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

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

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

Post by Res Ipsa »

Moksha wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:13 am
Res Ipsa, as two people trapped in the same body, are you certain that when your worth is weighed on the scale against the collected works of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson that you still do not need that added duck to balance things out? I'm thinking that the Brethren would choose Scrooge McDuck, but it is your choice.



Doubting Thomas, remember the words of Dobby Copernicus, "Star light, star bright, first star I see tonight I wish I may, I wish I might have this wish I wish tonight".
Remember, not only am I two people trapped in the same body, those two people are completely contradictory. According to exploratory work done by the esteemed Dr. Leonard McCoy in the case of the separation of the Good and Evil Captains Kirk, the troughs and waves of the expertise waveforms should cancel each other out, resulting in a Res Ipsa of just average expertise. However, because it would be an unlikely coincidence if this Res Ipsa were to be the exact average of all typical Res Ipsa, DTs theory of contradiction, which states that, to be typical of a group, one cannot be higher or lower than the average member of a group, I must conclude that I don't actually exist, which means I have only anti-expertise against Dr. Peterson's expertise. For me to beat Dr. Peterson would require him to be handicapped with a substantial number of anti-ducks. I suggest this could be accomplished by using a large number of Elmer Fudd's.
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

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

Post by doubtingthomas »

Joshua wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:52 am
Are you not the one complaining about Binger editing post?
Marcus claims to be a renowned Professor of Statistics.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

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

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:56 pm
However, because it would be an unlikely coincidence if this Res Ipsa were to be the exact average of all typical Res Ipsa, DTs theory of contradiction, which states that, to be typical of a group, one cannot be higher or lower than the average member of a group, I must conclude that I don't actually exist, which means I have only anti-expertise against Dr. Peterson's expertise. For me to beat Dr. Peterson would require him to be handicapped with a substantial number of anti-ducks. I suggest this could be accomplished by using a large number of Elmer Fudd's.
You should admit that you made some mistakes, it's clear.

Do you have a response for this?
doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 6:32 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:41 am
As late as last night, he still was insisting that Kipping never said anything about the non periodic stars (which was the subsample of “quiet sun-like stars.”
Kipping didn't explain that quiet stars (non-periodic) are stars without a known rotation rate.

Kipping did say, "they showed that the sun's typical activity places it in the lowest third of quiet sun-like stars[see Figure 3]", but you initially said, "If observed by Kepler, the sun would appear to be a "rather normal star of the non-periodic sample."

I am telling you this is now all a mess and many things that you say that I said are not true.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

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

Post by Dr Exiled »

I liked crazy evil Kirk in that episode. But he couldn't keep it together. Look at the rage in his eyes.

Image
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

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

Post by Res Ipsa »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 6:13 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:56 pm
However, because it would be an unlikely coincidence if this Res Ipsa were to be the exact average of all typical Res Ipsa, DTs theory of contradiction, which states that, to be typical of a group, one cannot be higher or lower than the average member of a group, I must conclude that I don't actually exist, which means I have only anti-expertise against Dr. Peterson's expertise. For me to beat Dr. Peterson would require him to be handicapped with a substantial number of anti-ducks. I suggest this could be accomplished by using a large number of Elmer Fudd's.
You should admit that you made some mistakes, it's clear.

Do you have a response for this?
doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 6:32 am


Kipping didn't explain that quiet stars (non-periodic) are stars without a known rotation rate.

Kipping did say, "they showed that the sun's typical activity places it in the lowest third of quiet sun-like stars[see Figure 3]", but you initially said, "If observed by Kepler, the sun would appear to be a "rather normal star of the non-periodic sample."

I am telling you this is now all a mess and many things that you say that I said are not true.
You know how some people are face blind? I've come to the conclusion that you are context blind. You literally cannot see or understand context. That must make communicating with fellow humans extremely difficult.

The only reason you are seeing what you think are contradictions is that you are literally not seeing the context.

Here's the context you are not seeing:

1. Kipping is talking about the paper Reinhold 2020, and specifically refers to Figure 3.
2. You knew Kipping was talking about Reinhold 2020, because you kept claiming that you were only saying what Kipping said.
3. At the very beginning of our disagreement on this point, you cited Reinhold 2020, meaning you had access to the paper.
4. Reinhold 2020 says this:
Reinhold 2020 wrote:Figure 3 shows the distribution of Rvar for the Sun, the periodic stars, and a composite sample of the periodic and non-periodic samples combined. To compare the Sun with the stars observed by Kepler, we simulated how it would have appeared in the Kepler data by adding noise to the TSI time series (Fig. S7). The variability range was then computed for 10,000 randomly selected 4-year segments from ∼140 years of reconstructed TSI data (13).

The activity distribution of the composite sample (Fig. 3) does not separate into distributions of periodic and non-periodic stars, but appears to represent a single physical population of stars. Fitting an exponential function y = a0 10a1Rvar to the variability distribution of the (corrected) composite sample with Rvar > 0.2% yields a0 = 0.14 ± 0.02 and a1 = −2.27 ± 0.17. The subsample of periodic stars mostly populates the high variability portion of the full distribution in Figure 3, whereas the low variability portion mostly contains stars from the non-periodic sample. The solar Rvar distribution is consistent with the majority of low-variability stars, in line with previous studies (9). Determining the solar rotation period from photometric observations alone is challenging (27–29). Consequently, the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler, and we find that the level of solar variability is typical for stars with undetected periods (Fig. 3). The Sun would appear as a rather normal star of the non-periodic sample if it had been observed with Kepler. However, our composite sample contains stars that might have quite different rotation periods, even though they have near-solar fundamental parameters.

In contrast, the variability of stars in the periodic sample has a different distribution. While there are some periodic stars with variabilities within the observed range covered by the Sun, the variability amplitude for the majority of periodic stars lies well above the solar maximum value
5 of the last 140 years.
Consequently, most of the solar-like stars that have measured near-solar rotation periods appear to be more active than the Sun. The variability of the periodic stars at the solar effective temperature, rotation period, and metallicity is Rvar = 0.36% (Fig. S8), which is about 5 times higher than the median solar variability Rvar,⊙ = 0.07%, and 1.8 times higher than the maximum solar value Rvar,⊙ 􏰀 0.20%. All these stars have near-solar fundamental parameters and rotational periods, so this implies that their values do not uniquely determine the level of any star’s magnetic activity. This result is consistent with the detection of flares with energies several orders of magnitude higher than solar flares (i.e., superflares) on other solar-type stars (30, 31).
Boldface added.

Given the context, my response is that if you had read and understood the paper and had understood what Kipping said about the paper, you would have understood that when Kipping said "quiet sun-like stars" he was talking about the subsample of non-periodic stars. Yet, even after I had broken down the paper for you, explained the difference between the period subsamples and the non-periodic subsamples, and described the conclusions the paper drew as to each, you still insisted after a ton of back and forth about the paper:
doubtingthomas wrote:Kipping never mentioned nonperiodic stars in the video and did not try to "put a number on how typical the sun is".
Emphasis added.

You first cited Reinhold 2020 on Jan 1. You posted the above on January 18. We'd gone back and forth about this one paper almost daily for 18 days. If you had read and understood Reinhold 2020 there is no way that you would be claiming that Kipping was not talking about the non-periodic subsample when he said "quiet sun-like stars".

As for your alleged "contradiction," you're simply repeating the same mistake you make with scientific papers. You're taking out of context snippets of thing's I've said in specific contexts during our back and forth and claiming they are contradictory.

You didn't link to the post in which I allegedly said: " "If observed by Kepler, the sun would appear to be a "rather normal star of the non-periodic sample." I suspect the context is that I'm trying to explain to you what the paper actually said. The paper says: "The Sun would appear as a rather normal star of the non-periodic sample if it had been observed with Kepler." What I said is what the paper said.

But there is nothing inherently contradictory between the description of the sun as a "rather normal" member of a group and a description of it being in the bottom third of that group. I don't understand in the slightest why you claim that it is, even with no context. With context, the paper describes how the sun compares with two different groups. The sun is definitely an outlier with the stars in the periodic group. In that context, "rather normal" should be seen as a comparison with how the sun fits in the contrasting group. With or without context, there simply is no contradiction.

If you will show me where I made a mistake, I'll happily fess up to it. But the "mistakes" you've posited so far are based of your own misunderstandings of Kipping, Reinhold 2020, or me.

I will cop to one big mistake. I have engaged with you on the general topic of how to use scientific research because I thought "how to read and discuss a scientific paper" was simply a hole in your skillset. You seem to me to be intelligent enough to read and understand scientific literature (not necessarily the math or other details in the methods) but to understand what the paper actually says and the limitations on what can be fairly drawn from them.

But I, reluctantly concludes that was wrong. This "context blindness" or whatever it is that leads you draw sometimes absurd conclusions from out of context snippets doesn't appear fixable in terms of learning how to read a scientific paper. That you do the same thing with my posts and those of others with the same result tells me it's not a matter of stupidity or stubbornness or maliciousness or a hole in a specific skill set. Whatever it is is beyond any skillset I have that could possibly apply.

So, I'm sorry. I'm tired of doing the same thing over and over and over and over again with no change in results. It takes me ten times the amount of time to explain to you why something you claim is a contradiction isn't than it takes you to lift a couple of snippets and claim they are contrary. If I thought you would learn something from that process, it might be worth the time. But I'm not getting anything out of these discussions, and it seems pretty clear you aren't either. And both of us end up frustrated.

So, I'm sorry, but I see no point in responding further to your endlessly generated claims that ignore context. I've also made a mistake in continuing to respond after saying that I'm done, but I've kept hoping that something will sink in. So, I expect the usual personal insults and baiting, only bigger in magnitude. All I can say is that I don't really care -- my sense of self worth is not tied up in your opinion of me.

Again, sorry to be harsh. I'll bet you get over it just fine.

RI
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

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

Post by Res Ipsa »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 6:35 pm
I liked crazy evil Kirk in that episode. But he couldn't keep it together. Look at the rage in his eyes.

Image
Confession, offspring number 3 has decided to watch classic Trek and I watch that episode with them yesterday or the day before. Deranged and crazed Captain Kirk is pretty amazing. With that episode it's also hard to suspend the knowledge that the shots of crazed Kirk and meek Kirk were likely shot at completely different times. The changes in crazed Kirk and just too abrupt

Still, good fun to watch the series with a first-timer.
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

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

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:36 pm

Given the context, my response is that if you had read and understood the paper and had understood what Kipping said about the paper, you would have understood that when Kipping said "quiet sun-like stars" he was talking about the subsample of non-periodic stars. Yet, even after I had broken down the paper for you, explained the difference between the period subsamples and the non-periodic subsamples, and described the conclusions the paper drew as to each, you still insisted after a ton of back and forth about the paper: "Kipping never mentioned nonperiodic stars in the video"


In the video, Kipping never explained what he meant by "quiet sun-like stars". He was talking about periodic stars ( stars with a known rotation period) when discussing Reinhold 2020. You should watch the video before criticizing me.

Lastly, you keep ignoring what Kipping concludes: "we really do seem to have a quiet home star". He was talking about the Sun being unusual among all stars, not just periodic or non-periodic stars.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:36 pm
The only reason you are seeing what you think are contradictions is that you are literally not seeing the context.
Or you are simply not understanding what I am saying. Your brain is like focused on adding words to my mouth.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:36 pm
But there is nothing inherently contradictory between the description of the sun as a "rather normal" member of a group and a description of it being in the bottom third of that group.
I disagree and we don't know how many non-periodic stars are sun-like " our composite sample contains stars that might have quite different rotation periods".
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

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

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:36 pm
You seem to me to be intelligent enough to read and understand scientific literature (not necessarily the math or other details in the methods) but to understand what the paper actually says and the limitations on what can be fairly drawn from them.
I am probably more intelligent than you. What's your highest level of Math?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

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

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:36 pm
you would have understood that when Kipping said "quiet sun-like stars" he was talking about the subsample of non-periodic stars.

Kipping was explaining that middle age stars are quieter than younger stars, watch the video. Kipping never clarified that he was talking about non-periodic stars.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 6901
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:40 pm
The changes in crazed Kirk and just too abrupt.
I think Shatner was tapping into his character seeing gremlins on the wing of an airplane in an earlier Twilight Zone episode. Method acting, or something like it.

... middle age stars are quieter than younger stars...
None of that hip hop for them. Wait, did I miss the context? Where's my maths?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply