Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

610 Replies to “Sandbox (4)”

  1. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: No, He would not have to be omniscient in order to reveal stuff to me.

    He would have to be omniscient and also perfectly just in order to insure that he did not reveal anything that was not factually correct.

    But knowledge would be required to do it in a way you understood, and knowledge is required for revelation to be true.

    For revelation to be justification ,understanding and truth are required.

  2. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: For revelation to be justification ,understanding and truth are required.

    I would wholeheartedly agree that truth is required for knowledge and revelation.

    I would also say that revelation has not taken place unless the recipient has some level of understanding of what has been revealed.

    P.S. On a side note I really enjoy our interactions here newton.

    Usually with other contributors their motivation for asking a question is clear but often with you I don’t know exactly what you are getting at and that allows me to better focus on the question itself and as a result learn stuff.

    I think that I would enjoy a visit with you over lemonade on the front porch 😉

    thanks

  3. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    In memorial of Richard Hoppe.

    Hoppe was my opponent for over a decade in creation/evolution debates, but to his credit he helped send creationist Charles Duke to the moon and back when Duke was and astronaut and Hoppe was an employee at Nasa. Duke became a Christian and faith healer and healed a blind girl in the name of Jesus….

    Here are the memorial mentions of Richard Hoppe:
    http://www.kenyon.edu/middle-path/story/kenyon-mourns-richard-hoppe/

    https://ncse.com/news/2018/01/richard-b-hoppe-iii-dies-0018682

    Even though Hoppe was my opponent, I’m still sad over his passing. He was a gentleman and scholar and upstanding citizen and soldier.

  4. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Usually with other contributors their motivation for asking a question is clear but often with you I don’t know exactly what you are getting at and that allows me to better focus on the question itself and as a result learn stuff.

    I like to know how things work. I don’t have to agree with you to be interested in how you arrive at your conclusions.

    I generally prefer something a bit stronger than lemonade,but the porch sounds good.

  5. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    fifth:

    I would wholeheartedly agree that truth is required for knowledge and revelation.

    There’s a related question waiting for you here.

  6. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: I generally prefer something a bit stronger than lemonade,but the porch sounds good.

    My only problem with enjoying the stronger stuff is that it might make my sainted Baptist Grandpa roll over in his grave.

    So I will stick to lemonade or Dr Pepper and you can enjoy whatever you like. 😉

    peace

  7. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: I don’t have to agree with you to be interested in how you arrive at your conclusions.

    The same goes for me.

    That is what forums like this should be all about.

    It’s a shame when it disintegrates into trying to score points and trading insults.

    peace

  8. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    Vikings win a playoff game against Saints in dramatic fashion:
    https://streamable.com/2jqws

  9. stcordova
    Ignored
    says:

    newton:

    I generally prefer something a bit stronger than lemonade

    Half a teaspoon of Beachcomber sweetened rum in a shotglass of milk tastes pretty good.

  10. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    I have a quick sciencey question

    here is historic weather information for a particular weather station

    https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGMC/2017/12/19/MonthlyCalendar.html?req_city=&req_state=&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=

    notice there is no information recorded on December 25th.

    Suppose I had the hypothesis that future historic data for this station would also be missing temperature information on December 25th. What statistical test would I use to insure that a positive result was not the result of chance?

    thanks in advance

    peace

  11. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Suppose I had the hypothesis that future historic data for this station would also be missing temperature information on December 25th. What statistical test would I use to insure that a positive result was not the result of chance?

    Uh, you want to predict when missing data will occur? Wasn’t your model about weather, rather than its reporting?

    Oh, and there happens to be a holiday on December 25, did you know?

  12. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Uh, you want to predict when missing data will occur? Wasn’t your model about weather, rather than its reporting?

    How exactly do you separate real weather from what is reported?

    Corneel: Oh, and there happens to be a holiday on December 25, did you know?

    exactly.

    This particular weather reporting station seems to not report information on that holiday. It’s a quirk that can be used for prediction.

    peace

  13. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: How exactly do you separate real weather from what is reported?

    By setting missing data as such: missing values

    fifthmonarchyman: This particular weather reporting station seems to not report information on that holiday. It’s a quirk that can be predicted.

    That’s easy enough. Suppose the null hypothesis is that any day in the year has the same probability that data will be missing. Then the expectation for any particular day will be the frequency of days with missing weather reports throughout the year (#days with missing reports / total number of days).
    A simple chi-squared test of goodness-of-fit is appropriate for that.

    And here is what you will find: The null-hypothesis will be rejected because holidays have an increased probability of missing reports.

    ETA: That is, if you have enough data of course.

  14. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: My only problem with enjoying the stronger stuff is that it might make my sainted Baptist Grandpa roll over in his grave.

    So I will stick to lemonade or Dr Pepper and you can enjoy whatever you like.😉

    peace

    Luckily my Irish Grandpa would have no objection

  15. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova: Half a teaspoon of Beachcomber sweetened rum in a shotglass of milk tastes pretty good.

    A little too sweet, pretty much straight up maybe with a little ice if it is barrel proof.

  16. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    stcordova:
    Vikings win a playoff game against Saints in dramatic fashion:
    https://streamable.com/2jqws

    When the Saints returned to New Orleans there were supportive signs for the safety involved.

  17. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: That is what forums like this should be all about.

    It’s a shame when it disintegrates into trying to score points and trading insults.

    Everyone likes scoring points and insults if judiciously used are way of conveying truth.

    I like the narrative form.

  18. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: I like the narrative form.

    I hate the New England Patriots.

  19. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    walto,
    Yet they always speak so highly of you? 😯

  20. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: By setting missing data as such: missing values

    That works for that particular quirk. What about the one on November 29th at the same weather station?

    check it out

    https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGMC/2017/11/19/MonthlyCalendar.html?req_city=&req_state=&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=

    Corneel: A simple chi-squared test of goodness-of-fit is appropriate for that.

    That is what I thought.

    Corneel: ETA: That is, if you have enough data of course.

    Cool

    Glad to know I’m on the right track with this minor little rabbit trail at least.

    peace

  21. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: That works for that particular quirk. What about the one on November 29th at the same weather station?

    That’s clearly a mistake, probably caused by a missing decimal sign or a typo. Correct the mistake to its probable value (3 or 4 degrees) or set it as a missing value.

  22. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: That’s clearly a mistake, probably caused by a missing decimal sign or a typo.

    I agree.

    Typos and taking holidays off are things that persons do that models don’t.

    There are lots other quirks that distinguish the output of persons from that of algorithms as I hopefully will demonstrate.

    The question is whether we can use our knowledge of these personal quirks to improve our models

    stay tuned

    peace

  23. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Correct the mistake to its probable value (3 or 4 degrees) or set it as a missing value.

    Making the recorded value match an expected value or ignoring it is skewing the results to better match our model.

    That might be appropriate here when the difference is so huge and the recorded data is obviously a mistake. what do we do when the typo is not obvious?

    Perhaps in some less glaring cases it would be better to make the model more closely match the recorded results.

    peace

  24. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Making the recorded value match an expected value or ignoring it is skewing the results to better match our model.

    Do you want your model to correctly predict the weather or its reports? If it is the former, you’d like the reports to match the actual values as closely as possible, right?

    fifthmonarchyman: That might be appropriate here when the difference is so huge and the recorded data is obviously a mistake. what do we do when the typo is not obvious?

    Then we include a mistaken value without knowing about it.

    BTW. I am getting really curious about your model.

  25. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Do you want your model to correctly predict the weather or its reports?

    I don’t think you can ever completely separate “real” weather from what we report. On a deeper philosophical level I don’t think reality can be separated from observation.

    Corneel: If it is the former, you’d like the reports to match the actual values as closely as possible, right?

    I’m not sure what you mean by “actual” values.

    If you mean values that match our models or that could not be recognized as personal “quirks” then that is not what I want to look at.

    Corneel: Then we include a mistaken value without knowing about it.

    I think we can identify personal “quirks” in reported weather data (really any reported data) and then use that information to make valid predictions.

    So in a sense we can know about it though i’m not sure I would call all personal “quirks” mistakes.

    peace

  26. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I don’t think you can ever completely separate “real” weather from what we report. On a deeper philosophical level I don’t think reality can be separated from observation.

    You must be a mighty interesting person to hang around with, especially during a downpour.
    Here is a new concept for you: “reasonable approximation”

  27. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Here is a new concept for you: “reasonable approximation”

    Oh I understand “reasonable approximation”.

    The terms “reasonable” and “approximation” make no sense with out factoring in personal subjective choice

    Corneel: You must be a mighty interesting person to hang around with, especially during a downpour.

    I think that might be an insult.

    But I’m not quite sure so I’ll “choose” to consider it a compliment. 😉

    peace

  28. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: The terms “reasonable” and “approximation” make no sense with out factoring in personal subjective choice

    Yes, but I would expect some consensus on our perception of the weather. There must be something we can agree on.

    fifthmonarchyman: I think that might an insult.

    But I’m not quite sure so I’ll “choose” to consider it a compliment. 😉

    I am not fond of insulting other people, Fifth. Just a little quip.

  29. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: but I would expect some consensus on our perception of the weather.There must be something we can agree on.

    Do we agree on how many digits we need to round at?

    What about the exact angle to view the thermometer or in the case of a digital one how to calibrate it or how often to verify accuracy against a standard?

    Then there is the whole question of what qualifies as a standard

    What about placement in the environment amid surrounding hills and buildings etc.

    Every single weather measurement incorporates probably dozens of personal choices.

    I just don’t think you can ever eliminate all possible personal quirks like that from our measurements.

    I don’t think you would want too if you could.

    peace

  30. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: I am not fond of insulting other people, Fifth. Just a little quip.

    I do appreciate your polite input. It’s that sort of thing that makes this a worthwhile place to visit.

    peace

  31. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Yes, but I would expect some consensus on our perception of the weather.

    It’s not necessarily about a lack of consensus it’s about how small personal quirks in our recording can have large effects.

    To get an idea of how big a deal this might turn out to be.

    check this out

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/can-we-zero-in-on-earths-sensitivity-to-co%e2%82%82/

    quote:

    That means many of those simulated histories yield misleading answers.

    The reason that happens seems to be that our measurements of the balance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing heat energy depends on more than just global temperature change—it depends on regional patterns of temperature change, which can vary. So two simulations with the exact same amount of warming can actually give you different estimates of climate sensitivity.

    This becomes a problem because we only have one version of actual history to analyze, so we can’t be sure whether this particular estimate method is giving us a reliable result or whether it’s the equivalent of one of the oddball model runs.

    end quote:

    peace

  32. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: I hate the New England Patriots.

    Care to elaborate , is it their fans or the fact they are cheaters?

  33. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    fifth,

    Are you ever going to learn how to use <blockquote> tags?

    Or do you just keep using “quote:” and “endquote:” because you think it sounds cool?

    It doesn’t.

    Come on, fifth. It’s a simple matter of courtesy to your readers to put quotes into <blockquote></blockquote> pairs.

  34. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Care to elaborate , is it their fans or the fact they are cheaters?

    Can’t talk about them too much. (A) I live in the Boston area and someone might kIll me. (B) Bad for the blood pressure.

    But even if I liked them and their key figures weren’t Trumpies and cheats, I don’t ever support dynasties, overwhelming favorites, perpetual winners, etc. I’m a Jamaican bobsled team type. I don’t deny that Brady and Belichick are both extremely talented, but that is not a reason for me to root for them or their laundry.

  35. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: That means many of those simulated histories yield misleading answers.

    Fifth, you seem to have a knack for missing the central point of the articles you cite. Of course it is about consensus:

    Instead, all these studies pursuing different lines of evidence are better viewed as a collective effort. As Michelangelo is said to have viewed his work as revealing a statue that already existed within a block of stone, climate scientists have to gradually and incrementally chip away at Earth’s climate sensitivity to bring our climate future into sharper focus. Having a variety of chisels certainly doesn’t hurt.

  36. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Fifth, you seem to have a knack for missing the central point of the articles you cite.

    No I don’t usually miss the point of the articles I cite. It’s just that often I find that the more interesting information is in the subtext.

    That is pretty much the way it is in life.

    Often the most important facts to the recipient are not the most important ones to the presenter.

    Corneel: Of course it is about consensus:

    I think consensus is a valuable thing however there is a difference between consensus and unanimity.

    The difference is personal quirks and it’s what makes life interesting.

    It’s the difference between the federation and the borg.

    I’m hoping show that we can leverage the difference in order to improve our models.

    peace

  37. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    A very cool, GPS-like system for navigating in deep space using pulsars.

    ETA: A quote from the article:

    With the help of an enhancement known as the Station Explorer for X-ray Timing and Navigation Technology (aka Sextant), Nicer was able to determine the station’s position in Earth’s orbit to within roughly three miles—while it was traveling in excess of 17,000 miles per hour.

  38. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    There is not a lot new here but it’s an important reminder at a site like this

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/

    peace

  39. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    Compare the title of that article (“New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger”) to the abstract of the actual paper:

    Abstract:
    Recent research argues that the United States is secularizing, that this religious change is consistent with the secularization thesis, and that American religion is not exceptional. But we show that rather than religion fading into irrelevance as the secularization thesis would suggest, intense religion—strong affiliation, very frequent practice, literalism, and evangelicalism—is persistent and, in fact, only moderate religion is on the decline in the United States. We also show that in comparable countries, intense religion is on the decline or already at very low levels. Therefore, the intensity of American religion is actually becoming more exceptional over time. We conclude that intense religion in the United States is persistent and exceptional in ways that do not fit the secularization thesis.

  40. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    Test

  41. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    Test2

  42. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    Dazz, FWIW, I think your Test 1 results are more convincing. The second one may be more flashy, but a close look shows that the R-squares are all down.

    ;>}

  43. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths: Abstract:
    Recent research argues that the United States is secularizing, that this religious change is consistent with the secularization thesis, and that American religion is not exceptional. But we show that rather than religion fading into irrelevance as the secularization thesis would suggest, intense religion—strong affiliation, very frequent practice, literalism, and evangelicalism—is persistent and, in fact, only moderate religion is on the decline in the United States. We also show that in comparable countries, intense religion is on the decline or already at very low levels. Therefore, the intensity of American religion is actually becoming more exceptional over time. We conclude that intense religion in the United States is persistent and exceptional in ways that do not fit the secularization thesis.

    And “intense religion” is what makes the “Handmaid’s Tale” world so attractive!

  44. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: And “intense religion” is what makes the “Handmaid’s Tale” world so attractive!

    There is no reason that I can see to equate intense with evil.

    quote:
    Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?
    (1Pe 3:13)

    and

    When a man’s ways please the LORD, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.
    (Pro 16:7)

    end quote:

    peace

  45. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    keiths,

    It’s been more than a week and I’m sorry to say I have yet to see a summary of the beliefs you now embrace so that I can resume talking with you while still assuming that you are posting in good faith.

    It’s possible that no one here is willing to help you out in that regard so I will suggest you attach your list to a post you expect to end up in guano.

    I’ll check in on that thread from time to time to make sure I’m not snubbing you for no reason.

    peace

  46. keiths keiths
    Ignored
    says:

    fifth,

    You’re not fooling anyone. Putting me on Ignore (or pretending to) is just a way for you to try to save face.

    If you had any confidence in your position, you’d address my arguments instead of pretending not to see them.

    I wonder who the patron saint of cowards is?

  47. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: There is no reason that I can see to equate intense with evil.

    quote:
    Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?
    (1Pe 3:13)

    and

    When a man’s ways please the LORD, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.
    (Pro 16:7)

    end quote:

    peace

    You can get Hulu for a month at no charge. Watch “Handmaids Tale” and get back to us.

  48. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: You can get Hulu for a month at no charge. Watch “Handmaids Tale” and get back to us.

    from here

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/books/review/margaret-atwood-handmaids-tale-age-of-trump.html

    quote:

    In the book, the dominant “religion” is moving to seize doctrinal control, and religious denominations familiar to us are being annihilated. Just as the Bolsheviks destroyed the Mensheviks in order to eliminate political competition and Red Guard factions fought to the death against one another, the Catholics and the ——-Baptists ———are being targeted and eliminated. The Quakers have gone underground, and are running an escape route to Canada, as — I suspect — they would. Offred herself has a private version of the Lord’s Prayer and refuses to believe that this regime has been mandated by a just and merciful God. In the real world today, some religious groups are leading movements for the protection of vulnerable groups, including women.

    So the book is not “antireligion.” It is against the use of religion as a front for tyranny; which is a different thing altogether.

    end quote:

    So according to it’s author It seems the “Handmaids Tale” is pro my kind of intense religion it’s just against the evil kind of religion.

    me too.

    peace

  49. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: You can get Hulu for a month at no charge. Watch “Handmaids Tale” and get back to us.

    I think I’m going to waste my limited TV binging time budget on the upcoming season three of “Man in the High Castle”

    Maybe after baseball season

    peace

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.