(03-05-2011 01:34 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources, but as always I reserve the right to be wrong
Of course, that assumes government and university studies are unbiased. They're not.
There is no such thing as an unbiased study in these areas. If you want objective truth, get information from all viewpoints and figure out what works and what does not. Unfortunately, that's about all you can do.
(03-05-2011 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 01:34 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources, but as always I reserve the right to be wrong
Of course, that assumes government and university studies are unbiased. They're not.
There is no such thing as an unbiased study in these areas. If you want objective truth, get information from all viewpoints and figure out what works and what does not. Unfortunately, that's about all you can do.
You are correct in saying there are no unbiased studies but credibility is more important to some than others.
(03-05-2011 09:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 01:34 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources, but as always I reserve the right to be wrong
Of course, that assumes government and university studies are unbiased. They're not.
There is no such thing as an unbiased study in these areas. If you want objective truth, get information from all viewpoints and figure out what works and what does not. Unfortunately, that's about all you can do.
You are correct in saying there are no unbiased studies but credibility is more important to some than others.
Obviously.
But I wouldn't put government in the group for whom credibility is more important than advancing an agenda, and credibility among universities typically means acceptance from a group of peers notable for their lack of intellectual diversity. So I wouldn't characterize either of those sources as unbiased.
If it comes down to National Oceanic & Atmosperic Administration vs Shadowstats I'm going with the NOAA. I will make that call 100% of the time (and I'll be correct far more often than not)
(03-05-2011 01:01 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:53 PM)ksu sucks Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 12:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]The GDP growth numbers published by the gov't are bogus. Just like the unemployment rate including underemployment is more like 17%. You cannot trust gov't numbers.
Once again, the GDP growth is indeed phony, but only because all of this "growth" is fueled by borrowing and is thus unsustainable. The way the government calculates GDP isn't exactly bogus, it's the assumptions they make when calculating it in the first place.
Mr. Peanut Wrote:Who do we believe then.... Glenn Beck
Quit trying to turn this into a partisan problem. It's a government problem. The Republicrats are all the same. They all believe in spending more money. The only difference is where they believe it should be spent. They're all useless(well, almost all of them).
bingo
You put a Trillion Dollars into an Economy, and things are bound to improve. But it only lasted for two quarters, and now we are facing stagflation.
(03-06-2011 08:50 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]If it comes down to National Oceanic & Atmosperic Administration vs Shadowstats I'm going with the NOAA. I will make that call 100% of the time (and I'll be correct far more often than not)
Don't think so. You, me, anyone can beat them at hurricane predictions and without using any of their fancy-smancy expensive equipment.
NOAA hurricane predictions.
2009 4-7 (3) wrong
2008 6-9 (8) fair
2007 7-10 (6) wrong
2006 8-10 (5) FLAT WRONG
2005 7-9 (15) FLAT WRONG
2004 6-8 (9) wrong
2003 6-9 (7) fair
2002 6-8 (4) WRONG
(03-06-2011 10:02 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2011 08:50 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]If it comes down to National Oceanic & Atmosperic Administration vs Shadowstats I'm going with the NOAA. I will make that call 100% of the time (and I'll be correct far more often than not)
Don't think so. You, me, anyone can beat them at hurricane predictions and without using any of their fancy-smancy expensive equipment.
NOAA hurricane predictions.
2009 4-7 (3) wrong
2008 6-9 (8) fair
2007 7-10 (6) wrong
2006 8-10 (5) FLAT WRONG
2005 7-9 (15) FLAT WRONG
2004 6-8 (9) wrong
2003 6-9 (7) fair
2002 6-8 (4) WRONG
I use Miss Cleo or a monkey foot for hurricane and earthquke predictions, and your example is lame.
Why is it lame? You made a statement, "I will make that call 100% of the time (and I'll be correct far more often than not)", and I showed how silly it was. Being wrong 6 of the last 8 years is "incorrect far, far, far more often than not".
(03-06-2011 11:12 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Why is it lame? You made a statement, "I will make that call 100% of the time (and I'll be correct far more often than not)", and I showed how silly it was. Being wrong 6 of the last 8 years is "incorrect far, far, far more often than not".
You confront him with the fallacy of his 100% call, and it does not sit well.
I thought you said you reserve the right to be wrong?
(03-05-2011 06:13 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 03:49 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 01:34 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources, but as always I reserve the right to be wrong
do you exercise that right often?
I've been married for over 30 years... you better believe I do
You've been married for over 30 years? That poor man.
(03-06-2011 11:12 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Why is it lame? You made a statement, "I will make that call 100% of the time (and I'll be correct far more often than not)", and I showed how silly it was. Being wrong 6 of the last 8 years is "incorrect far, far, far more often than not".
Maybe because you are comparing predictions to stats? Totally different. Though, I am not surprised you can't see the difference.
I haven't spoken of predictions at all but I will stand by the statement. what was shadowstats prediction? I will still take NOAA vs shadowstats (but not Miss Cleo) . You have issues using a text out of context to create your pretext
(03-06-2011 11:34 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't spoken of predictions at all but I will stand by the statement. what was shadowstats prediction? I will still take NOAA vs shadowstats (but not Miss Cleo) . You have issues using a text out of context to create your pretext
You said you trust government, and specifically NOAA. The
stats on their predictions is dismal at best.
You said "I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources". What the hell do you think relying on models that have proven to be totally worthless are if not quasi science from bias sources?
And Robbie, I posted stats.
(03-06-2011 01:23 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2011 11:34 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't spoken of predictions at all but I will stand by the statement. what was shadowstats prediction? I will still take NOAA vs shadowstats (but not Miss Cleo) . You have issues using a text out of context to create your pretext
You said you trust government, and specifically NOAA. The stats on their predictions is dismal at best.
You said "I will have to stick with Government and University studies over quasi science from bias sources". What the hell do you think relying on models that have proven to be totally worthless are if not quasi science from bias sources?
And Robbie, I posted stats.
Nevermind. It is beyond your mental capability.
Paul you can do better than that. After living in the darkness of self denial for so long I can only imagine how uncomfortable the light of truth must be for you.