Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Bijou Drains
ParticipantAlan, all of this positive spin you’re putting on the Poope, you wouldn’t have a completed Form A application in the name of Jorge Mario Bergoglio tucked in your back pocket, would you?
Bijou Drains
ParticipantI would imagine that there are two not very bright racists, with very distinct handwriting, who are not going to sleep very well tonight, having realised what a prick they have made of themselves. With handwriting like that they may as well have put a return address on the letters.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantAlso Chomsky does not include his encouraging others and campaiging for others to vote for the less or least awful candidate, which distracts from the “going back to work”
Bijou Drains
ParticipantSo effectively T M, you are saying (very roughly) Henry 8th took the role of Stalin (Crown ownership = State Ownership, dissolution of the monastries = collectivisation of farms) with Cromwell taking on the role of Putin (dividing the crown/state spoils amongst his cronies)
Bijou Drains
Participanttwc -“If “we” constructed “our” world “for us”, “we” did a lousy job.
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” our entry into “our” world through the vagina?”
Perhaps we all felt that at such an important moment in our lives, it was important to be near our mothers
Bijou Drains
ParticipantAccording to to our Greek friend to be an “Independent Nation it is necessary to have an independent currency”. The logical conclusion is therefore, that the Irish Free State never existed and The Irish Republic came into being on 30 March 1979, when the Irish Punt became subject to an exchange rate. I would expect that celebrating the 30th March will be a big date in the Irish National Calendar following that revelation.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantAlien 1 listened to about 2 and 1/2 minutes of his talk and found a number of issues, couldn’t be bothered to listen to much more.
He doesn’t understand the difference between false positives, accuracy and or sensitivity/specificity and he doesn’t even go on to discuss the other side of the issue false negatives.
For a start he quotes government figures for accuracy (not specificity or sensitivity, which I’ll come back to later) as being between 0.8% and 4.3% and then states that he will take an average of 2.1%. Just to be clear 2.1% is not the average or the mean as he describes it, it is the median, the mid way point between two numbers, this is GCSE beginners maths, if he doesn’t understand that, he is obviously a bit of a duck egg.
He then goes on to use 2.8% as a figure to work out the false positives, however 2.8% (notionally accepting his figures) refers to the accuracy of the test. What he needs to know is the sensitivity/specificity.
Sensitivity measures the proportion of positives that are correctly identified (e.g., the percentage of sick people who are correctly identified as having some illness).
Specificity measures the proportion of negatives that are correctly identified (e.g., the percentage of healthy people who are correctly identified as not having some illness).
With the coronavirus test, reseach (Oxford University, etc) show that there are very few false positives (in one piece of research all positive tests were retested three times and found to be accurate). However levels of false negatives were running at about 5%, so the test was deemed to have low sensitivity, i.e. a relatively low percentage of sick people who were correctly identified.
The problem is that people are getting a negative test and thinking, all is ok, it might not be.
I know there are a lot of BBC haters out there, but the Radio 4 programme, “More or Less” is really well worth listening to, they are excellent at going through some of these statistical claims and pulling them apart, and for sad bastards like me, it’s half an hour of bliss listening to people talking about statistics.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by
Bijou Drains.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by
Bijou Drains.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantL Bird, Ill give just one example of your method of taking things out of context and then answering the question which suits you.
I asked you “However the question I posed you was regards to the sensory nature of human existence, one which you continuously and studiously ignore.” Your reply was that you have “never, ever ‘ignored’ ‘human existence’”. As is quite obvious, I was stating that you ignored the question, not human existence.
Just to be pedantic, if I was lying about you on the forum, it would be libel not slander, slander only applies to the spoken word. The other thing you would need to show was that any lie reduced your reputation to those who read it. I think it would be futile of me to try and do that, considering what a good job your already doing on without any outside assistance.
Going back to the issue in hand, “can you list even ten “discoveries of science” that have not been based on things that have been sensed, including by observation”
Not such a difficult task for an avian of your ability.
Moving on you state “if one ‘touches matter’, one is engaging in ‘labour’;”, so I take it from that statement that you acknowledge that there is a “something” to be touched?
Bijou Drains
ParticipantL Bird – You’ll have to read about the physics (or any science) yourself, BD.
I’ve given up trying to reason with those who will not engage in faithful discussion.
——
I have studied and read science to quite a reasonable level. However the question I posed you was regards to the sensory nature of human existance, one which you continuously and studiously ignore. I will ask again, can you give me any example of a scientific theory which is not based on sensory inputs?
Please also point out where my discussion has not been “faithful” whatever you mean by the use of that word.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantGood to see you’re back Birdy Boy
now perhaps you can get on with answering this (to recap)
Bijou Drains wrote: “Actually, practically everything in science can be sensed in a direct way…”
L Bird wrote: “We’ll have to agree to disagree, on this one, BD.
If I were to produce a list of ‘stuff’ from ‘science’, which neither of us, or anyone else, has even touched, etc., I’d be here till xmas!”
Bijou Drains wrote: “L Bird Touch is not the only sense, observation is through the sense of smell. So if you can list even ten “discoveries of science” that have not been based on things that have been sensed, including by observation I would be amazed. So off you go then, set yourself away.”
So come on, where’s your list?
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by
Bijou Drains.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantThe move to reopen universities was an absolutely appauling one. Newcastle has a student population of about 50,000 students, all based in halls of residence and houses in mutliple occupation, mainly around the city centre, it’s the same in many other cities. Liverpool has three Universities, Leeds two, Sheffield two, all with student s based close to city centres. I’m sure the decision was based on bailing our the Universities which are big businesses now, a lot of them have their own halls of residence which contribute to their running costs, they make money on all the campus bookshops, coffee bars, coke machines, etc. It’s even worse for small university cities like Durham, it has a population of 48,000 and about 20,000 students in attendance.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantI was being sarcastic, to get some allies against the avian, Bijou.
___
Well you soitenly fooled me, Stanley. BD plays with tie, straightens bowler hat and walks away into the distance
Bijou Drains
ParticipantBijou, I am a member of the party.
____
Sorry TM, I just took it from the following contribution you made very early in ths thread, in response to L Bird that you were not a member of the party:
So humans decide, according to their class and time, how the planets move, whether a dropped fork will obey gravity, how suns are formed, and how far away they would like the sun to be?
The universe obeys mankind?
Did the universe exist before humans?And this is interesting, thank you.
I now know the view of the SPGB.
All best wishes.Apologies
Bijou Drains
ParticipantSeeings as how this debate is going off on a tangent, a very interesting one, by the way. Can I go off on a tangent of my own?
TM you re clearly very familiar with the Party case, and from your postings it seems that you agree with what we say, you even refer to distributing our material. Have you ever thought of joining us? (you may well have been a member in the past) and following on from that, why don’t you join (rejoin)? We certainly could do with your help.
Bijou Drains
ParticipantI was taking to a family member who is an anti vaxer recently and they made the comment, “what good have vaccines ever done?” Which sort of shows the level of the anti vaxer debate. It when a bit pythonesque, as I asked “you mean apart from the complete eradication of small pox, the almost complete eradication of diphtheria and polio, the massive suppression of TB, whooping cough, tetanus, mumps and rubella, the fall in the number of brain damaged children as a result of measles, the reduction in deaths as a result of the flu jab, apart from that not very much. “
-
AuthorPosts
