iNow

Perception, Cognition, Psychopharmacology, and Human Sexuality (no, seriously!). My first job was doing research on a quit smoking program with the American Cancer Society, and my next job was doing research for phase 1-4 pharmaceutical studies. Now, I'm in training.

Does the concept of a deadline no longer have meaning in the United States of America? It's due tomorrow! Oh, that's okay. We can get an extension. We'll worry about it next week (and ask for another extension then).

What I stated was a single point within a post which was offered to summarize the thread thus far. I was recapping the issues demonstrated by posters already in this thread, not presenting a new assertion. This was ONE of the points in my summary, and I said EXACTLY this: I was not arguing that the ban would be ineffective, I was summarizing how this point had already been made... right here... in this very thread. You then responded: The first point was patently false, as other alternatives had been put forward. I demonstrated this clearly in my next response. The second point was a new assertion, a new claim being made in this thread... a new claim which YOU made. I asked you to support that claim, and you have conceded that you cannot. It's time to move past that issue, as I accept your concession that your claim cannot be supported. I have not made any such denial though, so my position remains tenable and scientific. What exactly is your point if not simply to misrepresent mine?

I think the rep system on this site is superior to others I've seen in three very distinct ways: 1) It's positive only. No negative reputation points... No feces slinging. 2) It's private. No ego based competitions about who has higher rep. 3) The person giving the thank you is anonymous unless they choose to add their username to their comment. I've received a few comments that really brought a smile to my face. When you boil it down to it's essence, that's the nature of the rep system. One person says thank you and the other person smiles and feels their posts are appreciated.

Again with the uninformed, pseudo intellectual, psychoanalysis of me and my posts... The point you are consistently missing is that your population is far greater than 3... far greater than 66... I really don't care what number you wish to toss about, as long as you are consistent on the time frame involved. What your professor was describing was within population significance, and how you can show "within group" effect significance when using a population of only 20. You are, however, misapplying the knowledge your professor tried to share with you. Your population is not 66, at least not for the claims you are trying to make here in this thread. The claims you’ve been making imply that your data applies to ALL pit bulls, so THAT is your population. Your population is all pit bulls, and your within group effects do not extrapolate AT ALL to this larger population. Not to pit bulls, not to all dogs, not to anything outside of the population you've selected... 66 dogs in 20 years. That is where your t-test (which you have not even performed) would apply. You've biased your selection, you have a very limited population sample, and you are suggesting that somehow these 66 dogs involved in killings are a representative cross section of the entire pit bull population. This is where your approach fails. You're only viewing those who have attacked and killed, and not the entire dog type, yet you're suggesting that your within group data (of the group which has killed) somehow applies to the greater population of all pit bulls. If you wish to show some statistically significant trend within that population of 66 dogs, then you are free to do so. However, your attempts to use this biased and non-representative sample to describe the entire pit bull population is what I am calling into question. How about this time you don’t respond again with your uninformed, pseudo intellectual, psychoanalysis of me and my posts. This distintion is of little relevance. Both apply equally to the issue I've been trying to bring to your attention. You concede that you can't provide numbers, yet at the same time you are trying to suggest that fatalities caused by all dogs are down as a result of the ban. You can't have it both ways. Of course if there are no pit bulls then there are no pit bulls to cause death. I'm not completely retarded, as you keep implying. The issue is that the ban's purpose is to decrease attacks, and yet you've freely admitted that you have no numbers about how many attacks are occurring. With the facts as stated above, you have zero ground on which to stand, and null support for your suggestion that the "ban has proven effective."

Fine. My point was intended to suggest that there are more effective alternatives. I've already outlined many of those alternatives, however, I will do my part to move this conversation forward. In my estimation, a ban would not work for reasons pointed out already: a) the problem is not specific to one type of dog b) the problem is in the way the dogs are cared for and raised c) the object is to prevent deaths by dog, so measures applicable to all dogs are more appropriate d) the ban will simply displace the problem, not solve it. It's treating symptoms, not causes. Now. It's your turn. Will you please show data which describes the number of deaths by dog per annum in the UK before the ban on pit bulls and the number of deaths by dog per annum in the UK after the ban on pit bulls? Really? Do you really think I am missing something here? My point stands, and is valid. Come on, now. Actually, no. What I want is for SkepticLance to support his claim that 3 deaths per year is a statistically significant effect. These are his words, not mine. He needs to show total number of pit bulls in the population and how 3 deaths relates to that total. Alternatively, he needs to show all forms of death, and relate the numbers of deaths from pit bull to that number. It's about perspective. He's simply asserted that 3 deaths per year is statistically significant (or, 66 deaths in 20 years, whatever). ...but I've resigned myself with the understanding that SkepticLance has no such data to offer in support his contention, and that his assertion is nothing more than unfounded conjecture. You, however, have a much easier task, and you still refuse to move this conversation forward by addressing it. Numbers prior and post ban. That is all. If the ban is "effective" as you've claimed, it will show easily in the data.

Many people are packing used tires full of dirt and using them as walls in homes... a natural insulation in their attempts at more sustatinable living. The homes they build are called Earthships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship That, however, is not relevant to your question. I'd suggest, of course it's not "good" for the environment, but "good" is too much of a subjective measure (as implied by lookup2 above). IMO, it's similar to littering, where people throw cups and plastic wrappers out of their car. The difference is that the tire dust addition to the soils and air is not a conscious decision. Either way, though, I think one would have a difficult time arguing that it is somehow not detrimental to the ecology of the area.

There is a member here at SFN who is really informed on these topics. He goes by the username "Lucaspa." In several posts, I've seen him reference the following directions. Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/formulation/M5550for.pdf). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15-60 minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. And, an overall good link for the laymen to get themselves up to speed on the topic is this: http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Now not only have you resorted to making this personal with me (instead of focussing on facts and information), you are also apparently using a subjective definition of the word "significant," but trying to pass it off as a statistical one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance http://www.graphpad.com/articles/interpret/principles/stat_sig.htm I state yet again: I said 3 deaths per year. You said 66 deaths in 20 years. It's EXACTLY the same number, except you are trying to inflate it's perceptual salience. Again, your point about significance is using some arbitrary subjective definition, yet you are trying to pass it off as statistical. This claim is completely without merit until you can support it by showing the calculations you used, the numbers used in those calculations, and the source of those numbers. If you are unable or unwilling to support your assertions in this way, then your approach has failed and your comments are baseless. Now, are you going to continue with the uninformed, pseudo intellectual, psychoanalysis of me and my posts, or are you going to address the questions put forth?

No. I contend it's not. Why don't you prove to me and all of us all that it is statistically significant? Are you using a Pearson's r, or perhaps some sort of t-test, maybe a chi-squared? You want to convince me? Use data, not statements which are unfounded, unsupported, and fully conjectured. Further, 3 deaths per year and 66 deaths per 20 years is exactly the same number, so I'm not really sure why you've chosen such a comment to support your point that I was wrong in my suggestion. Six to one, half a dozen to another. John, You stated: No other means has been put forward and the ban in the UK has proved effective. Your point is without merit until you can support it with empirical evidence. In order to support your comment, you must: a) Show how many deaths per annum in the UK were caused by dogs prior to the ban on pit bulls b) Show how many deaths per annum in the UK were caused by dogs after the ban on pit bulls c) demonstrate that the difference is statistically significant. SkepticLance, You stated: Your point is without merit until you can support it by showing the calculations you used, the numbers used in those calculations, and the source of those numbers. If either of you are unable or unwilling to support your assertions in this way, then your approach has failed and your comments are baseless. You get an F in this class. Your basic premise is that despite the fact that owners are the responsible parties in the fatalities you've been trumpeting, you are incapable of restricting or punishing the behavior of those negligent owners. So, you instead wish to take a route which will not achieve the end you seek, which will not accomplish the stated goal for which you're arguing, but which will appease those who are afraid and convinced that the propaganda is true. Instead of treating the source of the problem, you are making a weak case for treating the symptom, and you are arguing in favor of a ban of one type of dog without having proven that this will have any statistically significant impact on society, or the small handful of deaths you are using in support of your pro-ban position. I implore you both to support your assertions above, or to retract them. Further, I ask that you both either a) make better arguments, b) acknowledge that you are wrong in your assertions (or incapable of supporting them with evidence), or c) walk away from this thread. I've tried to show you enough respect to support my position with logic, reason, and fact. I've offered mutliple lines of reasoning for my position. You have not countered any of my arguments, and, as demonstrated above in this post, you've failed to support your own.

No. Not when your total population size is 3 dogs. Then he should not have made the claim in the first place. Simple really. I am NOT being unreasonable. I am asking people to show enough respect for others as not post personal opinion as fact, but to instead support the claims they make.

I've read it twice myself. Great book. It brings together the technical and the historical in an accessible way.

Not that it will help the problem child in this thread, but for others who don't have their craniums fully lodged within their colons, this is a pretty clear and approachable explanation/demo of length contraction: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html It may be useful, prior to viewing the above, to view the one on time dilation: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TimeDilation.html

How about you quit with the uninformed, pseudo intellectual, psychoanalysis and address the question put forth. I'm still waiting for data on number of fatalities from dogs per annum in the UK prior to the ban on pit bulls and number of fatalities from dogs per annum in the UK after the ban on pit bulls.

I appreciate you sharing your personal story, Mr. Skeptic. It's nice to know that my suggestion was more than just words, and that people do often find the correct answers in their own way.

Well, it's not a book, but here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity This link has a lot of really useful Animations The below covers many of the critical concepts of relativity: 1. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/MichelsonMorley/MichelsonMorley.html 2. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TimeDilation.html 3. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/LengthContract.html 4. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/ContractInvisible.html 5. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/Simultaneity.html 6. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TwinParadox.html 7. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/ClassMechanics/Foucault/Foucault.html 8. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/GenRel/Flash/Precession.html

Lance, Get off your little "denial" kick. I conceded long ago that I won't argue with you that based on the numbers shared this type causes more deaths than others. What I am saying is that they cause 3 per year, and yet you toss around words like "savage" and "harmful" and "aggressive" in your appeal to emotion argument. On top of that, you accuse others of arguing weakly, when all you've got is 3 deaths per year. It's funny, really. Further, it was stated that the ban was successful. A measure of success in this case is total number of deaths by dogs. I asked for numbers, before and after the ban. The response I got? I don't have numbers, but I know the ban was effective. Do you know why the ban was effective? Because an animal that is not around can't cause harm. Well, I want to ban purple unicorns. When you ask me how many deaths that prevents... you know... actual empirical evidence... I'll just tell you, "Well, it prevented all of those deaths that may have been caused by purple unicorns." How many deaths by dog per annum prior to the ban? How many deaths by dog per annum after the ban? Of fu(king course I know none of them are by pit bull, that's precisely my point! I'd wager a bet that there was no significant reduction in deaths by dog resulting from the ban, but I didn't make that claim. It's John who made a claim, and he claimed that the ban was working. Let's see god damned evidence. This is supposed be a science forum, right? Or, can I just go around treating hearsay as evidence? Never mind, I'm talking to skepticlance. Heresay here we come!

You may look into collock. Check this out: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/2504_04_220.html

Thank you, Phi, for the clarification. ID is not science, yet I can see a difference between a) the one way thinker and b) the person who is genuinely curious and willing to learn. To that point, Pangloss is spot on in that we will sometimes miss the opportunity to help those in group 'b' to realize the faults in their thinking, but if they truly are willing to learn then I'm sure it won't take them long to arrive at that understanding on their own.

How is it at all unreasonable of me to suggest that the measure of a ban's effectiveness is the total reduction in death by dog, not total reduction in death by one type of dog? This is silly. I can see the point you are making, but again we disagree on it's relevance. Let's ban toe nail clippers too. That way, noboby will be killed by toe nail clippers. Oh, and let's also ban balloons. That way, noboby will be killed by balloons. Good grief. If this truth is so simple, then why can't you justify it with actual data? As it stands right now, you may as well be asserting that purple unicorns were a real problem in the UK until the ban... Actually, it changes it pretty dramatically. And you are in stupid town, population one. This is helpful, how exactly? That's very convenient. You've now brought the term "savage" into the discussion, as well. <sigh>

Hairy asses and backs. Hairy women. Balding. Hmm... I think it's time for me to get a haircut.

You made the claim. Onus is on you to support it. Fourth request. Show us how many deaths from dog there were in the UK prior to the ban per annum, and how many deaths from dog there were in the UK after the ban per annum. Let's see the numbers, or you should retract your statement.

ID is not science, so I guess I'm missing your point, P.

Does a president have the lawful ability to pardon themself? Don't they have to wait until they are no longer president and hope that the next one pardons them?