RE: Why should anyone accept some anomalous result without replication?

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - a tale of bias. The irony of the common held beliefs of many objectivists - Analog Scott 13:30:55 07/19/10 (133)

Objectivism isn't worthy of serious attention - Jay Buridan 09:00:26 07/29/10 (5)

Thank you - Don Till 16:10:29 08/05/10 (0)

RE: Objectivism isn't worthy of serious attention - Pat D 19:17:51 08/01/10 (0)

RE: Objectivism isn't worthy of serious attention - Tony Lauck 13:59:13 07/29/10 (0)

RE: Objectivism isn't worthy of serious attention - rick_m 13:15:29 07/29/10 (0)

RE: Objectivism isn't worthy of serious attention - Tony Lauck 09:50:51 07/29/10 (0)

Ever hear of the argumentem ad hominem fallacy? - Pat D 14:59:47 07/21/10 (18)

Funny that I predicted you would jump in and try to take this on some bizarre tangent. - Analog Scott 02:29:44 07/22/10 (14)

You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - Pat D 05:11:28 07/22/10 (13)

"What points are you *trying* to make?" - Analog Scott 12:49:19 07/22/10 (0)

RE: You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - kerr 06:43:21 07/22/10 (11)

actually there is a lot to be learned from 'each side." - Analog Scott 10:38:09 07/22/10 (1)

Nice post - thanks. Well said (nt) - kerr 04:40:25 07/23/10 (0)

RE: You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - Pat D 08:43:20 07/22/10 (7)

RE: You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - Analog Scott 12:55:51 07/22/10 (6)

RE: You're predictable: never deal with arguments. - Pat D 16:37:42 07/22/10 (5)

*spits out a fine cup of coffee* - robert young 08:00:40 07/24/10 (4)

That's priceless - E-Stat 08:07:58 07/24/10 (3)

I keep wondering how many times I have to link this . . . - Pat D 11:40:24 07/24/10 (2)

You have no idea why I'm laughing at you, do you? - robert young 13:05:32 07/24/10 (1)

He doesn't get it, does he? -nt - E-Stat 16:10:08 07/24/10 (0)

This is one of those cases when the process itself IS the goal - and... - carcass93 08:31:19 07/22/10 (0)

Where's your meta-analysis? Better than that here is the meta-analyst - Don Till 20:37:05 07/21/10 (2)

Is that a picture of Analog Scott? (nt) - Pat D 05:43:49 07/22/10 (1)

Is your question what passes as humor? - carcass93 11:18:14 07/22/10 (0)

And your position is what? - Don Till 12:54:09 07/21/10 (3)

the one you quoted - Analog Scott 13:45:35 07/21/10 (2)

RE: the one you quoted - Don Till 16:03:10 07/21/10 (1)

"All I can say is this is just the typical vomit posing as critical thinking on an audio website." - Analog Scott 02:39:35 07/22/10 (0)

Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Enophile 14:24:23 07/20/10 (91)

What "good", together with "bad", objectivists fail to understand,... - carcass93 14:28:54 07/21/10 (0)

I guess you didn't follow the links to the two threads I cited - Analog Scott 01:25:39 07/21/10 (74)

Don't you believe in replication? - Pat D 05:43:59 07/21/10 (73)

I don't believe in cherry picking - Analog Scott 10:02:59 07/21/10 (7)

RE: I don't believe in cherry picking - Pat D 15:13:20 07/21/10 (5)

try to stay on topic Pat - Analog Scott 12:47:59 07/22/10 (4)

You OP was confused and offered no supporting evidence. - Pat D 19:05:46 07/22/10 (3)

No really, try to stay on topic - Analog Scott 03:05:51 07/23/10 (2)

You don't even seem to know what your original post was about! - Pat D 06:46:38 07/23/10 (1)

yeah right Pat. Even as pure obfusecation that is pretty weak. - Analog Scott 09:03:24 07/23/10 (0)

RE: I don't believe in cherry picking - Tony Lauck 12:35:12 07/21/10 (0)

Zactly. - Enophile 08:16:58 07/21/10 (5)

RE: Zactly. - josh358 18:55:35 07/22/10 (0)

And that has what to do with anything I have said? - Analog Scott 10:05:52 07/21/10 (2)

"And that has what to do with anything I have said?" Yup, just chatting about the dichotomy. - Enophile 10:54:08 07/21/10 (1)

RE: "And that has what to do with anything I have said?" Yup, just chatting about the dichotomy. - Analog Scott 11:23:50 07/21/10 (0)

RE: Zactly. - kerr 09:04:18 07/21/10 (0)

RE: Why should anyone accept some anomalous result without replication? - rick_m 07:17:26 07/21/10 (58)

Do people try their hardest to get the righmost post under "classic view"? - kurt s 07:12:31 08/12/10 (1)

RE: Do people try their hardest to get the righmost post under "classic view"? - rick_m 08:22:02 08/12/10 (0)

RE: Why should anyone accept some anomalous result without replication? - Pat D 08:17:33 07/21/10 (55)

So Pat, why haven't you brought up this point with the other example i cited? - Analog Scott 11:02:32 07/22/10 (54)

Have I cited that article? - Pat D 16:15:05 07/22/10 (53)

No, I cited it. You chose to ignore it. More cherry picking - Analog Scott 03:07:48 07/23/10 (52)

How could you cite it since you don't even seem to know what it was? - Pat D 06:18:51 07/23/10 (51)

You never have been one to let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. two simple facts - Analog Scott 09:12:53 07/23/10 (50)

LOL! Prove the 1985 article exists! (nt) - Pat D 11:14:27 07/23/10 (49)

Seriously? do you want me to prove Russia exists too since you haven't seen it in person? - Analog Scott 11:25:04 07/23/10 (48)

Who wrote the alleged 1985 article? What is its title? - Pat D 19:12:49 07/23/10 (47)

actually I misremembered. it was a 1987 article - Analog Scott 16:58:45 07/24/10 (1)

RE: actually I misremembered. it was a 1987 article - Pat D 19:52:59 07/24/10 (0)

Its great fun to stay away from this sandbox for a while... - robert young 07:55:34 07/24/10 (44)

AS wants to argue about an article he doesnt have. - Pat D 10:38:22 07/24/10 (43)

You are wasting your debating skills... - robert young 11:18:47 07/24/10 (42)

RE: You are wasting your debating skills... - Pat D 16:09:26 07/24/10 (41)

I predicted 20 posts of pure obfuscation from you on this thread - Analog Scott 17:03:52 07/24/10 (30)

Have you found those FR differences you mentioned that exceed known audible thresholds yet? - Pat D 18:15:23 07/24/10 (29)

I am truly very sorry if you believe - E-Stat 18:33:00 07/26/10 (28)

Irrelevant remarks. - Pat D 19:20:11 07/26/10 (27)

Absolutely - E-Stat 05:59:31 07/27/10 (26)

RE: Absolutely - Pat D 09:03:08 07/27/10 (25)

Simple - E-Stat 09:28:28 07/27/10 (24)

You are totally confused. - Pat D 20:04:52 07/28/10 (23)

Apparently, you are unaware of how dated your source is - E-Stat 07:30:13 07/29/10 (22)

It's not my source but one Analog Scott was using to make some point or other. - Pat D 12:18:16 07/29/10 (21)

I caught Analog Scott out on two things. - Analog Scott 07:30:08 07/30/10 (16)

RE: I caught Analog Scott out on two things. - Pat D 18:39:14 07/31/10 (15)

Gotta hand it to ya Pat. you never have been one to let facts get in your way - Analog Scott 19:54:14 07/31/10 (14)

When you have to hurl personal accusations to prove your point, youve already lost the argument. - Pat D 20:29:55 08/03/10 (13)

Let me know when that happens. - Analog Scott 17:15:39 08/04/10 (11)

Well, you may have points, but no real arguments for them. - Pat D 17:37:08 08/05/10 (10)

You have no arguments that I have no argument - Analog Scott 13:42:52 08/06/10 (9)

I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 08:31:19 08/08/10 (8)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 17:48:03 08/08/10 (4)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 06:27:37 08/09/10 (3)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 02:43:37 08/11/10 (2)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 05:39:56 08/11/10 (1)

Now I have the rightmost post in "classic view". nt - kurt s 07:19:31 08/12/10 (0)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Tony Lauck 09:51:28 08/08/10 (2)

I got to the part about... - kerr 06:28:49 08/09/10 (1)

RE: I got to the part about... - Tony Lauck 10:48:47 08/09/10 (0)

I missed the connection between the title of your post and the content. nt - Tony Lauck 09:27:39 08/04/10 (0)

Congratulations - E-Stat 12:51:44 07/29/10 (3)

"Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - robert young 17:59:46 07/29/10 (2)

RE: "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - Tony Lauck 18:55:49 07/29/10 (1)

RE: "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - robert young 00:40:31 07/30/10 (0)

And what's more.... - robert young 16:58:42 07/24/10 (9)

RE: And what's more.... - Pat D 18:32:39 07/24/10 (8)

I'm still laughing... - robert young 20:44:50 07/24/10 (7)

LOL - Pat D 05:27:05 07/25/10 (6)

No, not THAT world, Pat. - carcass93 08:15:30 07/25/10 (2)

Yeah, illusions can be fun. - Pat D 09:23:26 07/25/10 (1)

I suppose - kerr 04:38:48 07/26/10 (0)

An adult using LOL and GMAB.... - robert young 07:40:17 07/25/10 (2)

Hmmm . . . I learned most of such acronym here at AA. (nt) - Pat D 09:24:50 07/25/10 (1)

Oh, GMAB! - kerr 04:40:30 07/26/10 (0)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Donald North 15:14:09 07/20/10 (14)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 23:47:20 07/22/10 (13)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Donald North 18:31:28 07/23/10 (12)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 19:14:59 07/23/10 (11)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - josh358 05:53:07 07/24/10 (10)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 16:14:46 07/24/10 (9)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - josh358 17:14:07 07/24/10 (8)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 18:40:25 07/24/10 (7)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - josh358 20:10:08 07/24/10 (0)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 19:11:48 07/24/10 (5)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Donald North 11:54:27 07/25/10 (0)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 05:30:32 07/25/10 (3)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 07:53:44 07/25/10 (2)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - morricab 13:37:01 07/25/10 (1)

RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 17:51:10 07/25/10 (0)

Highly Suspicious of Meta-Analysis - Tony Lauck 09:41:05 07/20/10 (2)

RE: Highly Suspicious of Meta-Analysis - Analog Scott 10:34:57 07/20/10 (1)

RE: Highly Suspicious of Meta-Analysis - Tony Lauck 12:47:53 07/20/10 (0)

So IOW, objectivists are biased because they believe in bias? - Presto 21:28:17 07/19/10 (8)

Not what I am saying at all but... - Analog Scott 09:49:09 07/20/10 (7)

RE: Not what I am saying at all but... - thetubeguy1954 15:04:41 07/21/10 (6)

Did any of the objetivists even understand the point you wre trying to make A.S.? - Analog Scott 02:37:05 07/22/10 (0)

You will never convince a skeptic with evidence - Tony Lauck 17:49:12 07/21/10 (4)

You just define skeptic that way. - Pat D 08:26:09 07/22/10 (3)

RE: You just define skeptic that way. - josh358 19:36:24 07/22/10 (0)

RE: You just define skeptic that way. - Tony Lauck 10:22:19 07/22/10 (1)

RE: You just define skeptic that way. - Pat D 19:19:22 07/22/10 (0)

Follow Ups

RE: Why should anyone accept some anomalous result without replication? - Pat D 08:17:33 07/21/10 (55)

So Pat, why haven't you brought up this point with the other example i cited? - Analog Scott 11:02:32 07/22/10 (54)

Have I cited that article? - Pat D 16:15:05 07/22/10 (53)

No, I cited it. You chose to ignore it. More cherry picking - Analog Scott 03:07:48 07/23/10 (52)

How could you cite it since you don't even seem to know what it was? - Pat D 06:18:51 07/23/10 (51)

You never have been one to let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. two simple facts - Analog Scott 09:12:53 07/23/10 (50)

LOL! Prove the 1985 article exists! (nt) - Pat D 11:14:27 07/23/10 (49)

Seriously? do you want me to prove Russia exists too since you haven't seen it in person? - Analog Scott 11:25:04 07/23/10 (48)

Who wrote the alleged 1985 article? What is its title? - Pat D 19:12:49 07/23/10 (47)

actually I misremembered. it was a 1987 article - Analog Scott 16:58:45 07/24/10 (1)

RE: actually I misremembered. it was a 1987 article - Pat D 19:52:59 07/24/10 (0)

Its great fun to stay away from this sandbox for a while... - robert young 07:55:34 07/24/10 (44)

AS wants to argue about an article he doesnt have. - Pat D 10:38:22 07/24/10 (43)

You are wasting your debating skills... - robert young 11:18:47 07/24/10 (42)

RE: You are wasting your debating skills... - Pat D 16:09:26 07/24/10 (41)

I predicted 20 posts of pure obfuscation from you on this thread - Analog Scott 17:03:52 07/24/10 (30)

Have you found those FR differences you mentioned that exceed known audible thresholds yet? - Pat D 18:15:23 07/24/10 (29)

I am truly very sorry if you believe - E-Stat 18:33:00 07/26/10 (28)

Irrelevant remarks. - Pat D 19:20:11 07/26/10 (27)

Absolutely - E-Stat 05:59:31 07/27/10 (26)

RE: Absolutely - Pat D 09:03:08 07/27/10 (25)

Simple - E-Stat 09:28:28 07/27/10 (24)

You are totally confused. - Pat D 20:04:52 07/28/10 (23)

Apparently, you are unaware of how dated your source is - E-Stat 07:30:13 07/29/10 (22)

It's not my source but one Analog Scott was using to make some point or other. - Pat D 12:18:16 07/29/10 (21)

I caught Analog Scott out on two things. - Analog Scott 07:30:08 07/30/10 (16)

RE: I caught Analog Scott out on two things. - Pat D 18:39:14 07/31/10 (15)

Gotta hand it to ya Pat. you never have been one to let facts get in your way - Analog Scott 19:54:14 07/31/10 (14)

When you have to hurl personal accusations to prove your point, youve already lost the argument. - Pat D 20:29:55 08/03/10 (13)

Let me know when that happens. - Analog Scott 17:15:39 08/04/10 (11)

Well, you may have points, but no real arguments for them. - Pat D 17:37:08 08/05/10 (10)

You have no arguments that I have no argument - Analog Scott 13:42:52 08/06/10 (9)

I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 08:31:19 08/08/10 (8)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 17:48:03 08/08/10 (4)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 06:27:37 08/09/10 (3)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 02:43:37 08/11/10 (2)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 05:39:56 08/11/10 (1)

Now I have the rightmost post in "classic view". nt - kurt s 07:19:31 08/12/10 (0)

RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Tony Lauck 09:51:28 08/08/10 (2)

I got to the part about... - kerr 06:28:49 08/09/10 (1)

RE: I got to the part about... - Tony Lauck 10:48:47 08/09/10 (0)

I missed the connection between the title of your post and the content. nt - Tony Lauck 09:27:39 08/04/10 (0)

Congratulations - E-Stat 12:51:44 07/29/10 (3)

"Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - robert young 17:59:46 07/29/10 (2)

RE: "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - Tony Lauck 18:55:49 07/29/10 (1)

RE: "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - robert young 00:40:31 07/30/10 (0)

And what's more.... - robert young 16:58:42 07/24/10 (9)

RE: And what's more.... - Pat D 18:32:39 07/24/10 (8)

I'm still laughing... - robert young 20:44:50 07/24/10 (7)

LOL - Pat D 05:27:05 07/25/10 (6)

No, not THAT world, Pat. - carcass93 08:15:30 07/25/10 (2)

Yeah, illusions can be fun. - Pat D 09:23:26 07/25/10 (1)

I suppose - kerr 04:38:48 07/26/10 (0)

An adult using LOL and GMAB.... - robert young 07:40:17 07/25/10 (2)

Hmmm . . . I learned most of such acronym here at AA. (nt) - Pat D 09:24:50 07/25/10 (1)

Oh, GMAB! - kerr 04:40:30 07/26/10 (0)

Post a Message!