Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Billybuckeye please explain how Frank meeting with Singer would bias Frank's evaluation? It seems to me that any investigator would want to be able to do a thorough inquiry and it has been noted that some of Singer's system has never been made public. Let Frank may his fair and complete analysis and report. If he didn't give Singer a chance then the report would be biased.

Frank might indeed find in his analysis exactly what you want to hear. But if there are any doubts about his investigation the issues will never be resolved

Frank is doing his job well and I commend him for how he has rejected some of Singer's critics for their unfair bias.

Let him do his job. Then let him report. Then comment. It's only fair. And what is unfair is that RS will not be able to respond directly here. Fortunately for ALL sides there are other venues where Rob is not censored.


1. I hope/trust Frank's dissertation will be interesting and informative but it won't resolve any doubts.

2. Frank has not rejected any critics' arguments.

3. Frank's examples of basic probability meet with arguments and disagreement. Singer's system is a bit more complicated and Frank's evaluation won't convince anyone or change their minds if their minds are already made up.

Quote

Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
If Rob is unable to post here I will attempt to pass on any rebuttal he might have. Since I will be showing my report to him before I post it, I can include the rebuttal in the original and obviate the need for a long drawn out exchange. It is unfortunate how things with this topic have gotten so out of hand in the past on both sides. I do not wish to add to that conflict.


There wouldn't be much interest in your report if not for the conflict.
Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote

Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
If Rob is unable to post here I will attempt to pass on any rebuttal he might have. Since I will be showing my report to him before I post it, I can include the rebuttal in the original and obviate the need for a long drawn out exchange. It is unfortunate how things with this topic have gotten so out of hand in the past on both sides. I do not wish to add to that conflict.


There wouldn't be much interest in your report if not for the conflict.


True dat!

Conflict has been a driving force behind most of his online presence. If conflict doesn't exist, he's been known to create it himself. I know of one forum where he was caught using two different screen names at the same time, and he was using them to argue with himself!
Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote

Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
If Rob is unable to post here I will attempt to pass on any rebuttal he might have. Since I will be showing my report to him before I post it, I can include the rebuttal in the original and obviate the need for a long drawn out exchange. It is unfortunate how things with this topic have gotten so out of hand in the past on both sides. I do not wish to add to that conflict.


There wouldn't be much interest in your report if not for the conflict.


Indeed. This is the Jerry Springer Show of the internet. It's the fighting.

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote

Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
If Rob is unable to post here I will attempt to pass on any rebuttal he might have. Since I will be showing my report to him before I post it, I can include the rebuttal in the original and obviate the need for a long drawn out exchange. It is unfortunate how things with this topic have gotten so out of hand in the past on both sides. I do not wish to add to that conflict.


There wouldn't be much interest in your report if not for the conflict.


Well I would like to agree, but if I understand you correctly, I should tell you that I disagree, and that you are wrong. We aim to please.
Quote

Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote

Originally posted by: FrankKneeland
If Rob is unable to post here I will attempt to pass on any rebuttal he might have. Since I will be showing my report to him before I post it, I can include the rebuttal in the original and obviate the need for a long drawn out exchange. It is unfortunate how things with this topic have gotten so out of hand in the past on both sides. I do not wish to add to that conflict.


There wouldn't be much interest in your report if not for the conflict.


Well I would like to agree, but if I understand you correctly, I should tell you that I disagree, and that you are wrong. We aim to please.


Are you going to posit something?
Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Are you going to posit something?


I think there has been enough positing for one day.
moneyla LOVES rob singer. we get it. now go back to being "too busy" to post here.
Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote

Originally posted by: mrmarcus12LVA
Posit 4 women, each with two children.
Posit the chance that any child is female is 50%.
Posit we select one of the four and she does NOT have two male children.

1. What is our best estimate of the chance she has two female children?

NOW, NOW, NOW our answer is 1/3.


Saying no male children is the same thing as saying at least one female. You've confirmed my answer.


No, I haven't confirmed your answer because there were two DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. Anyone can prove ANYTHING by altering the question to include the answer. Frank ASKED THE WRONG QUESTION to get the 1/3 answer. Then he said the answer was 1/3. Then he said that the question he asked included a bunch of stuff it didn't include, and because he had included the stuff he didn't include, the only correct answer is 1/3. (He also cited an authority that no one is likely to actually consult).

Likewise the question "Who keeps sheep?" There are no sheep posited, therefore the correct answer is NONE OF THEM. But, no, suddenly sheep are posited when they weren't, and the correct answer is Goth.

These are the methods of the con artists of the world. Religions, politicians, ponzi schemers, gambling system hawkers, etc. They claim to be IMPLIEDLY correct, and then claim that what was implied has been PROVED.

Posit half of all children are female, and half are male.
Posit a lady with two children and one of them is female.

1. What is the chance both children are female?

That was the question that was ASKED, and the answer is 50%, because the second assumption didn't change the first assumption, as applied to the remaining child.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now