345c73fc   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: pmcook@gte.net   
      
   On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:05:22 +0000, chris wrote:   
      
   >> However, the "public" at large tends to "believe" anecdotes.   
   > Who cares what the public believes.   
      
   Tyranny of the majority will kill you.   
   That's why it matters what the public believes.   
   It's the reason we have an electoral college, for example.   
      
   Most people are pretty stupid compared to the people you and I   
   hang around with daily.   
      
      
   > No, no! That's not how science works. That's just positive selection   
   > bias. You're finding data that fits your bias. That is what we in the   
   > trade call 'bad' science.   
      
   This is not true Chris, (as we sit sipping tea next to a fire).   
      
   I really do intuit that cellphones *should* cause more accidents.   
   Yet, *nobody* can find those higher accident rates.   
   That's because they don't exist.   
      
   How is that a "positive" bias?   
      
   You have to realize most of those papers are done in the lab,   
   so, that just bolsters our intuition that the accident rate   
   should shoot up through the roof.   
      
   How is the plain fact that *nobody* can *find* these accidents   
   a positive-selection bias?   
      
   > Yup. But reliable data does not prove an assumption if it is used   
   > inappropriately.   
      
   This is true. But, take this example of scientific proof.   
      
   1. Einstein intuited a theory, which he, himself, tested against the   
      orbit of a planet (I think it was Mercury?).   
      
   2. When he published his paper, some people thought that he fudged   
      the math given that he knew the orbit of that planet.   
      
   3. Yet, Einstein simply said that the starlight of stars near the   
      sun during an eclipse would bend such that this would be proof   
      that couldn't possibly have been fudged.   
      
   Voila! It wasn't easy (it took a world war and scientists taking   
   pictures of eclipses on three continents), but this simple proof   
   was enough *not* to shoot down Einstein's theory.   
      
   Had the starlight not bended, his math would have been wrong.   
   But, it took *years* to get the reliable measurements!   
      
   Same thing here.   
   If there are no increased accident rates that anyone can find   
   in any *reliable* data, that means that the accident rate is   
   not rising at all due to cellphone use.   
      
   Everyone will then complain that the increased accidents can   
   be "hidden" in the overall accident data - but - they're morons   
   because there is absolutely no way numbers as big as you would   
   predict could possibly be *hidden* so cleverly in the reliable   
   data.   
      
   The fact *nobody* can show any increase in accident rates is   
   the elephant in the room.   
      
   > OK, now, mr hard science what can you conclude from the fact there isn't   
   > an obvious or observable 'huge' increase in accidents? Hmm?   
   > Does it prove anything? Can you prove anything with that data?   
      
   Chris. How did you manage to *miss* entirely what the data says?   
   Nobody can find any increase in the accident rate.   
   Period.   
      
   > There is no '[sic]'. The studies, within their remits, do prove it. You   
   > agree with them in point 1. above. You're contradicting yourself.   
      
   The studies, as we all know, are manufactured experiments.   
   They may or may not show what happens in the real world.   
   I'm sure the peer-reviewed studies are 'good science' but what you   
   have to do with studies is not just read the headline that the   
   newspeople print.   
      
   The studies show a pacman style experiment that clearly requires   
   a real world test.   
      
   That they fail the real world test is what is so surprising here.   
      
   The fact is *nobody* on earth can show any increase in the number   
   of accidents per vehicle mile, as reported by the US Census Bureau.   
      
   That's like testing Einstein's theory, and finding out that light   
   does *not* bend when it passes by a massive object.   
      
   It's an immediate fail.   
      
   > Ha! Politicians do whatever they can that they can get away with. If the   
   > evidence suits their needs they'll use that, if not they'll use   
   > something else like 'common sense' or 'it is the right thing to do' or   
   > 'keeping children safe'.   
      
   This is true that politicians don't care about facts.   
   They care about emotion.   
      
   Joseph Simitian is a bleeding heart idiot, who probably doesn't even   
   believe the rhetoric he spouts daily to the masses.   
      
   > Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.   
   > This is classic 'Argument from ignorance':   
      
   You're misquoting the statistics maxim.   
   It's not at all a "lack of evidence".   
      
   There is *plenty* of good hard evidence.   
   The US Census Bureau has been compiling those statistics for decades.   
      
   Their very good evidence shows that there is no increase in the accident   
   rate (which is vehicle accidents per mile driven).   
      
   That is a cold hard fact.   
      
   So there is plenty of evidence that the accident rate has been falling.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)