JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Then you should have reported it instead of merely claiming so for rhetorical effect. It's easy to say, "You're all just picking on me," whether or not that's true. Submitting it for moderation requires another person -- ideally a team of people -- to agree with the accusation. You're following a pattern of avoiding subjective adjudication of your claims, in this case so that you have an excuse to dismiss others' posts as somehow unworthy of attention.
Not an argument I made. Kindly deal with what I actually do, not with what you imagine I have done or will do.
it is not ad hominem argumentation to note that your responses to people contain many elements that are irrelevant to the points made. It is justifiable, however, to suspect that those may have been included as a distraction. Asking you to omit them in the future is perfectly reasonable.
No such argument was made by that statement. Kindly confine yourself to the arguments made, not what you think they might imply about you personally. The argument was merely to illustrate that all the people who employ rigorous methodology do so for different reasons. The reason in your case would be to help determine what's making you sick, in hopes of curing it. I can't imagine what gymnastics that required to conclude that I was insulting you.
Not substantively, no.
As are mine. But since both of us are putatively anonymous on this forum, I don't see what point you're trying to make. Either you can demonstrate substantive expertise by engaging with specialized topics, or you cannot. Your critics aren't convinced by frantic handwaving.
Nonsense. I have made several substantial contributions to this thread, which you admit you do not read.
Because that's the definition of an anecdote.
I discussed your science at length. You did not respond.
No, I attempt to stay on the subject while you try very hard to shove other arguments in my mouth and bait me to defend them. I interpreted that as you being knocked off your script by someone giving an honest, informed answer instead of what your political literature prepared you for. I warned you several times that I would not follow your road map. I renew that warning now.
As, ostensibly, are those whose conclusions differ from the ones you're aware of. Your literature has given you only one side of the story and sidestepped the other by raising a political controversy instead. This is not a good way to suggest that the science is conclusive. Further, you seem immune to the notion that the side of the debate you favor cannot also have ulterior motives.
Your analogy illustrated your argument only if the premise was equivalent cause and effect. So either your'e arguing from a factually incorrect basis, or you're arguing according to an irrelevant analogy. Which is it?
Your responses are most often simply denials. They don't demonstrate the expertise you claim. When you occasionally go beyond merely repeating your claim to superior expertise, the detail you provide is merely a recitation of easily determined facts, which you then fail to put into a useful context or connect to your conclusion, or even to discuss beyond their initial appearance. That is, it's a bluff. You seem to think an argument is made by merely stating static facts and then declaring victory.
You haven't demonstrated an understanding of science. You've demonstrate the ability to use science words in your posts, but you don't seem to understand the concept of scientific inquiry, nor the actual problems and solutions that practical scientists today employ. When it comes down to determining whether you have a practicably testable claim, the experience of practicing scientists is a must. You cannot exhibit that experience, and you seem to resent it being exhibited by others.
A long list of life accomplishments doesn't make you a scientist. They are irrelevant to the claims you're making. If you cannot demonstrate expertise on the points at hand, and your argument is based on your claims to such expertise, then it does not matter what else you may have accomplished.
If that were the case then they would have dismissed your claim of personal harm outright. Instead they've proposed a win-win scenario where you get to test the causality you suspect, and hopefully come closer to a cure. Plus you get to provide evidence of the kind your critics want. They're helping you collect the evidence that would convince them, and they've agreed to lower the standard for significance. Given all the forbearance and assistance that has been shown to you, it's very unfair to say you have been dismissed out of hand.
Why are you averse to collecting that evidence, then?
The experiment has always been limited to you and your circumstances. What led you to believe otherwise?
What "unknown" variable have I proposed? If you oppose the word "extrasensory," then propose a different word and I'll happily accept it. You don't seem to have proposed any actual physiological mechanism for the causation you say is at work in your case, so it leaves everyone somewhat adrift in what words they can use to describe it. As if to allude to what might be happening, you've thrown out a smorgasbord of propositions from the literature. But they range widely from cancer to cardiological problems. None of that seems to fit your case. Instead of thrashing about, accusing your critics of "cunning" while they try haplessly to follow your high-speed goalposts, why don't you state a specific claim and stick to it.
Nonsense. You're bending over backwards to try to paint me as a mustache-twirling villain.
The experiment has ever only been, at this stage, to determine whether your headaches correlate in time to the operation of your home wireless network. Correlation does not imply causation, it is true. But the contrapositive is also true, and forms a cornerstone of science: the lack of correlation implies the lack of causation. If an objective regime of measurement does not establish a correlation between when you have your headaches and when the equipment is operating, then it is unlikely the equipment is the cause. No further investigation is necessary. Nobody is trying to cheat; you just don't understand science.
Previously when the trial was a binary variable, we could have used a statistical model based around the binomial distribution to determine whether your guesses again statistical significance. Now that you lately added the variable of signal strength, we have to use a different statistical model. Since the model we would ordinarily use in such a case, Student's t-distribution, requires more trials than it would be practical for you to do, I am proposing a simple analysis of variance based on Pearson's coefficient, r, a very well known estimate of covariance. A technique is available to determine the alpha for some r and some n. You challenged me to include signal strength in the model. I have met that challenge. It remains to be seen whether you will actually quit stalling and do the experiment.
One has only to read the thread. I'm explaining how the science is done, and would be done in your case, to achieve a result that would justify more extensive investigation. All you're doing is throwing out one dictatorial denial after another. One of those demonstrates expertise. The other doesn't. I trust the reader can make the appropriate determination.
Further, in a post now relegated to the scrap heap, you admitted you were not specialized in everything. Why is it a problem to admit that others have more experience than you in designing scientific experiments?
I am simply pointing out your prior unwillingness to be tested objectively on various abilities you have at times claimed to have, such as prophetic insight, and opining that you are now persisting in that pattern. I cited your own anecdote in support of that unwillingness, and the lessons to be learned from it. It demonstrated the operation of a confirmation bias, and why objectively measuring performance is essential if you want credit for those abilities. If your reluctance tends to discredit you, then that's how life works. No one is obliged to credit you with abilities you cannot demonstrate under controlled conditions.
That is exactly the opposite of my claim.
Your experiment merely establishes whether your symptoms correlate to the cause you suspect. We are employing our collective experience in science to help you conduct an experiment with as much rigor as can be expected from your circumstances. The hope is that we can obtain data that both sides consider valid.
I disagree with the sentiment that you are attempting genuinely to improve your knowledge. You are surrounded by people sharing their knowledge with you, and you reject almost all of it. You seem to be relying on whatever knowledge you already possess, buttressed at times by regurgitation from various sources, responses to which you ignore. Those verbally emetic spells are always framed by the sentiment, "Look how much I know." You may be acquiring new information, but it's always presented as if it's something your critics were unaware of, without attempting first to determine whether that's the case. The motive I would say more closely fits that pattern of behavior is the attempt to establish the illusion of pre-eminence, not the attempt to develop one's faculties.
You seem very convinced that what you believe is true. This has led you to engage in blatantly circular reasoning, and you have displayed absolutely no interest in others' efforts to help you see the circularity. In fact, you have concocted a conspiratorial narrative that you extend as needed to encompass any who are not convinced by your rhetoric, and who have supplied good reasons why. I can't imagine how you would think this constitutes improving your ability to convince others. You're simply relying on the same transparent devices by which you've floundered in every debate you have had heretofore at this forum. It falls short not only of being a convincing argument for the points you raise, but also of your sincerity in arguing for them. If these impressions matter, you will be wise to heed others' advice for how to formulate an argument they find convincing.
