Res Ipsa vs Res Ipsa. Two people trapped in the same body

[Res Ipsa]

Finally this whole thing makes some sense. Today, you finally realized that you had cited Reinhold 2020 for something the paper didn’t say. It was Kipping in the video that said the sentence I bolded upthread.

That’s a perfectly ordinary and understandable mistake.

What you’ve done since is not. When I told you that were misrepresenting what the paper actually said, you never bothered to check and see if you had, indeed, made some kind of mistake. You simply doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down your claims about the paper. And you made statements that increasingly showed that you didn’t understand the paper at all.

When you finally typed up the first part of what Kipping said, it became clear that you also didn’t understand what Kipping was saying. Your claim that Kipping wasn’t talking about the non periodic subsample in Reinhold 2020 is proof of that. I don’t recall saying you misrepresented Kipping — that you hadn’t understood what he was saying.

So, after over two weeks, when you finally realized that I was right that you had cited Reinhold 2020 for something it didn’t say, did you ‘fess up to your own mistake? No, you tried to hide it by deleting your error from a quote of yourself. And when I called you on it, you tried to pass it off as a minor detail.

Only after I called you on your dishonesty did you come clean by revealing the actual source of the information you had claimed was in Reinhold 2020.

DT, what you can’t see is the amount of time and effort I expand to check and double check just to make sure I haven’t made a mistake before I ever post. It’s not foolproof — I still make mistakes — including stupid ones. But it cuts down the odds of being spectacularly wrong.

I believe you said that you still haven’t read the whole Reinhold 2020 paper. I’ve read it at least 20 times. Every time you made a claim about the paper, I went back and checked to make sure I hadn’t misunderstood it. Every time.

Every time you made some claim about what I had said earlier in the argument, I went back and checked to make sure I hadn’t mistakenly misrepresented something. Every time. And why? Because it’s more important to me to make sure I get to the correct answer than it is to defend something I said earlier in the argument.

Although we have butted heads numerous times in the past, I don’t think I’ve had a bias against you. I do now. Rather than taking two minutes to check yourself just to make sure you hadn’t made a mistake, you started two call out threads personally attacking me with nonsense. And when you figured out your mistake, you tried to hide it.

I suppose I should expect a couple more call out threads and attacks on my character. Feel free. I place no value whatsoever in your opinion of me.

[doubtingthomas]

Your claim that Kipping wasn’t talking about the non periodic subsample in Reinhold 2020 is proof of that. I

Okay, I'll acknowledge my mistake, Kipping mentioned the non periodic subsample when he said, "they showed that the sun's typical activity places it in the lowest third of quiet sun-like stars[see Figure 3]"

But Kipping was talking about all stars (young, old, periodic, non periodic, and so on) when he said, "we really do seem to have a quiet home star...Combining the percentages covered in this video, we'd estimate that less than half a percent of stars can be considered sun-like".

Kipping primarily used Reinhold 2020 to conclude that half a percent of stars can be considered sun-like. It's Kipping's reference, not mine. He fully read and analyzed the paper, not me.

I give up! I'll read the rest of your post later. I'll take a long break from this board starting next week.

[doubtingthomas]

" see if you had, indeed, made some kind of mistake"

It's not my mistake, it's Kipping's mistake.

[doubtingthomas]

I believe you said that you still haven’t read the whole Reinhold 2020 paper. I’ve read it at least 20 times. Every time you made a claim about the paper, I went back and checked to make sure I hadn’t misunderstood it. Every time.

Every time you made some claim about what I had said earlier in the argument, I went back and checked to make sure I hadn’t mistakenly misrepresented something. Every time. And why? Because it’s more important to me to make sure I get to the correct answer than it is to defend something I said earlier in the argument.

Jesus are you serious? I am starting to feel bad man, I'm sorry for the Hell I made you go through.

You are a very intelligent man, so I should probably be extra careful next time. I promise to carefully read a paper when we have another conversation.

[doubtingthomas]

I suppose I should expect a couple more call out threads and attacks on my character. Feel free. I place no value whatsoever in your opinion of me.

Again I am sorry, I hope you are okay.

I will carefully double check the sources when we have a conversation next time.

[doubtingthomas]

Finally this whole thing makes some sense. Today, you finally realized that you had cited Reinhold 2020 for something the paper didn’t say. It was Kipping in the video that said the sentence I bolded upthread.

But that was not your original response, you initially disagreed with my claim that the Sun is unusual, and you added too many words to my mouth.

Nothing of what I originally said contradicted the researchers or Kipping, you are full of crap.

[doubtingthomas]

What you’ve done since is not. When I told you that were misrepresenting what the paper actually said, you never bothered to check and see if you had, indeed, made some kind of mistake.

Here's what you told me, ""If observed by Kepler, the sun would appear to be a "rather normal star of the non-periodic sample." and you also told me, " You reached a conclusion opposite to that suggested by the paper" when I simply quoted the Title of the paper.

[Marcus]

I suppose I should expect a couple more call out threads and attacks on my character. Feel free. I place no value whatsoever in your opinion of me.

Again I am sorry, I hope you are okay.

I will carefully double check the sources when we have a conversation next time.

[doubtingthomas]

I will carefully double check the sources when we have a conversation next time.

Sure, I made some mistakes in my response, but my original statements were correct.

[Moksha]

Doubting Thomas, do you think the so-called "Dr. Caligari" cabinet could help integrate Res Ipsa or would you recommend additional anointings? As is, he seems much more rational than most of us.