Don't blame it on....

[Paul Smith]

On 26 Feb 2003 15:18:35 +0000, Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >>> I sincerely believe people are dying for nothing as a result of speed cameras and the
>> >>> policies which support them.

>> >> So you keep saying, but as you yourself admit you have absolutely no substantive proof.

>> > I can know without proof.

>> Scientific method dictates that you can postulate a hypothesis, but until you have proof it
>> remains a hypothesis - an opinion, not a fact.

>Maybe Paul's belief isn't a scientific one, but a religious one, requiring faith, not proof?

Or maybe it's just knowledge based on experience.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Alan Braggins]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> >>> I sincerely believe people are dying for nothing as a result of speed cameras and the policies
> >>> which support them.
>
> >> So you keep saying, but as you yourself admit you have absolutely no substantive proof.
>
> > I can know without proof.
>
> Scientific method dictates that you can postulate a hypothesis, but until you have proof it
> remains a hypothesis - an opinion, not a fact.

Maybe Paul's belief isn't a scientific one, but a religious one, requiring faith, not proof?

 

[Alan Braggins]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> >> Semantics. Every survey shows the same or similar results: most drivers surveyed rate their own
> >> skill levels higher than those of other drivers.
>
> > I don't at all agree that it's semantics. It might just be that many driver's usefully underrate
> > the skills of others. (As we've discussed before)
>
> You can't have it both way. If it's useful to underrate other drivers, it is at least as dangerous
> to overestimate your own driving. It's a two-way street. It is not credible that 85% of drivers
> are genuinely above the average skill level

Not above the actual average skill level, but _if_ drivers consistently underrate other drivers, but
accurately rate there own skills, it's credible that 85% of them are genuinely above the incorrectly
low average skill level they assign to other people.

It's not clear this is likely or useful.

 

[Paul Smith]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:32:56 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Smith wrote:
>>> You can surmise without proof, but not know.

>> Tell that to someone who predicts the path of a ball they are about to drop.

>And who has no knowledge of mechanics or calculus, obviously. Having once observed the ball drop
>they will then note that the experiment is repeatable. They will be able to show that the ball
>never rises, and that the descent of the ball is always predictable. And even then this does not of
>itself prove gravity, of course.

>Contrast it with the assertion about cameras "causing" accidents, where no alternative mechanisms
>have been tested, and the only citation available is from the British Journal of 'Cos I Said So.

We were talking about "knowing" not "proving".

I know I can't prove my assertions, but I hope it's a matter of time. That does not detract from
the knowing.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Paul Smith]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:33:59 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Maybe Paul's belief isn't a scientific one, but a religious one, requiring faith, not proof?

>> Or maybe it's just knowledge based on experience.

>Talk to a born-again Christian sometime. Alan's right, it has all the hallmarks of a Revealed
>Truth. Including no independent proof.

<shudder>

Blind faith it ain't.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Michael Macclan]

Paul Smith wrote:
> I know I can't prove my assertions, but I hope it's a matter of time.

You'll be hoping for a long time.

> That does not detract from the knowing.

It adds to my knowing.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Michael Macclan]

Paul Smith wrote:
>
> <shudder>
>
> Blind faith it ain't.

Faith it certainly is. And it must be blind, otherwise you would have seen the fallacy of your
arguments.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Paul Smith wrote:

> We were talking about "knowing" not "proving".

Which is not science talk. Scientists may suppose or hypotyhesise, but they don't *know* until the
evidence is there.

> I know I can't prove my assertions, but I hope it's a matter of time. That does not detract from
> the knowing.

Sounds more like religious belief than scientific principle to me.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Alan Braggins]

Paul Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> So you keep saying, but as you yourself admit you have absolutely no substantive proof.
>
> >> > I can know without proof.
>
> >> Scientific method dictates that you can postulate a hypothesis, but until you have proof it
> >> remains a hypothesis - an opinion, not a fact.
>
> >Maybe Paul's belief isn't a scientific one, but a religious one, requiring faith, not proof?
>
> Or maybe it's just knowledge based on experience.

In what way is experience that gives you no substantive evidence to support your belief different
from a religious revelation?

 

[Paul Smith]

On 26 Feb 2003 19:18:53 +0000, Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Smith <[email protected]> writes:

>> >> >> So you keep saying, but as you yourself admit you have absolutely no substantive proof.

>> >> > I can know without proof.

>> >> Scientific method dictates that you can postulate a hypothesis, but until you have proof it
>> >> remains a hypothesis - an opinion, not a fact.

>> >Maybe Paul's belief isn't a scientific one, but a religious one, requiring faith, not proof?

>> Or maybe it's just knowledge based on experience.

>In what way is experience that gives you no substantive evidence to support your belief different
>from a religious revelation?

Who says the evidence isn't substantive? It's clearly substantive.

A better question would be why don't you accept it?

And the difference is that faith is not required.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:35:51 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In what way is experience that gives you no substantive evidence to support your belief different
>>from a religious revelation?

>Who says the evidence isn't substantive?

You did, just now

>It's clearly substantive.

Apart from the lack of proof, obviously.

>A better question would be why don't you accept it?

Ah, and here we have to fall back on the lack of proof

>And the difference is that faith is not required.

Except that it is, because you have (as you have repeatedly admitted) no proof.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Paul Smith]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:02:52 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>In what way is experience that gives you no substantive evidence to support your belief different
>>>from a religious revelation?

>>Who says the evidence isn't substantive?

>You did, just now

Oh no I didn't! You're wrong.

>>It's clearly substantive.

>Apart from the lack of proof, obviously.

Proof isn't required for substantive.

>>A better question would be why don't you accept it?

>Ah, and here we have to fall back on the lack of proof

>>And the difference is that faith is not required.

>Except that it is, because you have (as you have repeatedly admitted) no proof.

Nope. Faith is not required.

This is looking a little circular. I'll see you on the other side.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[John B]

Paul Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:02:52 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >You did...
>
> Oh no I didn't! You're wrong.
>
> Proof isn't required...
>
> >Except that it is...
>
> Nope

Seeing Smith repeatedly being beaten hands down is getting boring. Any chance of you two taking your
pantomime somewhere else?

John B