Re: OT The Politcal Brain - Confirmation bias



Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:15:10 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:14:29 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Cliff:

What you did was validate the article's conclusions, by your behavior.

Found these "WMDs" yet?

Cliff:

Absence of evidence, is not necessarily evidence of absence.

This is not LintLand.

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #1

Cliff:

No, this is the realm of what we call reality. There have been an
uncounted number of instances in science where there has been no
evidence of a phenomenon, which later proved to exist, when theory and
experimental procedures advanced to the point of detecting them.
Radioactivity, protons, neutrinos, quarks, gluons, etc. And yet to be
determined, Higgs Bosons, and Branes. So just because current efforts
produce no evidence doesn't mean an object or phenomenon doesn't or
can't exist.


This is testable, BB.

What's testable?

Idiots & liars.

Well, in the starkly polarized arena of politics there are enough
untruths and distortions to go around for BOTH sides. The illusion that
their own party is composed of saints and the opponent's party is solely
composed of sinners is very common in extremists. But of course the
most cursory of objective evaluations will show that that is not the
case. They're ALL sinners. Just kidding there, partially. <g>



BTW, Did you miss Duck's recent very good post?
You *should* read it.

You mean THIS one: LOL

Nope. Try again before it vanishes.

Political rhetoric doesn't move me much. My opinions and perspectives
(which can be quite strong on certain issues), don't easily fit into
nice neat boxes labeled "liberal" OR "conservative". IMO, neither
political party inspires much confidence.


================================================================
From: sittingduck <you.love.sitting-duck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

...

I should have never told cliff and gunner to go spew in the political
groups... all it did was make them realize they were there, and then
drag
this group through the cesspool.

duck <----- sorry

Not very.

He might not be VERY sorry, but his assessment that political extremism
(and extremists), are dragging this group through the cesspool is
apropos and accurate.



Actually, it explained your own modus operandi with remarkable
accuracy. Especially in the areas of politics,

Found these "WMDs" yet?
This is testable, BB.

Are you unable to separate an article ABOUT political rhetoric, FROM
political rhetoric itself?

Found these "WMDs" yet?
This is testable, BB.

So it seems the answer to my question is yes.

Cliffasive non-response. #2

machining,

Only the oversize dowels are oversize, BB.

Heh, yeah, and your not knowing which way the orthogonal coordinate
axes point

You had them every which way in Lintland <G>.

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #3

Took you a bit to notice too ..... LOL ..

Should we AGAIN revisit your original comments that said to the effect
that you didn't know which way orthogonal axes point, and also didn't
know what the "right-hand" rule really meant? Your errors in this
matter are archived for all to see.


after claiming to know all those programming systems from the
past, or getting the G02-03 wrong when you tried to program the lathe
edge break

I was correct as stated, BB.
Check it out <VBG>.

Not according to Tom and Dan. Post it again, and let's take an
objective look at it.


after claiming Tom didn't know what he was doing.

He's just a confused newbie. I have hope yet.

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #4


And not
knowing P,Q,R were tertiary axes,

IIRC Secondary was .....

Secondary axes were not the issue. You were wrong when you said P,Q,R
were NOT tertiary axes.


or not knowing that larger dia. stock
will contact the slit edges of a collet/bushing first.

That's not much related unless you are now changing your
claim.

I'm changing absolutely nothing.

Naturally oversized stock will contact there ..

NOW who's changing their story. YOU said the slit edges would be
farthest AWAY from larger than nominal stock. You might be able to
change history in your own mind but your comments that are archived in
Google aren't so easily changed. Should I bring up your original
claim/comments?

it just
will not fit in the collet/bushing as a result.
It was *in* the collet/bushing that was at issue <G>.

No, that was NOT the issue, you tried to deflect the issue by
mentioning hammers, forcing and such. But YOUR conceptual boo-boo WAS
and REMAINS the issue.


Also claiming
that a faster feed gives a better finish.

Not what I said though it well may ..... if all you are doing otherwise
is burnishing the high spots into the low.

I recall you saying something on the order that a higher FPT gives a
better finish. If you don't think that's an accurate representation of
what you said, here's your chance to post what you said and correct the
record.


These are all simple mistakes that someone that tries to project the
image of an expert in machining matters wouldn't make.

You always get confused <G>.

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #5


science,

I blame the very poor quality of the Catholic schools (along with
the nuns, Aristotle & Wick) on that one, BB.
You are usually so far off the mark that it's very, very funny. But sad.

It may inflate your ego or self-image to believe what you wrote above,
but I'm certainly not convinced,

Don't ask the lint next time then (or rely on Aristotle, the nuns & the
lint).

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #6


and I tend to doubt that many others
are either. Just answer the following questions:

Are mass and time vector quantities?

Time clearly is and mass may be.

Nope.

============================================================

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Vector (spatial): In physics and engineering, vector most often refers
specifically to an object that has a special relationship to the spatial
coordinates/directions.

Examples of vectors include displacement, velocity, electric
field,
momentum, force, and acceleration.

Vectors can be contrasted with scalar quantities such as
distance,
speed, energy, time, temperature, charge, power, work, and mass, which
have magnitude, but no direction (they are invariant under coordinate
rotations).
============================================================

============================================================
http://216.239.57.104/search?q =cache:PWldB9y6tQ4J:www.its-ab
out-time....

A vector (such as velocity, acceleration, and force) has both magnitude
and direction whereas a scalar (such as mass, and time) has only
magnitude.
============================================================

============================================================
http://www.saskschools.ca/curr _content/physics30/glossary.ht
ml=======...

Scalar.
A quantity that can be described completely with a magnitude. The
magnitude is made up of both a number and a unit. Some examples are
mass, time, distance, speed, and work.
============================================================

============================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S calar

In physics a scalar is a quantity that can be described by a single
number (either dimensionless, or in terms of some physical quantity).
Scalar quantities have
magnitude, but not a direction and should thus be distinguished from
vectors.

Examples of (non-relativistic) scalar quantities include:

electric charge
distance
energy
mass
power
speed
temperature
time
volume
work
=============================================================

=============================================================
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/ physics/mechanics/vectors/intr
oduction/...

Some quantities have only size.

In the above example the time period can be completely
explained and expressed using only one number, 30 seconds. That number
represents the size of the time, and, as a quantity, all that time has
is a size.

Quantities like these, that only have size, are called
scalars.

Vectors are quantities that have a size and a direction.

When we say that a quantity has a direction, we mean a
direction much like how a direction is thought about on a compass. The
velocity of a thrown baseball, of course, is pointed or aimed in the
direction that the ball is moving. That is not how we are speaking
about direction when we say, "Time marches forward," nor when we say,
"The temperature is going up." Time nor temperature are not aimed North,
South, East, nor West, or any other compass
direction.
============================================================

In all the time you've been making the claim that time is a
vector quantity you've NEVER once posted a credible site that agrees
with you. Can you find one now? If you can't, then your comments
resolve into just so much Bravo Sierra unsupported conjecture.


If your answer is yes, please
show a credible physics site that clearly and concisely agrees with you.

See many, many prior posts <G>.

NOW you're trying to claim that you HAVE supported your position with
credible physics sites? That is untrue and qualifies as an intentional
deceit. The only thing you've done is try to misinterpret the time
factor in Feynman diagrams as if it supported your position.




If an object has 2 kg of mass and zero velocity - how much momentum
does it possess?

And that is material how?
You don't seem to grasp much of this at all, BB.

It's VERY material in supporting another of your skewed science
misconceptions where you've claimed the "Mass ALWAYS has momentum".
Which is patently untrue since momentum is reference frame dependent and
within a reference frame where the object is stationary is HAS ZERO
MOMENTUM.


Cliff ol' buddy, I'm willing and open to be educated in ANY subject.

Not even in Lintland.

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #7


I certainly don't hold any illusions that I'm omniscient.

But the lint is, right? LOL ...

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #8


Unfortunately,
your biased certainties cannot be counted on to be consistently correct
or accurate. Hence your comments need external support before they can
be trusted to be true.

Go back to school MINUS the nuns.

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #9


Don't be upset just because you & they are wrong. Try instead
to learn (and then teach a few wingers yourself).

If I'm wrong, I'd like to know about it so I can correct it.

That's not at all true.

Cliffasive demeaning non-response. #10

Was Terry correct when he said: "the only thing i can consider "wrong"
is trying to have an intelligent exchange with cliff"

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
.