When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
2.4 equals 2 when using one significant digit. This is what you have to get into your head.
“But 2.4 does not equal 2...” (Read with an annoying squeaky voice)
But it does.
Every measurement we do has rounding errors. In Physics (also Engineering and other fields), when we say “2” of a measure, it means anything between 1.5 and 2.5. When we say 2.0 it means anything between 1.95 and 2.05, and so on.
So, the whole quote is “2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2”. This is what he means, he is referring to rounding errors. I know this because this is what physicists and engineers mean when they say this. It’s an inside joke, it’s funny if you understand it. I have created a corollary (so to speak) of this joke.
Under uniform distribution, two plus two equals five 12.5% of the time.
The proof is left as exercise.
If you take two objects with masses 2.27868 kg and 2.41901 kg (measured to 6 significant digits), and measure their masses with a digital scale that has a 1 kg resolution, the reading will be 2 kg for each of the individual objects. If you put both on the scale at the same time, the reading will be 5 kg, so 2+2=5 in this scenario.
“But 2+2=4 follows from the axioms of arithmetic!” says Dr. Craig, as the joke flies way over his tiny apologist head.
Yes, the axioms of arithmetic are true, but you are not thinking like a physicist or an engineer. When we measure things in nature there are no integers, only when we count things. You can have an integer number of bottles of water, not of liters. Nothing that we measure has an exact value, every measure involves some type of rounding error (and other errors).
This is the answer, this is exactly what he means, I really hope this cleared things up for you. If you respond with “but 2.27868 does not equal 2” or something like that one more time, I will have to conclude that you don’t want to know the answer to the question, you just want to have pointless arguments.
As for why he is saying this on the debate, I don’t know. I would have to watch the whole debate to give a good answer, and I don’t know if I can stand another Craig debate. Always the same recycled old arguments, always pompous sounding while posing arguments begging the question or arguments from ignorance, no matter how many times his arguments are debunked, he acts as if they are sound and good. You can’t define something into existence, Dr Craig!
The following are just guesses.
Maybe it’s just a joke to the physicists and other STEM folks who will watch the debate and might get it. I smile every time I hear that joke.
Maybe he is trying to show just how utterly ignorant on the matter of Physics and Mathematics Craig really is. If so, it worked. On his reply, Craig showed how he is unable to think like a physicist even for a second.
Maybe he is baiting Craig with a quote that Krauss knows Craig might later cherry pick, quote only the “2+2=5” part, remove the context and the “for very large values of 2” part (a fundamental part of the joke) and go around saying that Krauss said 2+2=5. Then Krauss will be able to point out just how utterly dishonest Craig is. If so, it worked, just watch the video.
Back in the early 80’s, I was in charge of managing man-day budgets on a huge construction project. Our info system only dealt in whole days, even though we reported our time in hours. It truncated, rather than rounded, so 15 hours showed up as 1 day, when it was really 1.875 days. The project was staffed about 60% with engineers - just imagine the hilarity every month when a half dozen Lead Engineers would get a report showing that 3+3+3=11. I think they suspected me of trying to “Gaslight” them.
I think they suspected me of trying to “Gaslight” them.
I assume that by "gaslight" you mean "trying to light my female co-workers farts on fire using the oxy-acetylene torch, while they complain about how nobody takes their allegations of sexual harassment seriously despite copious and well-documented evidence."
Because that's all anybody is allowed to talk about right now. Internet rule 12-R.
i believe they referred to themselves as "intellectual liberal"...
I can't quite tell whether you're equating intellectualism with tolerance, or accusing a strawman of a No True Scotsman foul.
(serious reply, btw.)
I restate the question: which representative of the group commonly known as "liberals," here in 2018, is claiming to be, or advertising themselves as, tolerant?
My perception is that the present-day liberalism movement actually prides itself on strict intolerance of failure to adhere to its standards of social conduct, and that observations to the contrary are an artifact of old farts like us remembering the liberal movement of the late 20th century and projecting it into the present day.
What a sham. How could a Dr not understand the committee was willing to fly to her for her testimony? HTF are you a Dr and dont understand that......unless your own attorney wasnt forthcoming to you?
Who leaked her name, Mrs Feinstein?
An FBI investigation could have been handled discreetly in July/Aug, without publicly naming anyone. Her name was leaked on purpose and the timing of it, planned. Delay delay delay
Remember that time you went to marriage counseling because you wanted a second front door?
No.
Originally Posted by Braineack
Remember that time you told everyone you were afraid of flying, but actually flew more in the last month than many in a lifetime?
No.
Originally Posted by Braineack
Remember that time you took a polygraph on the day of a family member's funeral, was asked only two questions, and you couldn't even remember them?
No.
Originally Posted by Braineack
Remember that time you asked 4 other people to remember that time, and they couldn't remember that time?
No.
And, again, re-stating the question from post # 12425: which representative of the group commonly known as "liberals," here in 2018, is claiming to be, or advertising themselves as, tolerant?
And, again, re-stating the question from post # 12425: which representative of the group commonly known as "liberals," here in 2018, is claiming to be, or advertising themselves as, tolerant?
Not sure if it still applies, but back around the election, there were plenty of protesters sporting signs saying things like "Love Trumps Hate", and other nonsensical B.S.
Lots of "not my president" riots protests where they showed the true face of liberals.
As a moderate I always admired the liberal tenets of tolerance, social justice, and working towards the collective good. I also admired the conservative tenets of limited and effective government, free markets and just rewards for labor and innovation. Ironically, none of those things are mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, all of these tenets have been completely abandoned by our political parties, the politicians within them, and a good portion of the citizens who claim to be "liberal" or "conservative".
For a fair number of "liberal" or "conservative" people I know- if I get into a discussion with them, and challenge, and question, and challenge, and question, etc. I can frustrate them into a position that's a lot like "I want free ****" or "those "others" aren't real Americans and are stealing from me". I don't view this to be unrelated to what I wrote above.
Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:
In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year
1. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:
No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.
3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:
Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.
4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:
She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
She does not remember how she got to the party.
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.
5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:
Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.
6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault:
According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.
In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.
Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
According to The Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.
In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.
Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.
7. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory:
Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post.
Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.
She does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post. But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.
She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.
Dr. Ford said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post’s tipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.
Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she “did not know how to do that.” She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman but not her Senator.
Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.
It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.
8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions:
She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.” She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.
Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.
She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school.
It is significant that she used the word “contributed” when she described the psychological impact of the incident to the Washington Post. Use of the word “contributed” rather than “caused” suggests that other life events may have contributed to her symptoms. And when questioned on that point, she said that she could think of “nothing as striking as” the alleged assault.
9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account:
Brain,
Presumably you do understand that facts and legitimate inquiry does not stand up to gossip and/or unsubstantiated claims, right?
There has been enough media time spent on the subject that most people have already made up their minds if they are going to do so.
When the FBI report is submitted later this week to everybody involved the Republicans will hold it up and proclaim loudly that it proves he is fit to be confirmed as long as it does not contain more information than is already in the media.
The Democrats will just as loudly cry "FOUL" for some reason.
They have already moved on to repeating loud and often that his temperament is not suitable to be a Supreme Court Justice and they will double down on that claim moving forward.
If, on the other hand the FBI report indicates some level of legitimacy to the claims via backing from some secondary parties then the Democrats will proclaim that it proves he is a sexual predator while the Republicans will poo-poo it as insignificant and not being reason enough to toss out his nomination.
It is all a dog and pony show orchestrated by the media for my personal entertainment.
09-28-2018, 05:45 PM
0
