Quote from: Bruce_TPU on December 17, 2012, 01:39:29 PM
Is there a moderator for this board, or almost ANY board?  We should change the name of our forum perhaps to "Overpester.com".

If you too are getting sick and tired of the badgering, and pestering of and by the trolls, both former and recent ones, please comment until we can get some moderation back on this forum, please, for the love of God.

LOL - good one Bruce.    I'm not sure why this forum has such a low level of moderation - less than any where I've been in 25 + years on the Internet.   We can hope it will change but I don't expect it to happen any time soon. 

Quote from: TinselKoala on December 17, 2012, 12:14:53 PM
Contrariwise. If someone speaks from a position of claimed knowledge, but in fact does not possess that knowledge, then they lie. When a preacher stands in a pulpit and says that you will have life everlasting if you only have faith in Jesus.... he lies, even though he might think he speaks the truth, because he does not have the knowledge that he claims to have.... only a strong belief. Had he said "I _believe_ that you will have life everlasting blah blah..." Then he might be speaking the truth.
PJH is telling us he knows things, when he only believes them. The fact that he might not be able to distinguish between his knowledge and his beliefs only means that he might not be completely aware that he is telling porkies.... it does not alter the veracity -- or lack of it---- of his claims.

I don't think that you improved your credibility with an attack on what God has said, or his "preachers" that teach what God has said, using a statement like this.  God gives every man the measure of faith.  It is up to you to take the initiative to learn about faith in God and use it correctly in your life.  It is found in His book, it is His Word.  It is like a person that talks bad about physics, knowing something about it, but won't believe it, because they won't read the book or listen to the teacher  and be willing to learn from the source.  Your statement is beneath the standards that you strive to attain to, and does not improve or support your point of view.  Your analogy is counter productive.

Quote from: sarkeizen on December 17, 2012, 02:29:19 PM
In other words you have an expectation.  A probability that in February that Philip's prediction is correct  P(Feb2013) = ? (probably .99999 for you) ;-)

Again, and again, and again, and again.  What happens to that value when you are now looking at P(June2013)? or P(Dec2013) or P(Dec2020)?  Presumably it goes down.  Right?

Why does everyone here squirm at this question?

The squirming is in your imagination, and the insistence that a probability should be assigned in this way is your fetish.

As it stands your question is impossible to answer (for me) because you aren't defining it with enough precision.

Prediction of what event?

a) Prediction of PJH manufacturing the nanofilm he claims he needs to demonstrate that his theory is correct, to his specification ?

b) Prediction that the nanonfilm will demonstrate the effect

c) Prediction that the target will change from the nanofilm to something else?

d) Prediction that he'll accept he was mistaken if it doesn't work?

e) Something else?


I wouldn't assign a numeric probability to any of them. I suppose I could put an arbitrary description against them. Or the direction I'd revise one or more of them in depending on what happens when Feb 2013 rolls round,. Or what direction they've already travelled in, or if more information or change of plan comes to light before that.


But why would I bother? What would it achieve?

Quote from: mrsean2k on December 17, 2012, 03:49:47 PM
and the insistence that a probability should be assigned in this way is your fetish.

Not really.  In fact if you read what I wrote you'd see that I'm not insisting that you quantify to some particular degree of precision.

Quote
I wouldn't assign a numeric probability to any of them.

This is more of an aside but...

Clearly you, at this time consider the probability that Philip will deliver in Feb to be > 0.  So P(Feb2003) > 0.  Just in case you didn't know zero is a number.  Not only that but in other news there are quite a few numbers.  So even if you want to go on with the drama of "therz cant bee a numb3r to eXpress my <whatever>" there is and you know it (that is you know that it must exist).  The only question is how precisely such a value can be determined.

Quote
But why would I bother? What would it achieve?

Ability to have a consistent and rational basis for your decisions.  Perhaps that's not of value to you?

Anyway your silliness aside. In case you weren't reading the point wasn't, as I said above to quantify to some particular degree of precision.  The point was that you must have an expectation for February which means, by your prior statements you should be able to talk about what will happen to your confidence should Phillip fail in February.   Anytime you want to answer the question asked days ago let me know.   After all your reluctance can't possibly you squirming.  Right?

Quote
As it stands your question is impossible to answer (for me) because you aren't defining it with enough precision.

Probably not true.

Quote
Prediction of what event?

The probability that Philips next date will be met with the outcomes he specifies.

So much typing for so little effect.

I'm familiar with numbers and the notion of probability. You say I assign P(Feb2003) > 0 - how do you come to this conclusion, particularly given that I've offered several ways I interpret "deliver" ? I consider P > 0 to be sufficient for any decision I choose to make on this subject.

For more important decisions - those where I have some control over the eventual outcome - I might be inclined to quantify the various probabilities a bit more carefully.

But in this case, I don't need to, so I haven't.

I am still unable to answer your question, because you aren't being precise enough. It depends.