Now you're just trying to change the subject. If ya wanna talk politics, click on that link I gave you. Vortex is for science subjects.
(speaking of track records) ***Now, it appears yours is one of strong backtracking, here on Vortex. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM, blaze spinnaker <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. >> > >
