War

Well, it makes me qualified to make statements about the basic principles of social sciences, doesn't it? If I have published papers in social sciences...

I would say no.
Because of how broad the study of social sciences is, with very few basic principles which govern all of it, I would say no it doesn't. No more so than studying physics makes you qualified to make basic statements about biology, even though they are both science.
Without expertise in the particular field it is easy to misunderstand or misstate things.
e.g. thinking the principle of rationality should entirely exclude the possibility of war rather than just trying to encourage people to not go to war and instead use other means.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on December 26, 2024, 08:13:37 AM

Well, it makes me qualified to make statements about the basic principles of social sciences, doesn't it? If I have published papers in social sciences...

I would say no.
Because of how broad the study of social sciences is, with very few basic principles which govern all of it, I would say no it doesn't. No more so than studying physics makes you qualified to make basic statements about biology, even though they are both science.
Without expertise in the particular field it is easy to misunderstand or misstate things.
e.g. thinking the principle of rationality should entirely exclude the possibility of war rather than just trying to encourage people to not go to war and instead use other means.

I think that a physicist is much more competent than an average person to discuss the methodology of biology, if not about as competent as biologists themselves. Physics is a harder science than biology, so physicists are qualified to discuss methodological issues in biological experiments, such as how to calculate the p-value of some experiment. Similarly, I think that once you publish a relatively mathy paper in linguistics, you are way more qualified to discuss the methodology of social sciences than an average person is.

I think that a physicist is much more competent than an average person to discuss the methodology of biology, if not about as competent as biologists themselves. Physics is a harder science than biology, so physicists are qualified to discuss methodological issues in biological experiments, such as how to calculate the p-value of some experiment. Similarly, I think that once you publish a relatively mathy paper in linguistics, you are way more qualified to discuss the methodology of social sciences than an average person is.

Biology, as it is dealing with life, can have far more complicated issues that physicists don't need to deal with. So physicists might have difficulty determining the p value.
Different statistical tests are needed.

More importantly, you are not discussing methodology. You are discussing conclusions.
What you are doing would be like a physicist claiming a central principle of biology is Darwinian evolution of common descent, so sideways gene transfer is impossible.
They would be wrong.

Now again, can you provide something more than a claim to demonstrate wars don't exist?
Especially with the fact that they do exist?

Biology, as it is dealing with life, can have far more complicated issues that physicists don't need to deal with. So physicists might have difficulty determining the p value.
Different statistical tests are needed.

As far as I understand it, biologists tend not to be nearly as good at math as physicists are.

What you are doing would be like a physicist claiming a central principle of biology is Darwinian evolution of common descent, so sideways gene transfer is impossible.

Not really, because the Principle of Rationality is also one of the basic principles of linguistics, not only sociology.

Now again, can you provide something more than a claim to demonstrate wars don't exist?
Especially with the fact that they do exist?

Well, bombs and guns appear to contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that a body cannot do work from its own internal energy (Croatian "unutarnja energija"), but needs to receive energy from some other body. Well, guns appear to contradict that. When we press the trigger of the gun, we give it very little energy, yet the gun gives an enormous amount of kinetic energy to the bullet. So, wars are not only difficult to make compatible with social sciences, they are also difficult to make compatible with physics.

As far as I understand it, biologists tend not to be nearly as good at math as physicists are.

That varies dramatically. But that doesn't mean the physicists understand the different kinds of statistical tests that need to be conducted.

Not really, because the Principle of Rationality is also one of the basic principles of linguistics, not only sociology.

You are making conclusions about how it applies in a context well outside your field.

Well, bombs and guns appear to contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that a body cannot do work from its own internal energy (Croatian "unutarnja energija"), but needs to receive energy from some other body. Well, guns appear to contradict that. When we press the trigger of the gun, we give it very little energy, yet the gun gives an enormous amount of kinetic energy to the bullet. So, wars are not only difficult to make compatible with social sciences, they are also difficult to make compatible with physics.

So now instead of trying to use physics instead of the principle of rationality, and you are getting it entirely wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics effectively states that the entropy of the universe increases.
This is often (and originally) expressed as heat flows downhill.
But you need to consider everything.

It isn't a simple case of a bullet in a gun just having the only change being the lead moving forwards out of the gun.
You also have a chemical change of the gunpowder which releases lots of heat. This allows the entropy of the universe to increase, with no violation of the law of thermodynamics.

If you think a statement contradicts reality, then it is not reality that is wrong. It is either that statement or your understanding of it which is wrong.

So if you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents a gun from firing, the simple observation of a gun firing shows that either the 2nd law is wrong, or your understanding of it is. (In this case it is your understanding).
Likewise, if you think the principle of rationality means war cannot exist, the simple observations of plenty of wars existing demonstrates either that principle is wrong or your understanding of it is.

That varies dramatically. But that doesn't mean the physicists understand the different kinds of statistical tests that need to be conducted.

OK, maybe you are right. Maybe physicists tend to understand calculus well, while biologists tend to understand statistics well.

You are making conclusions about how it applies in a context well outside your field.

And what's the alternative?

If you think a statement contradicts reality, then it is not reality that is wrong. It is either that statement or your understanding of it which is wrong.

But how do you determine what is reality? By trying to apply the knowledge you were taught at school, right? You cannot simply take what most people believe to be true as reality, because, for example, most people believe anti-gravity chambers exist (thanks to books and movies), even though they contradict basic physics.

And what's the alternative?

Not making them so boldly, and instead considering the possibility you might be wrong.

But how do you determine what is reality? By trying to apply the knowledge you were taught at school, right? You cannot simply take what most people believe to be true as reality, because, for example, most people believe anti-gravity chambers exist (thanks to books and movies), even though they contradict basic physics.

Observations and experiments.
There are plenty of observations of wars and guns being fired. There also experiments you can do to show guns can be fired.

You do not simply apply what you have learned previously and reject anything that goes against it. That is entirely unscientific and would have things like people still believing there are just 5 elements (or 4).

Not making them so boldly, and instead considering the possibility you might be wrong.

And I am. I am considering the possibility that I might be wrong.

Observations and experiments.

...Which are very often contradictory both to each other and to known facts. Anti-vaxxers have experiments supposedly showing that mRNA vaccines cause subclinical myocarditis in around 3% of the population, way more often than COVID itself does. Neal Barnard and some other people have experiments supposedly showing that some weird diet is better than insulin for managing type-2 diabetes. Trusting experiments whose results go against the basic principles of science doesn't get you very far.

There also experiments you can do to show guns can be fired.

Like...?

Quote from: JackBlack

Not making them so boldly, and instead considering the possibility you might be wrong.

And I am. I am considering the possibility that I might be wrong.

So you accept the possibility that war might exist and your understanding of the principle of rationality is wrong?

Which are very often contradictory both to each other and to known facts. Anti-vaxxers have experiments supposedly showing that mRNA vaccines cause subclinical myocarditis in around 3% of the population, way more often than COVID itself does. Neal Barnard and some other people have experiments supposedly showing that some weird diet is better than insulin for managing type-2 diabetes. Trusting experiments whose results go against the basic principles of science doesn't get you very far.

No, it is usually contradictory to each other and known facts.
They might appear contradictory.
Especially when you don't understand the possibility of random chance giving the result, which is why there is a p value in the first place, and why a p value of 0.05 isn't all that great.
That means if you conduct 100 experiments to test something, 5 of them will give the result just by chance.
It also means if you want to look for a positive link, if you test 20 of them, you would expect 1 to give a result by random chance.
That isn't a result because of an actual causal link. I wouldn't even call it a real correlation. It is just looking at the noise.

This was even demonstrated by one study which intentionally looked at lots of different variables so they expected to get one by random chance:
https://gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800.

With such issues of noise and randomness, a single experiment is not enough to reach a strong conclusion of causal relationships for biological sciences. Especially when you have a very small sample size.
That is why there are meta-studies, which look at multiple studies.
That is also why there are placebos and blind studies or double blind studies.

Another big issue is understanding the difference between correlation and causation.
You can have a study that shows a correlation, but that correlation doesn't necessarily mean there is a causal link directly between the 2.
It could just be a chance occurrence, or it could be both are caused by something else.
One simple example of that I saw recently was the link between sunburn and ice cream consumption.
It isn't that one caused the other, it was both being caused by it being a hot day with sun out making people more likely to go to the beach and get sunburnt, as well as being more likely to eat ice cream.
But people not understanding that and seeing the result might say eating ice cream gives you sunburn.

A proper understanding of uncertainty and random noise and the like means you can get studies which produce apparently contradictory results.
If you would like a more physics based one, it would be like one thermometer saying it is 23.0 degrees, while another says 23.1. They are different numbers, and might appear to be contradictory, but within uncertainty they are the same.

As for "known facts", there is the issue of if it is a fact, or merely a belief.
I am yet to see a known fact be contradicted. But I have seen plenty of beliefs be contradicted.

Quote from: JackBlack

There also experiments you can do to show guns can be fired.

Like...?

The simplest one, go to a shooting range, pick up a gun which has been loaded with a standard round and fire it.

If you would like more variables, then it depends upon what you have.
You could try a classic flintlock style gun, start by just loading the bullet with no gunpowder and see if it fires.
Then try varying amounts of gunpowder until you reach the normal load.

Alternatively, you can try a modern firearm, with rounds loaded with varying amounts of gunpowder, one with just primer, and one with nothing inside.

Ideally you want it placed in a fixed stand for a repeatable firing position, with a high speed camera watching the muzzle to see if the bullet comes out.

If you had access to the appropriate facilities (i.e. a blast range) you can even do the same with a bomb, by making bombs with different amounts of explosives inside including a control with no explosives.

if you think you're a social scientist expert, but use kleck as reliable and reasonable, then you are not a scientist.

if you think you're a social scientist expert, but use kleck as reliable and reasonable, then you are not a scientist.

What do you think about my paper Etimologija Karašica? You have an English-language summary of it here: https://teo-samarzija.users.sourceforge.net/#informatics_to_toponyms

I do not find it interesting enough to read it.

I do not find it interesting enough to read it.

My friend, that's how most of the science is: bloody boring. If something you are reading interests you, that's a sign that it's probably not real science.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 01, 2025, 03:49:03 PM

I do not find it interesting enough to read it.

My friend, that's how most of the science is: bloody boring. If something you are reading interests you, that's a sign that it's probably not real science.

If the science you are doing isn't interesting you, you are probably doing a really shit job.
Real scientists are typically going to be interested in their work, because they typically have a passion for it.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on January 01, 2025, 04:56:21 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 01, 2025, 03:49:03 PM

I do not find it interesting enough to read it.

My friend, that's how most of the science is: bloody boring. If something you are reading interests you, that's a sign that it's probably not real science.

If the science you are doing isn't interesting you, you are probably doing a really shit job.
Real scientists are typically going to be interested in their work, because they typically have a passion for it.

Sorry, I phrased it incorrectly. I am interested in the idea that information theory has something important to say about the river names. But, to outsiders, my ideas will probably look rather boring. Just like I find mainstream onomastics relatively boring.

The boredom factor of science work depends on the task.
For example, writing and editing the research can be dull, but you'll probably enjoy doing the experiments.
If the overall job doesn't feel right, or is too boring, consider finding a new job, then resigning once the new job is lined up.

The boredom factor of science work depends on the task.
For example, writing and editing the research can be dull, but you'll probably enjoy doing the experiments.
If the overall job doesn't feel right, or is too boring, consider finding a new job, then resigning once the new job is lined up.

I am a Computer Engineer. Publishing papers about the Croatian names of places is my hobby, not my job.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 01, 2025, 03:49:03 PM

I do not find it interesting enough to read it.

My friend, that's how most of the science is: bloody boring. If something you are reading interests you, that's a sign that it's probably not real science.

why should i read your nonsense paper on internet-keywords when the context of our current engagement is for you to answer why Kleck is reasonable/ unreasonable?

your paper is irrelevant and a waste of time.

feel free to expand on why kleck is of any value to anyone other than teh NRA and gun sales.

Quote from: Aera23 on January 02, 2025, 12:44:23 AM

The boredom factor of science work depends on the task.
For example, writing and editing the research can be dull, but you'll probably enjoy doing the experiments.
If the overall job doesn't feel right, or is too boring, consider finding a new job, then resigning once the new job is lined up.

I am a Computer Engineer. Publishing papers about the Croatian names of places is my hobby, not my job.

Cool, glad that you find paper writing interesting

Quote from: FlatAssembler on January 01, 2025, 04:56:21 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 01, 2025, 03:49:03 PM

I do not find it interesting enough to read it.

My friend, that's how most of the science is: bloody boring. If something you are reading interests you, that's a sign that it's probably not real science.

why should i read your nonsense paper on internet-keywords when the context of our current engagement is for you to answer why Kleck is reasonable/ unreasonable?

your paper is irrelevant and a waste of time.

feel free to expand on why kleck is of any value to anyone other than teh NRA and gun sales.

First publish some papers in social sciences, then talk about how one of the greatest social scientists of our time is "unreasonable".

Mmmm 
Im not smart

Since you, as a computer scientist whose written a social science paper, explain to me in simple terms how is prediction of 5Mdgu was determined?

Mmmm 
Im not smart

Since you, as a computer scientist whose written a social science paper, explain to me in simple terms how is prediction of 5Mdgu was determined?

I don't think any study claims there are 5 million DGUs per year. 3 million seems to be the maximum.

As for how they determine that number, well, with different methodologies. Gary Kleck dialed a random number on the telephone 5'000 times, and somewhere around 1% of the people who answered him claimed to have experienced a DGU in the past year. He tried to adjust that number for telescoping, and studies about telescoping generally suggest that telescoping increases the apparent incidence of events by around 20%. So he assumed that around 0.8% people in the US experienced a DGU in the past year, and, since there are around 300'000'000 people in the US, that gives us the number of around 2.4 million DGUs per year.

What specific question did he ask to determine dgu?


Why telescope up but not down?


How reliable is a data pool of 5,000 and was that from a gun county or from a non gun county?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 02, 2025, 05:31:36 PM

Mmmm 
Im not smart

Since you, as a computer scientist whose written a social science paper, explain to me in simple terms how is prediction of 5Mdgu was determined?

I don't think any study claims there are 5 million DGUs per year. 3 million seems to be the maximum.

As for how they determine that number, well, with different methodologies. Gary Kleck dialed a random number on the telephone 5'000 times, and somewhere around 1% of the people who answered him claimed to have experienced a DGU in the past year. He tried to adjust that number for telescoping, and studies about telescoping generally suggest that telescoping increases the apparent incidence of events by around 20%. So he assumed that around 0.8% people in the US experienced a DGU in the past year, and, since there are around 300'000'000 people in the US, that gives us the number of around 2.4 million DGUs per year.

Where they intentionally oversampled those more likely to use a gun.
And entirely relying upon the "defender" determining that they were defending themselves rather than being an aggressor.
This includes 46.8% of "defensive" gun uses being when there was no threat or attack to the "defender".
And in incidents where the "defender" was threatened or attacked, the "defender" did so first in 15.3% of cases and someone else (other than the alleged offender) did in 1.3% of cases.
And in 51.9% of cases, the "offender" was unarmed.
And in only 64.2% of cases did the police find out.

Not a very good case.

And your argument for the estimate requires including everyone, including gun carrying toddlers as acting in self defence.
If we take the current 340 million population, and exclude the 22.2% that are under 18, that gives us only 264.52 million.
But that is for now, not the past, i.e. 1993 when there survey data was from.
Using that you instead have 190 538 000 people.

So 0.8% of that would only be 1.5 million.
It is clear from the reports in his table, that he used a rate of 1.3382%.
Yet the percentage reported in the table was 1.326

And they report 2 different values. The first includes all reported cases. The second includes only cases where there wasn't a clear indication that it might not be a genuine defensive gun use.
So if you wanted to be honest you would use the lower estimate of 2.16 million.

And importantly, that is the number of people, not the number of uses. With multiple uses per person, that number increases.

What specific question did he ask to determine dgu?

Presumably he asked "Did you use a gun in self-defence in the past year?" and I know he asked "Have you actually seen the attacker, rather than merely having heard a suspicious noise?". And if the respondents say "yes" to those two questions, then he asked "Was the gun actually fired?" (to which around 20% of respondents said yes) and "Do you think you would have died if you didn't have a gun?" (to which around 16% of respondents said yes).

Why telescope up but not down?

Because that's how studies show telescoping works: people, on average, tend to remember events which occurred 14 months ago as if they occurred less than a year ago.

How reliable is a data pool of 5,000 and was that from a gun county or from a non gun county?

I am not sure what you mean. By dialing a random number on a telephone, you get people from all over the US.

moving this back to the gun show


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=89883.570

sooooo

spanish flu
great depression and a disgruntled lower-middle class
rise in facism and "othering"
fractured europe
axis powers vs allied powers
notmyproblem attitude of super powers
asshole leader


ok here we go

Why tf is India bombing Pakistan?

Why tf is India bombing Pakistan?

India’s strikes come in retaliation to a militant attack that killed at least 26 people, mostly tourists, in the picturesque resort town of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir on 22 April.

Militants opened fire on people who were visiting Baisaran, a mountain-top meadow three miles (5 km) from Pahalgam.

Some survivors of the attack said that Hindu men were specifically targeted by the gunmen.

The Brits made sure to make Kashmir a hotly disputed area when they drew the borders.

Quote from: JackBlack

Biology, as it is dealing with life, can have far more complicated issues that physicists don't need to deal with. So physicists might have difficulty determining the p value.
Different statistical tests are needed.

As far as I understand it, biologists tend not to be nearly as good at math as physicists are.

Quote from: JackBlack

What you are doing would be like a physicist claiming a central principle of biology is Darwinian evolution of common descent, so sideways gene transfer is impossible.

Not really, because the Principle of Rationality is also one of the basic principles of linguistics, not only sociology.

Quote from: JackBlack

Now again, can you provide something more than a claim to demonstrate wars don't exist?
Especially with the fact that they do exist?

Well, bombs and guns appear to contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that a body cannot do work from its own internal energy (Croatian "unutarnja energija"), but needs to receive energy from some other body. Well, guns appear to contradict that. When we press the trigger of the gun, we give it very little energy, yet the gun gives an enormous amount of kinetic energy to the bullet. So, wars are not only difficult to make compatible with social sciences, they are also difficult to make compatible with physics.

You're losing your own reputation as a physicist.

I'm not even a physicist and I understand that a bomb's explosion is in fact very consistent with the laws of themodynamics. What is not is the silly RE notion that light (or other electromagnetic energy) can persist over infinite distances.

---

The second law of thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, the total entropy, or disorder, will always increase over time. This means that energy transformations are not 100% efficient, and heat will naturally flow from hot to cold areas.

---

A bomb explodes, the thermal and kinetic energy spreads over an area, in the same way that if a log burns, its thermal energy spreads to dry clothes nearby but doesn't for example dry clothes across the house even if it does heat the house a few degrees. In the same way, a gun spits out a bullet on mechanisms of momentum and propulsion. Just as a tiny grenade cannot blow up the entire Earth thanks to themodynamic limits, the energy supplied to a bullet gives if limits in range. Try testing a rubber band gun. Very little energy is given, yet it flies pretty far considering. But yes, there are limits to range of light, electromagnetism, rubber bands, heat, bullets, almost everything.

What, you don't understand that?

How can you call yourself a physicist?

Meanwhile, I do not call myself a physicist, and I understand that.