Things that make you go What the F**k?

Started by The Real Laoislad, November 19, 2007, 05:54:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hardy

The USA stubbornly refuses to adopt the metric system and join the rest of the world in accepting logical, simplified, sensible, units of measurement. There is a reason for the reluctance of American politicians to engage in any sort of confrontation on the Metric Matter.

A Washington acquaintance of mine, a member of a Congressional committee who will benefit from anonymity, told me that she is regularly visited by lobbyists who represent religious clients and caution her against endorsing any acceptance of metrication for common American use. Why? Because, they preach, the metric system originated with atheists, and not just any sort of atheists, but with French atheists, obviously the worst kind!

One of the results of the French Revolution that was arrived at in 1791 was the adoption in that country of the metric system of measurements – which fell just short of changing clocks into a ten-hour dial with one hundred minutes – think of a possible revolt of clockmakers! – and was quickly taken up by almost all other civilized countries.

American politicians have to think twice about accepting ungodly notions, no matter how useful, logical, rational, or reasonable such ideas may be. Those folks who can accept virgin birth by humans as well as talking bushes and serpents, will just have to muddle along...

James Randi - www.randi.org

Billys Boots

Damn empiricism and all its reasoning!
My hands are stained with thistle milk ...

muppet

Quote from: Billys Boots on November 22, 2011, 01:16:16 PM
Damn empiricism and all its reasoning!

Question on empiricism:

If you conducted a test 20,000,000 times a year, each year for 10 years, and got the same result, would you be able to form a definite conclusion?
MWWSI 2017

Billys Boots

Well, I don't imagine that empiricists would be drawn to repeating the same test to that degree.  But I think, taking the question at face value, that an empiricist would predict a very likely, rather than a definite, outcome.
My hands are stained with thistle milk ...

muppet

Quote from: Billys Boots on November 22, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
Well, I don't imagine that empiricists would be drawn to repeating the same test to that degree.  But I think, taking the question at face value, that an empiricist would predict a very likely, rather than a definite, outcome.

Conclusion: Irish airports searches are unlikely to ever catch a terrorist.

MWWSI 2017

blewuporstuffed

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either

Hardy

Quote from: muppet on November 22, 2011, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on November 22, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
Well, I don't imagine that empiricists would be drawn to repeating the same test to that degree.  But I think, taking the question at face value, that an empiricist would predict a very likely, rather than a definite, outcome.

Conclusion: Irish airports searches are unlikely to ever catch a terrorist.



Correct, but not for the reason you may (forgive me if I'm wrong) be proposing.

Irish (and most) airport searches are unlikely to ever catch a terrorist because the number of times terrorists have used any individual airport for the purposes of terrorism is zero in all but a very small number of cases.

Also, the "test" in question probably does not meet the most rigorous criteria of effectivity for purpose, consistency, precision and repeatability that, in empirical tems, would be required for a likely conclusion, much less a definite one (which concept doesn't doesn't really exist in scientific terms).

Billys Boots

Quote from: muppet on November 22, 2011, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on November 22, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
Well, I don't imagine that empiricists would be drawn to repeating the same test to that degree.  But I think, taking the question at face value, that an empiricist would predict a very likely, rather than a definite, outcome.

Conclusion: Irish airports searches are unlikely to ever catch a terrorist.

Or: International (Islamic) terrorists have (to-date) had no (serious) gripe with Irish folk. 
My hands are stained with thistle milk ...

haveaharp

Quote from: Billys Boots on November 22, 2011, 02:37:06 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 22, 2011, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on November 22, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
Well, I don't imagine that empiricists would be drawn to repeating the same test to that degree.  But I think, taking the question at face value, that an empiricist would predict a very likely, rather than a definite, outcome.

Conclusion: Irish airports searches are unlikely to ever catch a terrorist.




Or: International (Islamic) terrorists have (to-date) had no (serious) gripe with Irish folk.



90 odd different nationalities died on 9/11 - i dont think they would give a rats arse whether they had a gripe or not if it was a chance to get a plane in the air and point it at a target.



randomtask



maddog

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064748/Hungry-Hobbit-cafe-told-change-Lord-Rings-author-JRR-Tolkiens-estate.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Local greasy spoon to me being forced to change their name from the Hungry Hobbitt (its opposite Sarehole Mill which has tolkein connections). Does a nice "builders" breakfast for £4.95 to be fair.

ONeill

I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.


blewuporstuffed

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either