Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (53607)	8/15/2009 5:36:07 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217777

"true scientific method will do fine for me." OK let's look to the numbers Given a current African population of 616 million (United Nations Environment Programme, June 15, 2000), and an average of 75,000 African AIDS cases per year, it follows that only 0.012% of the African population is annually suffering or dying from AIDS. Likewise only 0.01% of the South African population was suffering from AIDS between 1994 and 1996, based on the 4,500 annual cases and a population of approximately 44 million (US Agency for International Development, "HIV/AIDS in the developing World", May 1999). This means that the new African AIDS epidemic only represents a very small fraction of normal African mortality. oralchelation.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (53607)	8/16/2009 6:19:56 AM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217777

More basic than those tenets is the foundation of science which is a belief in causal relationships based on the four forces of the apocalypse = strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity. < the tried and true scientific method will do fine for me. Blind studies, randomization, careful statistical analysis and reproducible results are its keystones. Ignoring them is foolish.> The most common mistake made, and it's almost universal, certainly among journalists reporting "scientific" results is the confusion of correlation with causation. But plenty of so called scientists get tangled up; especially in social "sciences" which seem mainly designed to show that poverty causes this that and the other and if only we had Helen Clark back, to make a bigger kleptocratic government with OPM, all would be well. Sometimes there is no science along your lines [blind, double blind, randomized, statisticalized] which can be done to prove a theory. For example, that increasing CO2 will cause too much heating on Earth. It's a real-time, one way experiment, which can't be repeated or reproduced. Models can be developed to mimic what might happen but they are merely simplistic models. Much science isn't as good as intelligent consideration of probable causal relationships. Yes, it's much better to run multi-year studies costing $billions, but sometimes, such as dying of cancer, there isn't time for goofing around like that. Intelligent understanding of causal relationships among scientific principles is required. What science does is differentiate between unintelligent and intelligent opinions on causal relationships, so it's obviously an essential ingredient of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Mqurice