ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 6200
Apr 21 11 2:02 PM
Some words when spoken can't be taken back
Posts: 14759
Apr 21 11 2:07 PM
*******************************
Nightgames owes me $100. If this message is still in my siggy, she hasn't paid up yet.
Apr 21 11 2:10 PM
"Although the logic of naïve falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'. Popper drew attention to these limitations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in response to criticism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this argument in detail, calling it confirmation holism. To logically falsify a universal, one must find a true falsifying singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.
Thus, naïve falsification ought to, but does not, supply a way of handling competing hypotheses for many subject controversies (for instance conspiracy theories and urban legends). People arguing that there is no support for such an observation may argue that there is nothing to see, that all is normal, or that the differences or appearances are too small to be statistically significant. On the other side are those who concede that an observation has occurred and that a universal statement has been falsified as a consequence. Therefore, naïve falsification does not enable scientists, who rely on objective criteria, to present a definitive falsification of universal statements. Naïve falsificationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science. Sophisticated methodological falsification, on the other hand, is a prescription of a way in which scientists ought to behave as a matter of choice. The object of this is to arrive at an evolutionary process whereby theories become less bad.
Naïve falsification considers scientific statements individually. Scientific theories are formed from groups of these sorts of statements, and it is these groups that must be accepted or rejected by scientists. Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it."
--> because of the questionable and cynical attempts at ad hoc hypotheses to keep defending your theory that a winning barrel horse can't have a goose rump, the theory is rejected.
Apr 21 11 2:24 PM
HorseHawk wrote:"Who's the driver and who's the passenger?"What the Hell does this mean...? lol...A horse has still got to be able to run fast...& I suppose you're going to say this horse is goose rumped too...? lol...
Apr 21 11 2:27 PM
passing through wrote:Callisto04 wrote: "Although the logic of naïve falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'. Popper drew attention to these limitations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in response to criticism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this argument in detail, calling it confirmation holism. To logically falsify a universal, one must find a true falsifying singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'. Thus, naïve falsification ought to, but does not, supply a way of handling competing hypotheses for many subject controversies (for instance conspiracy theories and urban legends). People arguing that there is no support for such an observation may argue that there is nothing to see, that all is normal, or that the differences or appearances are too small to be statistically significant. On the other side are those who concede that an observation has occurred and that a universal statement has been falsified as a consequence. Therefore, naïve falsification does not enable scientists, who rely on objective criteria, to present a definitive falsification of universal statements. Naïve falsificationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science. Sophisticated methodological falsification, on the other hand, is a prescription of a way in which scientists ought to behave as a matter of choice. The object of this is to arrive at an evolutionary process whereby theories become less bad. Naïve falsification considers scientific statements individually. Scientific theories are formed from groups of these sorts of statements, and it is these groups that must be accepted or rejected by scientists. Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it." --> because of the questionable and cynical attempts at ad hoc hypotheses to keep defending your theory that a winning barrel horse can't have a goose rump, the theory is rejected. Dude...this so applies to every single hypothesis I have ever seen presented here by the colour at a glance experts. Way cool...
Callisto04 wrote: "Although the logic of naïve falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'. Popper drew attention to these limitations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in response to criticism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this argument in detail, calling it confirmation holism. To logically falsify a universal, one must find a true falsifying singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'. Thus, naïve falsification ought to, but does not, supply a way of handling competing hypotheses for many subject controversies (for instance conspiracy theories and urban legends). People arguing that there is no support for such an observation may argue that there is nothing to see, that all is normal, or that the differences or appearances are too small to be statistically significant. On the other side are those who concede that an observation has occurred and that a universal statement has been falsified as a consequence. Therefore, naïve falsification does not enable scientists, who rely on objective criteria, to present a definitive falsification of universal statements. Naïve falsificationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science. Sophisticated methodological falsification, on the other hand, is a prescription of a way in which scientists ought to behave as a matter of choice. The object of this is to arrive at an evolutionary process whereby theories become less bad. Naïve falsification considers scientific statements individually. Scientific theories are formed from groups of these sorts of statements, and it is these groups that must be accepted or rejected by scientists. Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it." --> because of the questionable and cynical attempts at ad hoc hypotheses to keep defending your theory that a winning barrel horse can't have a goose rump, the theory is rejected.
Apr 21 11 2:30 PM
Callisto04 wrote:"Although the logic of naïve falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'. Popper drew attention to these limitations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in response to criticism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this argument in detail, calling it confirmation holism. To logically falsify a universal, one must find a true falsifying singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.Thus, naïve falsification ought to, but does not, supply a way of handling competing hypotheses for many subject controversies (for instance conspiracy theories and urban legends). People arguing that there is no support for such an observation may argue that there is nothing to see, that all is normal, or that the differences or appearances are too small to be statistically significant. On the other side are those who concede that an observation has occurred and that a universal statement has been falsified as a consequence. Therefore, naïve falsification does not enable scientists, who rely on objective criteria, to present a definitive falsification of universal statements. Naïve falsificationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science. Sophisticated methodological falsification, on the other hand, is a prescription of a way in which scientists ought to behave as a matter of choice. The object of this is to arrive at an evolutionary process whereby theories become less bad.Naïve falsification considers scientific statements individually. Scientific theories are formed from groups of these sorts of statements, and it is these groups that must be accepted or rejected by scientists. Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it."--> because of the questionable and cynical attempts at ad hoc hypotheses to keep defending your theory that a winning barrel horse can't have a goose rump, the theory is rejected.
Apr 21 11 2:36 PM
Callisto04 wrote:HorseHawk wrote:"Who's the driver and who's the passenger?"What the Hell does this mean...? lol...A horse has still got to be able to run fast...& I suppose you're going to say this horse is goose rumped too...? lol...That horse does not add to the discussion: Albert Einstein is reported to have said: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. --> You are proven wrongWhen a horse is to aggressively running to the first barrel, it won't wait for your cues so you can not position him/her for a precise first turn and to align him/her for the other two turns.
Posts: 3179
Apr 21 11 3:07 PM
Callisto04 wrote: Indeed, barrel racing also asks for quick turns! And what is good for quick turns? A goose rump, like Firewaterontherocks has. Thanks for reminding us about the actual point of discussion that made me mention Secretariat as a speed horse with a goose rump in an event without quick turns. So what was your point again? PS from your source that is on wikipedia: "A steep slant of the pelvis lowers the point of buttock bringing it closer to the ground & shortening the length of muscles from the point of buttock & the gaskin. Shortens the backward swing of the leg because of reduced extension & rotation of hip joint. A horse needs a good range of hip to get a good galloping speed and mechanical efficiency of hip and croup for power & thrust. Therefore, a goose-rumped horse is not good at flat racing or sprinting" So a goose rump an sich is not even a good thing for galloping down the home stretch. Conclusion: your point that FWOTR can't have a goose rump because he won in barrel racing doesn't make sense because it is mostly a disadvantage in flat racing & sprinting because it limits forward thrust. The fact that barrel racing also asks for quick turns and a goose rump is in favor of quick turns weakens your theory. The example of Secretariat is simply a falsification of your already weak theory.
Apr 21 11 3:16 PM
Callisto04 wrote: or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.
or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.
goflipper said:Just come back in a few years and show what you've produced and what it's done. Until then no one knows shit, and it's just Backyard Breeders Gone Wild. The proof is in the results.
Apr 21 11 3:19 PM
HorseHawk wrote:Callisto04 wrote:HorseHawk wrote:"Who's the driver and who's the passenger?"What the Hell does this mean...? lol...A horse has still got to be able to run fast...& I suppose you're going to say this horse is goose rumped too...? lol...That horse does not add to the discussion: Albert Einstein is reported to have said: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. --> You are proven wrongWhen a horse is to aggressively running to the first barrel, it won't wait for your cues so you can not position him/her for a precise first turn and to align him/her for the other two turns.I didn't experiment, I showed 'fact'! So I am RIGHT!... I don't know what you're getting at, but that's the name of the game in barrel racing, you have to run aggressively to the first barrel to win. And one has to have full control of the run & be able to cue the horse for each one of his turns, with him responding without hesitation...
Posts: 530
Apr 21 11 3:24 PM
Posts: 9941
Apr 21 11 4:05 PM
If there was a vet student action figure, no children would buy it, and it would need to come with a warning label about increasing the depression in teenagers. Even the commercials for it would be depressing:The new vet student action figure from Mattel! It has foldable legs for long periods of sitting and standing! You can watch its hair turn gray before your eyes! Comes complete with 50lb backpack and scoliosis! Happiness not included.
Apr 21 11 4:11 PM
Apr 21 11 5:04 PM
KizmetRanch wrote:Moral of the story: A horse is a sum of his parts. Now why aren't there more Panda pictures? I think it's been a couple dozen pages.
Apr 21 11 5:39 PM
Apr 21 11 6:02 PM
Posts: 6806
Apr 21 11 6:18 PM
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Suess
Apr 21 11 6:21 PM
Apr 21 11 6:24 PM
KizmetRanch wrote:AAWWWWWW!! <3 HH you keep talking about pelvises and drawing lines on the croup, or talking about the croup and drawing lines on the pelvis. Apparently you're still confused. Taldara, Apples, anyone else, can you be any clearer? Might have to dumb it down a little for her to get it.
Posts: 4793
Apr 21 11 7:52 PM
goflippr wrote: Tal is like the Wizard of Oz.
Tal is like the Wizard of Oz.
Share This