On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:53:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
The school system failed you.
You're clearly *not* a scientist nor educated in the scientific method.
Just like you, I know of two instances where flies were created by
One, was when I left a piece of rotting meat outside, and, a week
later, it was covered in maggots. Surely that means I suspect
spontaneous generation, does it not?
Second anecdotal "proof" was when I pooped outside on my deck.
Wouldn't you know it, but within HOURS, maggots were all over it.
Since I saw this with my very own eyes, spontaneous generation must
be true. I saw it with my own eyes, and I *believe* my own eyes.
I have not one, but *two* examples of spontaneous generation that
I saw with my very own eyes (who needs stinkin' science when I have
my own eyes that I trust more than all the science in the world!).
Just like it says in this article on that exact subject!
How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
Or...Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data
You said there were NONE. I have proof of two. I know nothing of your
flies. Has nothing to do with science, it is just a fact of something
If you said "not many" or "very few" I'd not dispute it, but you said
"none" and that is wrong.
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:17:55 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I had to laugh, that, after you read the article showing that people
actually believe (laughably so) that "anecdotal" evidence is "proof",
you then say, presumably with a straight face that "I have proof of
The school system definitely failed you.
I sure hope you don't vote.
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:51:10 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
There is a police report that shows that the overall accident
rate in the United States has risen due to cellphone use?
If this police report existed, how come the study's authors
couldn't find it?
Remember, the study did NOT find that the accident rate
They only found that hospitalizations increased by 7%.
The accident rate was the same with or without cellphone bans.
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:23:42 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
And, you didn't answer the question.
The police make up the data almost all the time.
They can guess.
They can infer.
They can interrogate.
They can subpoena.
But, in general, they just guess.
When gas prices didn’t, the entire 'analysis' is dubious because
that must have some effect on the traffic volume on the roads.
Yes, plenty of traffic like to and from work will continue anyway,
but some traffic is optional and even with travel to and from
work, they will be more car sharing and use of public transport
with the higher gas prices.
That's a good point, although, just to the point of price, there *is* a
huge (possibly static?) difference in price state-to-state for gas at
any one time.
Why California Drivers Pay Highest Gas Prices
Californians seem to be paying higher gas prices than anywhere else
in the country.
According to AAA, the current national average is $2.12 per gallon.
Here is a look at the gas prices from around the country:
NATIONAL AVERAGE PRICES
New Jersey $1.86
North Carolina $2.01
Washington State $2.50
In California, drivers pay an average of $2.78 a gallon,
60 cents above the national average.
In this study. Which was looking at the difference in hospitalisation
rates between states with or without bans on texting while driving.
Presumably fuel prices would change more or less in sync in all states
and so would have no differential effect between the ban or no-ban states.
How would anyone ever know?
Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident?
Yes officer, the accident was all my fault.
I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.