging in blog wars on these things. With out attention, they quickly fade away.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Norway UFO/Spiral was a rocket launch
It was with out any doubt a Russian rocket launch.
You can see the regular looking rocket exhaust in this photo, near the ground.
This sort of failure was videotaped before, in Russia and in China.
China TV report, with multiple videos.
Russian home video, with spiral.
Below is a Russian launch at sea (the YouTube description is wrong, see here for complete video). Note the multiple boosters. As well as the spiral they go into after launch.
Launch with out the failure from Russian security camera, note the same glowing trail from the rocket exhaust.
And an American launch, with out failure, that clearly shows how the hot gases expand rapidly at that high altitude. As well as the "dark hole" that appears after the rocket booster stops burning.
While the YouTube videos are labeled UFO and other unknowns, this event is well known by those working on rockets. The Norway event is just the latest in a long series of them, with the lack of scientific reporting, and the secrecy of the military who is launching the rockets, allowing ignorance and fear to dominate observers.
Even supposed "experts" posting on blogs and mentioned on TV don't seem to know about the YouTube videos. Which means if you just watched them, you know more than the experts right now.
You can see the regular looking rocket exhaust in this photo, near the ground.
This sort of failure was videotaped before, in Russia and in China.
China TV report, with multiple videos.
Russian home video, with spiral.
Below is a Russian launch at sea (the YouTube description is wrong, see here for complete video). Note the multiple boosters. As well as the spiral they go into after launch.
Launch with out the failure from Russian security camera, note the same glowing trail from the rocket exhaust.
And an American launch, with out failure, that clearly shows how the hot gases expand rapidly at that high altitude. As well as the "dark hole" that appears after the rocket booster stops burning.
While the YouTube videos are labeled UFO and other unknowns, this event is well known by those working on rockets. The Norway event is just the latest in a long series of them, with the lack of scientific reporting, and the secrecy of the military who is launching the rockets, allowing ignorance and fear to dominate observers.
Even supposed "experts" posting on blogs and mentioned on TV don't seem to know about the YouTube videos. Which means if you just watched them, you know more than the experts right now.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
She blinded me while I was doing science!
While researching today I realized that scientist and others are subject to bias when reading about research. In order to get a less biased view of a scientific matter, why not blind the person reading the research?
So when it is being challenged (and anything new is almost always challenged) bias is removed, just like we do in research with matters where observer bias is a factor.
This is interesting enough to do some research on.
So when it is being challenged (and anything new is almost always challenged) bias is removed, just like we do in research with matters where observer bias is a factor.
This is interesting enough to do some research on.
A corporation isn't real
Corporations are fictions. Created out of nothing, they exist by shared belief in them. Like a religion, they have buildings, personnel, assets, rules and regulations, goals, aims, crimes and all the trappings of a real entity, but it isn't real.
They do not exist. Like a religion, it is a shared belief.
They do not exist. Like a religion, it is a shared belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
