iNow

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?

We seem to share a very fundamental agreement on this topic, I was just putting that out there to assist in the dialogue.

There's only one that I know of, but it's quite different from what you mean here. I am referring to Dan Dennett's proposal that we teach kids about all religions, in an almost archeological way, without suggesting that any one is better than another. For more on that, see the link below.

Yeah, but I'm still a black belt, now, and will be for the rest of my life.

It's when I was a brown belt preparing for my black belt test, which was the next day. By the time that picture was taken, we'd done about 600 push-ups and 1,000 sit-ups during the hour. I'm one of the people down in the push-up position.

The OP doesn't really make sense. It's like asking if the direction left passes at the speed of light.

Psychology (very heavy emphasis in research), and Education.

As I outlined in my original request to you, I would like to see total number of deaths per annum caused by all dogs in the UK prior to the ban of "pit bulls," and total number of deaths per annum caused by all dogs in the UK after the ban. However, if you do have some data on pixies, that might be fun to look at as well. Either way, you made a claim above that you have yet to support with evidence, and this is now my third request for said evidence. I have no problem if you cannot support your claim, but I'd like you to acknowledge that if this is truly the case.

Anecdote [math]\ne[/math] Evidence.

Exactly. Even people who use their grills are more likely to develop cancer than those who do not. Here's a great link about cigarette smoking speicifically, with a lot of good data and numbers, as well as useful resources to use in your quest for knowledge (and/or assistance): http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Health.asp