oooook. Btw, how'd that bet on Romney winning in '12 work out for you? (speaking of track records)
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of >> the eCat being true. > > ***Nonsense statement. 0% would represent astronomically high odds of a > thousand or million to one. > > > > >> You need go to from the middle of the spread. > > ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine > hasn't. > > > >> Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I >> could already be on an asymptote. > > ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR > Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. > > > >> >> I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. >> > ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for > oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. > > > >> I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track >> record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being >> said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant >> generation of heat for long periods of time. >> > ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me > I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. > > >> >> Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities >> rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian >> point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. >> > ***Then your odds should not have changed. Your backtracking has > nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what > you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. > > > >> >> >> > >> We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how >> strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments >> about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. >> > ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you > had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is > just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move > my opinion by 700%. > > > > >> The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author >> comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked >> thoroughly by all involved. >> > ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because > it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in > another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. > So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful > the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another > powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. > You have benefited. >
