quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

that WASN'T ALL THEY KNEW

So, in other words what?  No, it wouldn't make the hypothesis highly likely?  Good to know.

So according to you.  The hypothesis gets more likely if a device has been built and there's a long debate but it's not enough that there's debate and it's not enough that the device has been built and it's also not enough that they know the device has been built.   Therefore you are hiding something about your standard of evidence.

So clearly you think the probability of a hypothesis goes up if some kind of information is communicated to the debaters.  How about you tell me what exactly that is?

[profitis]

the probability goes way up if you go to the other thread @sarkeizen.

[sarkeizen]

that WASN'T ALL THEY KNEW

Again clearly you think the probability of a hypothesis goes up ONLY if some SPECIFIC information is communicated to the debaters.  How about you tell me what information has to be communicated to the debaters in order for the probability of the hypothesis to be very high?

This doesn't make your standard bad per se...I mean if someone arguing that a medical drug works and knows that there exists fifteen high-quality double-blind placebo controlled large-N studies.   Then sure the probability of their hypothesis being correct becomes very high but a) That would be the case regardless of if someone were opposing the idea or not and b) it seems exceptionally stupid to leave out such a crucial bit of information about how you're judging evidence.

[Philip Hardcastle]

@sarkeizen, profitis has transferred the discussion on Karpen to the thread called KARPEN PILE.


Please post there on Karpen cells, and leave this thread to quentron.


Thanks

[sarkeizen]

Please post there on Karpen cells

Dearest Phillip,

I'm not even posting about Karpen Piles here. If you read the thread you can see I'm talking about standards of evidence and I have actively eschewed talking about Karpen Piles as I am a mathematician not an electrochemist.  The overarching purpose of such a discussion is to judge the evidence for Quenco.  Perhaps the reason that we spend time using profits's pet (stupid) idea as an example is the dearth of posts useful to this end about Quenco.

Please, now that you consider me someone worthy of being addressed by name (albeit in a way rather suspiciously similar to profitis).  Feel free to jump in with your own ideas about hypothesis testing.

Thanks,

sarkeizen.