I'm teaching basic statistics and experimental methodology this semester, and each week I rip off one of my favorite segments from my favorite podcast, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

I'm going to present 4 "facts", 3 of which are true, one of which is false. Do your best to use your deductive reasoning skills and prior knowledge to work out which one is the false one!!!

DONT CHEAT BY USING GOOGLE!

1) Almost 100% of murders are committed within two weeks of a full moon.

2) The common misconception is that we only use about 20% of our brains, whereas studies have always shown that we use closer to 50%.

3) There is a correlation between the time that children get vaccinated and the onset of autism. There is no evidence, however, that this relationship is causal.

4) Gravity is a scientific theory that we cannot prove with 100% certainty.

3, because i don't understand what it means

1) true
2) true
3) true
4) false

i had no idea about the 3rd question though so i guessed :P

im going with 4 as well

I obviously don't know enough about gravity.

4 imo, although 2 gave me pause.

1) full moons happen roughly every month don't they? So two weeks either side of a full moon is 4 weeks isn't it?

2) We use that small part of our brain for conscious thought but we also use a large part for autonomous bodily functions don't we? So true I guess.

3) Can't really comment much on this except to say it is false because...

4) this is true isn't it? Isn't there a whole bunch of gravity stuff we can't explain and we have made up dark matter to explain it?

no, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

i have this horrible feeling that #1 is the trick question coz it says 'almost' ... when 100% of all murders would happen within 2 weeks of the full moon. the moon period is 27.3 days... so everything that happens on earth happens within 2 weeks of a full moon :P but if that's the case i'll be interested to see what billy's rationalisation is about not being able to prove gravity.

I'd say:

1) False
2) True
3) True
4) True


Now give us the answers damnit!

wow a link to the gravity wikipedia page how very relevant

I remember there was a big discussion on 4BC months ago about autism and kids being vaccinated. Some people were saying there was a link and others said there wasn't. Plus they were also saying age can be a big factor as well. The older you are the more chances the kid could develop stuff like that compared to a young couple having a baby.

haha you're such a f*** wit more like it. If you'd bother to read it, it explains a whole host of anomalies which relativity cannot explain.

So post them with the f***ing link then you deads*** you expect me to read a whole f***ing wikipedia article just because you posted it?

edit: plus you've retardly failed to read my post anyway. I was saying it is true that we don't understand gravity 100%.

last edited by fpot at 11:10:03 19/Aug/09

Yes, because you're a fagot, and thats what fagots do.

i think the rationalisation that billy will give is that point #4 says '100% certainty'... it's pretty difficult to have 100% certainty about anything let alone something as intangible as gravity :P petty sophistry though imo. gravity exists! everytime i fall over it's proven to me ;p

1) Almost 100% of murders are committed within two weeks of a full moon.

True - we're always within 2 weeks of a full moon since a moon's cycle is roughly 28 days. And it says "almost 100%"

2) The common misconception is that we only use about 20% of our brains, whereas studies have always shown that we use closer to 50%.

False - Simply because the other 3 are true.

3) There is a correlation between the time that children get vaccinated and the onset of autism. There is no evidence, however, that this relationship is causal.

True - There is probably a correlation between everything in the world (picking my arse hairs is correlated to the sun coming up) but there is no evidence to suggest there is a relationship.

4) Gravity is a scientific theory that we cannot prove with 100% certainty.

True - Theory's are just that.. they can never be fact unless proven.

I see you still read from the 2002 book of ways to insult people on the internet.

I hope you cite the podcast Billy. You'd want to set a good example for your students.

Also, answers already, kthxbi.

I am going with 2 because we use a lot more than 50% of our brains.

I think 2 is false.

Dont we actually use the majority (90+ %) of our brain... for different functions? Just not all at once.

Oh, I read your edit

2 is false.

FYI demon the moon may take 27.3 days to orbit but it needs to catch up with the sun so it actually takes 29.something days between full moons.

1) Almost 100% of murders are committed within two weeks of a full moon.

of course - most events happen within 2 weeks of a full moon

2) The common misconception is that we only use about 20% of our brains, whereas studies have always shown that we use closer to 50%.

No, the common misconception is 10% :P - so this is false. I was taught in psychology that we use most of our brain, just at different times. But for the purpose of this experiment I guess this one is meant to be true.

3) There is a correlation between the time that children get vaccinated and the onset of autism. There is no evidence, however, that this relationship is causal.

of course, children get vaccinated, and children get autism... that's the correlation...

4) Gravity is a scientific theory that we cannot prove with 100% certainty.

The wording of this makes it difficult. What do you mean by 'Gravity' and what do you mean by 'prove' ? Gravity is a scientific theory, and nothing is 100% certain. But Gravity is also an observable phenomena - we can 'prove' there is *something* to it, we just don't have an explanation that is complete and satisfactory AFAIK.


ps: link to podcast?

last edited by thermite at 11:59:02 19/Aug/09

THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING ME BILLY!@?

These "facts" I posted here are not ripped off from the podcast, but the segment is. And for whoever asked about whether or not I cite the podcast in class, yes, of course I do.

As for #2, the wording could just as well be "The common misconception is that we only use about 10-20% of our brains..." The misconception is not necessarily important - I have heard both values before, but I'll reword for my class...

Answers to come a bit later. I like this thread!

I'm going with either 2 or 3, I'll think about it over lunch and post my final decision.

Non vaccinated children having the same chances of autism would disprove a causal effect.

If number 2 isn't the false one, then it's still worded poorly.

2) The common misconception is that we only use about 20% of our brains, whereas studies have always shown that we use closer to 50%.

The use of the word "always" is the problem, because there have undoubtedly been studies done (not necessarily accurate ones) that have reached wildly different conclusions as to the percentage used.

1. true. full moons are approximately 1 month apart so must be true.
2. true. common misconception = old wives tales, study = science experiments
3. true. co-incident does not equal causation.
4. process of elimination = false. however it does seem like if could be true.

Ahhh screw it, i'm going with 4 on the basis the apple that fell from the tree.

Ignoring all other posts till i answer the questions

Almost 100% of murders are committed within two weeks of a full moon.

I actually instantly thought "False 50% would be" and then half a second later realised i was stupid. A full second later was the yes this has to be true, two weeks before, and two weeks after under the assumption of a four week moon cycle.

2) The common misconception is that we only use about 20% of our brains, whereas studies have always shown that we use closer to 50%.

I wouldn't know, though, I was tought in year 10 science that we used different parts of our brains to do different things. I watched on house the TV show that lots of the brain can light up when stimulated. I'd guess we'd use more then 20% but i wouldn't know if it was 50%.

3) There is a correlation between the time that children get vaccinated and the onset of autism. There is no evidence, however, that this relationship is causal.

Is this because you get vaccinated at the same time of the childhood as the time you would normally start to be developing your brain and motor skills? Meaning, that at the age of say 6 where you normally go to the doctor to get vaccinated, the doctor looks at the kid and goes "well there's probably something wrong here, maybe we should have him back again to see if he's autistic"? Maybe thats the first doctor visit? Yeah prior knowledge would help i'm sure, but better deductive reasoning too...

Gravity is a scientific theory that we cannot prove with 100% certainty.

In physics I remember hearing everything was basically theory. Formulas were ones that were consistent with testing but unprovable. But i'm no scientist

I'm going to go with 3. I've never heard of this relationship before. But it sounds like it could exist. I'm not sure when your first vaccine happens..


You know, if you asked these questions a different way i'd lead myself into a reasoning process completely different to the one i just have.

Now the fun bit, to read other people's answers and then figure out how dumb i sound :D

edit: The answer is: pretty dumb :D

last edited by skythra at 13:47:48 19/Aug/09

I really can't tell, but I'm tempted to say it's 2.

1) can be valid due to the use of 'Almost'. Full moons occur every 28 days, therefore +/- 2 weeks encompasses 100%.
2) I'm sure there is a common misconception, and I wouldn't deny that there's studies out there that say it. But it's the use of the word 'always' that kills this.
3) I'd possible say it was this one due to the claim of there being *no* evidence in causality.
4) Scientific theory doesn't provide 100% certainty.

2 Is false.

We use 100% of our brain however not all at the same time.

2 is false. I love the first one. if scientific theories are 100% correct then they become fact.

if scientific theories are 100% correct then they become fact.

but unfortunatly there is no referee in life to confirm the scientists are correct, so this has never happened

So here we go with the answer.

Firstly, my entire class got this correct, which was great. But, then again, they've all done a semester of psychology and I think they were taught the false one already.

1) True

For the reason that a lot of people caught onto: everything happens within this time frame. (Gave myself some leeway with the "almost" cause I was worried about what r_mazing mentioned).

2) False

All of our brain is always active but different parts have different levels of activations during certain times. For example, if we have ear plugs in while watching flashing lights, neurons in our occipital lobes will fire rapidly, whereas the neurons in our auditory cortex will fire far less frequently.

3) True

Skythra pretty much nailed it:

Is this because you get vaccinated at the same time of the childhood as the time you would normally start to be developing your brain and motor skills? Meaning, that at the age of say 6 where you normally go to the doctor to get vaccinated, the doctor looks at the kid and goes "well there's probably something wrong here, maybe we should have him back again to see if he's autistic"? Maybe thats the first doctor visit?

BUT then Skythra decided it was false... I missed his reasoning there.

4) True

For the very simple reason that a few people pointed out: no scientific theory can be proven with 100% certainty.

Do you teach STAT1201 at UQ BillyHardball?

No - PSYC1040. It's the first year stats subject for psych kiddies.

Cool, do one that isn't insultingly obvious.

Gotta edit this post because of my postlimiter (the reason I didn't post before you gave the answer): All 3 are false. Peace.

last edited by Dancin at 16:10:11 19/Aug/09

I got it wrong :/. But enjoyed the thread, will read again

Hi Dancin, I like the way you didn't respond until after the answers were out, and that you didn't notice most people did not get the correct answer.

To show us how smart you are, here's the one I did last week (only three this time) :

1) the very basis of homeopathy requires that all homeopathic remedies are pure water

2) men and women perform equally well in IQ tests

3) neural networks (computerised models of the brain) can predict poker players’ gambling habits with an accuracy of three decimal places

I vote 2

I thought there would be more to it.

last edited by thermite at 16:18:43 19/Aug/09

Damn read the answer before I put up my final answer, however I was leaning towards 2, I swear! (but not for the reasons given in the answer)

Last page:

Cool, do one that isn't insultingly obvious.

Gotta edit this post because of my postlimiter (the reason I didn't post before you gave the answer): All 3 are false. Peace.

last edited by Dancin at 16:10:11 19/Aug/09

Turns out 3 is actually true, but it's so surprising and impossible to deduct, and because the first two are false I just assumed this was too

The answer you were looking for was 2, but 1 isn't actually false.

last edited by Dancin at 16:21:48 19/Aug/09

heh, they all sound false to me :p but i will take a stab at #2 as well.

1) i don't know much about homeopathy but getting pure h2o is almost an impossibility i would think.
2) it's kinda obvious that not everyone performs equally in iq tests regardless of thier sex.
3) how do you judge a 3 decimel place result in terms of cards? :p

How much $$ do you get for teaching a subject?

1) Almost 100% of murders are committed within two weeks of a full moon.

As is usual with psych tests you have to second guess the intention of the question setter to work out which "right" answer they are after. "Almost" has no precise meaning with respect to the 100%. What would be considered almost? 99%? 80%? 20%? In fact, the only values we can definitely rule out are 100% and possibly 0%, so by including the qualifier we "almost" landed ourselves in hot water (for instance, if there had never been a murder on a day that occurred >2 weeks from a new moon -- something that would need to be shown).

Also, I think there is a possibility of arguing the "within" angle here to strictly ruling out the case of the 2 weeks preceding a full moon scenario. Thankfully, no need to bother.

2) The common misconception is that we only use about 20% of our brains, whereas studies have always shown that we use closer to 50%.

Second guessing the motives of the question giver and a process of elimination shows us that this is the statement we're supposed to object to, but once again sloppy language has let us down. The statement is true as far as I can make out. The only way the statement could not be true is if it could be shown we use < 35% of our brains, the key is the use of the word "closer". Say we use 100% of our brains, is this closer to 50% than to 20%? Of course it is.

At this point we launch into the semantic argument of which is the correct interpretation of the statement but I say it doesn't matter. All that you need to concede is that the interpretation I present above is completely valid. In this case I wouldn't even say I'm being a pedantic prick for the sake of it, as many mathematical/scientific questions are posed with that particular parsing in mind ( closer to X% meaning literally "closer to X% *than it is* Y%" rather than "closer to X% *rather than* Y%".)

In any case, I argue that the onus is on the question setter to pose the question in an unambiguous manner. Any valid alternative parsing of the statement is as equally valid as the one you intended as the question setter.

3) There is a correlation between the time that children get vaccinated and the onset of autism. There is no evidence, however, that this relationship is causal.

The timing of any two events that occur to someone in their lifetime are necessarily correlated, although I still feel that there's still some sloppiness in the language of what is supposed to be a simple non sequitur. The statement as stands specifically refers to the "point in time" of the vaccination as the "thing" which is correlated to the "onset of autism" -- basically I don't think it really makes sense.

4) Gravity is a scientific theory that we cannot prove with 100% certainty.

If anything a case could be made more strongly for this statement being false than for number 2. Gravity it can be argued is not a scientific theory at all, but rather the term we give to the observed natural phenomenon wherein objects are drawn to one another. We have scientific theories to explain *why* it occurs, but I don't think it's true to say that we have scientific theories to say that it *does* occur. Observation and epxerimentation should that something happens, scientific theories are based from observation to explain *why* or *how* they occur. Useful scientific theories offer predictive value. In this case, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a scientific theory to explain why gravity exists that we cannot prove (because theories by definition are unable to be proven in the strict sense). Also, what would it mean to prove something without certainty? How about to prove something with certainty, albeit less than 100% so?


How about some wise words from Modest Mouse to take us out:

"...
language is the liquid, that we're all dissolved in,
great for solving problems, after it creates a problem..."

-- "Blame it on the Tetons" - Modest Mouse

Turns out 3 is actually true, but it's so surprising and impossible to deduct, and because the first two are false I just assumed this was too

The answer you were looking for was 2, but 1 isn't actually false.

Not sure what you're saying here. You seemed really confused in the point of this - you know the object of the game is to workout which one is FALSE right?

Plok: Thanks dude, but I'm pretty sure it won't matter how much I scrutinize my semantics you will still find ambiguity :)

Oh I see now what Dancin did here. I've used numbers so Dancin can follow this easily:

1) You made a smart arse comment about the original items being too easy AFTER I told people the answers.

2) I challenged you to actually commit to an answer BEFORE I tell everyone with a new set of "facts".

3) You edit a post to say all three of the new ones are FALSE despite the point being that only 1 is false.

4) You back away from your original answer, obviously after looking stuff up.

5) You either contradict yourself or still get the answer wrong.

Dang. A burn in list form. I only looked up the answer to #3, and considering two of your statements are definitively TRUE when only ONE is supposed to be, you should perhaps dial back your conceit.

At least you aren't teaching forum posting.

edit: I can't f***ing get over how stupid you are.

last edited by Dancin at 18:07:12 19/Aug/09

I thought the challenge was tricky but am relieved I am smart enough to win, now what is the prize?

A hand job from Manlissa.

Billy do you suck off Tilley's cock or is he not there anymore? He was the most boring c*** in the entire universe. And his area of specialty is Sleep.. no wonder.

Oh s*** if I'd known that was the prize I wouldn't have bothered.

Plok: Thanks dude, but I'm pretty sure it won't matter how much I scrutinize my semantics you will still find ambiguity :)

Fair enough =D, so long as you concede that if you'd actually set that and I'd come back with:

1) true
2) true
3) true
4) false

that I'd be "as defensibly true" as your preferred answer then we wouldn't have an issue.

last edited by plok at 18:20:06 19/Aug/09

Dang. A burn in list form. I only looked up the answer to #3, and considering two of your statements are definitively TRUE when only ONE is supposed to be, you should perhaps dial back your conceit.

At least you aren't teaching forum posting.

edit: I can't f***ing get over how stupid you are.

Can someone else help me out here and point out why he is in fact the retard? He doesn't seem to be reading what I post.


infi: I'll vote liberal next time as your prize :O

you get them for free?

i don't get for that kind of tv stuff James, have you been paying you silly schmo?

I didn't get a chance to post before the answer was posted. I had #2 locked in though. This was because I thought scientists said we use about 6% of our brain at any one time but I guess that wasn't the "fact" anyway.

New one, I'll lock in #1
1) I'm pretty sure homepathy is all about water. Pure/non-pure? Irrelevant I hope.

2) The wording is tricky here. Men and women on average will perform similar, but not exactly the same. "Equally well"? Guess that includes Gaussian distribution...

3) True. Now we just need to decide what the "fact" is really saying. If I'm predicting a poker player's habits, I can predict rather well that he's going to play poker, to three decimal places...

Can someone else help me out here and point out why he is in fact the retard? He doesn't seem to be reading what I post.

I'll help, he's a retard because he thought the answers to the original set were insultingly obvious when I've already shown that you, your entire psych class,a bunch of people here and Dancin also got it wrong :P

Can someone else help me out here and point out why he is in fact the retard?

Will, he is the dude with 80 post counts and a sig which makes him out to be a QGL commander. Arguing with him is retarded in itself.

what's the answer for the second one, billy? is it 2?

edit: second one does seem a little easier than the first. i admit i got the first one wrong :)

last edited by taggs at 18:48:13 19/Aug/09

I too think the pick for the second set is #2.

For the second lot of questions, the first one is 100% true. Homeopaths claim that by constant dilution and shaking of a pathogen or medicine with water, you will eventually wind up with water which has absolutely 0% of the pathogen or medicine, but the water will have retained some sort of restorative property associated with the original substance used. They believe water has some sort of magical 'water memory' which can emulate the effects of other substances it comes in contact with.

They also believe that the best way to treat an illness is to expose a patient to substances which produce similar symptoms. E.g. Treating a runny nose with something that makes your nose run. It's a ridiculous crock of s***. I had to do an assignment on it in uni for a skepticism course. I was shocked by the sheer stupidity of it all.

I'd say 2 is false, as experience and past research has taught me that men and women score very differently on IQ tests.

3 sounds too crazy to be the false answer... it would be too easy if that were the answer :P

Hurdurrr I teach at a university and can't even f***en orchestrate a single multiple choice question correctly

Dancin, tell us what your old username was?

Hurdurrr I teach at a university and can't even f***en orchestrate a single multiple choice question correctly

The fact that you said it was obvious after the answers were revealed implies you agreed with the answers. Therefore, you were also wrong. How then could it have been insultingly obvious? Unless you have no problem not being able to work out insultingly obvious things of course...

Hurdurrr I teach at a university and can't even f***en orchestrate a single multiple choice question correctly

That sounds about right!

lame detector is off the scale, guessing hashy

But is Hashy's presence and the lame detector going of the scale a causal effect?

What ticman said on page 1, how ever with a little modification:

"1) Almost 100% of murders are committed within two weeks of a full moon.



True - we're always within 2 weeks of a full moon since a moon's cycle is roughly 28 days. And it says "almost 100%"

-- The moon is ALL WAYS full. Its just where you are viewing it from on earth.

Oh - to billy's 2nd lot,

1. False
2. True
3. True

good point but it's roughly the same everywhere on Earth

1) False. Homeopathy's basis is about dilutions and vibrational memory of chemicals. It's bulls***, but that IS the basis.

2) False. Even if the different is statistically insignificant I find it hard to believe there is no difference even if it means nothing.

3) TRUE!!! They can predict to an accuracy of 3 decimal places. This does not mean the prediction itself will be accurate.

wewt got the first set of questions right without looking at rest of thread

second set I'm going to go on the basis of saying 1) is the odd one out assuming 2) is saying on average equally well but you know, semantics are doing my brain in

going to stick with 1 on the basis of it saying all homeopathic remedies are pure water, given that pure would suggest no additive

billy - you're tutoring 1040? nice! very jealous, if i had to tutor anything, it would definitely be that.

Also, your questions made me realise that psyc isn't just common sense, very cool :)

2) False. Even if the different is statistically insignificant I find it hard to believe there is no difference even if it means nothing.

Actually, if you're going that route, it is possible to get only say, 3 sig. figures with both at an average for example, IQ 110. Statistically, they are equal.

BUT then Skythra decided it was false... I missed his reasoning there.

Well here's the problem - I heard that 20% was a common misconception - i just wasn't sure if it was 50%.

As for the children thing, i was totally guessing in the dark.

I figured as far as things went, 50% of the brain on average might have been a better chance at a "reasonable" answer than a random hypothesis that i deduced from nothing :D

I was just lucky I think to have guessed the children thing. :P

1) the very basis of homeopathy requires that all homeopathic remedies are pure water

Because I don't know what homeopathy is, I really don't know how to answer it..

2) men and women perform equally well in IQ tests

Ahh yes?

3) neural networks (computerised models of the brain) can predict poker players’ gambling habits with an accuracy of three decimal places

No.

I think a lot of prior knowledge would help on this one. I'm not really interested in psych much.. I did a subject called motivational behavior in my business course, but i totally forgot how IQ tests work. I'm ignorant so i don't know what homeopathy whatever is and the only reason i dont trust a computerised model of the brain to exactly 3 decimal places is really because is that a guess with a percentage accuracy? so it will be right to 0.001%? Ugh. Going on that theory and nothing else: 3.

and now to read the rest of the thread..

last edited by skythra at 08:51:25 20/Aug/09

what are the answers to the second one, billy? stop holding out on us!

1)True, the amount of dilution is so great that there is no possibility of the original substance being present. That said it depends on whether you believe in Homoeopathy or not based on the wording of the question. The "basis" of Homoeopathy from a scientists view and from a homoeopaths view is quite different.

2)False, no one performs equally well on an IQ test.

3)True. Reasoning, just because.

i reckon the 3rd one is true. most people would tend to have established patterns of betting in poker that could be modelled by computers. that seems pretty damn accurate but computers are pretty great these days i hear.

2)False, no one performs equally well on an IQ test.

Except two people with the same IQ?

You idiots, Dancin is hashy.

stop eating his trolls.

Except two people with the same IQ?

I've done different IQ tests, some scored like 180, some as low as 130. The ones I score low on ask questions about olden day sayings like "Complete this sentence: A bird in the bush is worth but one in the ______" and frankly I don't give a flying f*** about olden day sayings. How the hell is that even an IQ question?
We were taught in psyc 1020 (or 1030?) that IQ tests are historically racist and sexist, and are totally going to be different based on what you've been exposed to. This is why black people were thought to be stupid for so long - because they would ask them some s*** about bird in the bush and they would have never heard of that. Or asked if a left handed glove can be inverted to become a right handed glove... well a black person had probably never seen a glove before so how are they meant to answer that?
I've also been faced with a lot of IQ test questions regarding nickels and dimes - which is s*** because I can't remember which one is which.

All that IQ test reveal is the ignorance of the person who WROTE the test :P





last edited by thermite at 13:47:40 20/Aug/09

How many people on qgl actually study psychology? seems to be a lot...

I was right.

Also, you know what they say about peeps that study psych ;-P

If I could go back to uni I'd become an accountant instead.

Can someone else help me out here and point out why he is in fact the retard? He doesn't seem to be reading what I post.

No, he's so fundamentally retarded that even trying to comprehend what he is trying to say will only destroy you of your ability to reason.

How many people on qgl actually study psychology? seems to be a lot...

Psychology is probably the most helpful first year elective anybody can do at University. Unless of course you plan to never interact with anybody.

2)False, no one performs equally well on an IQ test.

Except two people with the same IQ?

Not necessarily true - (proper) IQ tests have a standard diviation, such that if your IQ is 120, your test results could range from 105 to 135.

I've done different IQ tests, some scored like 180, some as low as 130. The ones I score low on ask questions about olden day sayings like "Complete this sentence: A bird in the bush is worth but one in the ______" and frankly I don't give a flying f*** about olden day sayings. How the hell is that even an IQ question?
We were taught in psyc 1020 (or 1030?) that IQ tests are historically racist and sexist, and are totally going to be different based on what you've been exposed to. This is why black people were thought to be stupid for so long - because they would ask them some s*** about bird in the bush and they would have never heard of that. Or asked if a left handed glove can be inverted to become a right handed glove... well a black person had probably never seen a glove before so how are they meant to answer that?
I've also been faced with a lot of IQ test questions regarding nickels and dimes - which is s*** because I can't remember which one is which.

All that IQ test reveal is the ignorance of the person who WROTE the test :P

Stop doing online IQ tests, they're absolutely useless except to boast to other n00bs how high your IQ is. Especially ones from 1950.

And stop doing IQ tests you find on the internet... which aren't actually IQ tests.

All that IQ test reveal is the ignorance of the person who WROTE the test :P

Glad you put the ":p" after that statement cause I'd totally burn you for being the ignorant one ;)

Not necessarily true - (proper) IQ tests have a standard diviation, such that if your IQ is 120, your test results could range from 105 to 135.

I think you mean the standard error of the measure, which is usually a bit more precise than SD.

Not necessarily true - (proper) IQ tests have a standard diviation, such that if your IQ is 120, your test results could range from 105 to 135.

I think you mean the standard error of the measure, which is usually a bit more precise than SD.

Give me a break, I haven't done any stats (or really anything involving numbers) for a year. Most people here wouldn't even know what SD or SE are, let alone the difference between them.

Sorry for the delay:

the answer to the second one was 2 is false ;)

1) in deadlyf's words:

the amount of dilution is so great that there is no possibility of the original substance being present.

Simply, homeopaths believe that it is the memory of a substance that can have magical healing powers. The greater the dilution, the more powerful the substance. If you find a homeopathic remedy with a trace amount of anything in it, it is no longer a homeopathic remedy and is an active substance.

2) This one is pretty cool. There are a lot of mixed reports on whether or not males or females have the same IQ. A lot say males have higher IQs, and a lot say the genders are even. This in itself means #2 is false, but let's continue. There are a couple of points that studies generally agree on: males typically score at the highest end of the IQ spectrum, and they also score at the lowest end of the spectrum.

3) I stumbled across this article recently in a journal that looks at gambling behaviour. I'll try to remember tomorrow to look it up and post it.

Basically, this nerd designed a neural network, got a whole bunch of poker players to play poker for a bit, and fed the neural network all the info about the hands an bets. From what I remember reading, the neural network would actually predict average bets per hands, and overall amounts won and lost, with an accuracy of 3 decimal places! Phwoar! Apparently everyone was shocked, especially the guy who wrote the software. Sounds almost too good to be true, so if I have time and remember tomorrow I'm going to dig the article out and read it with a skeptical eye!

GG all!

Most people here wouldn't even know what SD or SE are, let alone the difference between them.

Which is why it's important to get it right when we are telling people ;) Don't want to teach people the wrong thing!

Most people here wouldn't even know what SD or SE are, let alone the difference between them.

Which is why it's important to get it right when we are telling people ;) Don't want to teach people the wrong thing!

If 4 years of stats, didn't help me remember, then I don't think a few posts about it on a random forum will make a big statement.

yeah this game is bulls***, it's just "guess billy's opinion" - you basically made a strawman out of homeopathy in that one-liner - no homeopath would say that 'pure water' is the basis of homeopathy, it is more involved that that even if it is make believe. Saying it's 'pure water' is a commonly held scientific perspective, but it's not a 'right answer' to anything.

thermite, this isn't my opinion.

Saying it's 'pure water' is a commonly held scientific perspective, but it's not a 'right answer' to anything.

I urge you to watch this video to the end:)



Please be aware that I never claimed in any of my other posts in this thread that homeopathy does NOT work. But I am saying that now. Homeopathy does not work.

I've got one for you ladies but no googling:

What population of the world is infected with mycobacterium tuberculosis (the bacteria that causes TB):
1/3?
1/10?
1/100?
1/1000?
1/1000000?

Zy, so you're saying it's meant to be pure water with a "memory" of a substance, and that is different to pure water? If so, then fine, but that's kinda silly to make that distinction.

I think the biggest error I made here is that not all the remedies are water - you can also get tablet ones that are pure sugar :)

I think the biggest error I made here

was clicking the 'New Thread' button?

Don't need to defend yourself BHardball, we're having a ball in this thread. Post up some more, it's hella fun!

I'm gonna go with everybody in the world carrying mycobacterium tuberculosis, Greazy.

true
true
true
false

/edit: ah crap

last edited by Mr Hardware at 22:10:21 20/Aug/09

1) the very basis of homeopathy requires that all homeopathic remedies are pure water

Zy, he may have worded it strangely, but he's ultimately correct. The remedies, if correctly diluted, aren't supposed to even have a molecule of the medicine in it, hence 'pure water'. This 'memory' of the medicine bulls***, even if true (lol), would still make the ultimate remedy pure water.

Also, greazy, I have absolutely no idea what %, but I'm guessing more than we'd think, otherwise why ask the question?

*EDIT* lol @ Mr Hardware

You're right on that point sparrow, its more than you think. Always interesting to point it out though.
Spoiler:
its 1/3 btw

This 'memory' of the medicine bulls***, even if true (lol), would still make the ultimate remedy pure water.

Well, if we allow for the basis of homeopathy to be true then the water is distinct from plain drinking water.

Its a semantic point over what is 'pure' water in the context, the question was poor imo.

last edited by Hogfather at 22:38:06 20/Aug/09

OMFG how come fifty people are prattling on about aspects of homeopathy I already explained it ages ago?

I choose a.


Welcome visiting www.ifsneaker.com

true
true
true
false

/edit: ah crap

This is actually correct, Billy got it wrong with his wording.

This 'memory' of the medicine bulls***, even if true (lol), would still make the ultimate remedy pure water.

Well, if we allow for the basis of homeopathy to be true then the water is distinct from plain drinking water.

Its a semantic point over what is 'pure' water in the context, the question was poor imo.

Hence the 'strangely worded' comment...

You're right on that point sparrow, its more than you think. Always interesting to point it out though.

As I cbf googling, what is the idea behind it? We're all carriers?

1) in deadlyf's words:

the amount of dilution is so great that there is no possibility of the original substance being present.


Simply, homeopaths believe that it is the memory of a substance that can have magical healing powers. The greater the dilution, the more powerful the substance. If you find a homeopathic remedy with a trace amount of anything in it, it is no longer a homeopathic remedy and is an active substance.

Yep

2) This one is pretty cool. There are a lot of mixed reports on whether or not males or females have the same IQ. A lot say males have higher IQs, and a lot say the genders are even. This in itself means #2 is false, but let's continue. There are a couple of points that studies generally agree on: males typically score at the highest end of the IQ spectrum, and they also score at the lowest end of the spectrum.

Interesting, been a while since I did a psych subject but my memory was:
- IQ tests strictly speaking are testing how good you are at IQ tests. Whether that says anything about intelligence comes down to the influence of test design/bias, practice effects, etc.
- One of the interesting and oft-cited results is that men outperform women at spatial rotation tasks, the mean of the bell curve is slightly higher by a few percent and this been shown to be statistically significant difference over and over. With the other tasks the difference either comes out statistically insignificant, or conflicting depending on which study you look at.
- Hence you'd expect a slightly higher mean for men vs. women due to the fact that spatial rotation is a typical component of IQ tests.

3) I stumbled across this article recently in a journal that looks at gambling behaviour. I'll try to remember tomorrow to look it up and post it.

Basically, this nerd designed a neural network, got a whole bunch of poker players to play poker for a bit, and fed the neural network all the info about the hands an bets. From what I remember reading, the neural network would actually predict average bets per hands, and overall amounts won and lost, with an accuracy of 3 decimal places! Phwoar! Apparently everyone was shocked, especially the guy who wrote the software. Sounds almost too good to be true, so if I have time and remember tomorrow I'm going to dig the article out and read it with a skeptical eye!

Would be interesting to see. Was it just your standard feedforward backprop MLP or something funky? What was it predicting exactly? If all it had to do was predict the "average" outcome given a particular game state, that isn't exactly suprising (just an exercise in learning statistics). If it was learning the way individual people played that's pretty impressive and would require some memory of previous games I would imagine.

was clicking the 'New Thread' button?

Someone is grumpy they didn't win a game they apparently don't care about.

Don't need to defend yourself BHardball, we're having a ball in this thread. Post up some more, it's hella fun!

I agree, I don't mind being wrong while i'm still enjoying it :)

OMFG how come fifty people are prattling on about aspects of homeopathy I already explained it ages ago?

Believe it or not, a discussion doesn't necessarily end because you put your 50 cents in.

I do believe there are many homeopathetic preparations where there ARE actually molecules of the added substance remaining in the water.

Billy I am a skeptic, I don't need you to show me videos you've found on youtube. I know homeopathy is pseudoscience, but what you've done is misrepresented it in a condecending way and then asked "is that the basis of homeopathy?" ... well it's not.

If you're trying to discredit something; at least acknowledge what their actual position is before trying to argue with it.

Also, already admitted that no scientific theory is 100% proven - and yet you use no reasoning other than science to provide a solution for these answers. I thought this quiz would be more about logic and problem solving.




last edited by thermite at 08:49:18 21/Aug/09

Psychology is probably the most helpful first year elective anybody can do at University. Unless of course you plan to never interact with anybody.

Yes. Plus being a Male in IT which is 80-20 Male:Female it provides classes where the roles were reversed :P

And I've thought about this - diluting something heaps (beyond avogadro's number) doesn't mean you annihilate the added molecules, it just means that you keep increasing the chance that if you were to take a one mole sample there would be none of that molecule in there. It's not exactly the same thing as 'pure water' because those molecules are in the solution *somewhere*.

I scored 145 on an online IQ test.
I always suspected i was a genius.

But Faceman, didn't you want to purchase the incredible breakdown of your high IQ, to know where you true skills are and areas for improvement!!!?1one

OMFG how come fifty people are prattling on about aspects of homeopathy I already explained it ages ago?

Sorry CT, I thought someone else mentioned that stuff but I didn't go back to review the whole thread before I posted answers :)

Thermite, I'm happy to have a discussion about this with you, because I think it's important to reach common ground. I'm happy for you to point out I'm wrong, but so far it just sounds like I haven't convinced you of the evidence (which is quite different from being wrong).

I do believe there are many homeopathetic preparations where there ARE actually molecules of the added substance remaining in the water.

No, because then there wouldn't be a "memory" of the substance, which is crucial for homeopathy. I know, it sounds odd, but this isn't me making stuff up, it's homeopathy.

Billy I am a skeptic, I don't need you to show me videos you've found on youtube.

Good that you're skeptical, especially of me making claims, but the point of skepticism is that you look for evidence of claims. I am trying to provide you with evidence.

I know homeopathy is pseudoscience, but what you've done is misrepresented it in a condecending way and then asked "is that the basis of homeopathy?" ... well it's not.

I have not "misrepresented" homeopathy. What I have written in this thread so far is what homeopaths will tell you (except for the one post I said that it doesn't work). I don't think I've been "condescending" - I've been rather factual and blunt about homeopathic beliefs. As far as I'm aware, I have not said anything that homeopaths would deny, again with the exception that it doesn't work.

If you're trying to discredit something; at least acknowledge what their actual position is before trying to argue with it.

This is exactly what I've done. Instead of posting more youtube links, I suggest that you visit some homeopathic websites and see that what I have said their position is is accurate.

Also, already admitted that no scientific theory is 100% proven - and yet you use no reasoning other than science to provide a solution for these answers. I thought this quiz would be more about logic and problem solving.

Science is logic and problem solving. I agree that these would have been easier with prior knowledge and some are difficult (or impossible) to work out using basic reasoning skills without knowing certain things. However, that's the point - it's to get you thinking and not take statements of face value. I think the point of this thread has played out perfectly. Open discussion of what I have presented, as well as criticisms.

And I've thought about this - diluting something heaps (beyond avogadro's number) doesn't mean you annihilate the added molecules, it just means that you keep increasing the chance that if you were to take a one mole sample there would be none of that molecule in there. It's not exactly the same thing as 'pure water' because those molecules are in the solution *somewhere*.

The molecules of whatever are not in the homeopathic remedy though.

got any more of those, billy? they were fun :)

I stand by everything I said in my previous 2 posts - your responses are very stubborn and unsurprising. Just using common sense - making something dilute is not the same as making it pure. A skeptic would acknowledge this. The substance does remain, even if it's a "1 molecule per every 3 bottles" kind of thing.
There are principles of homeopathy are several, and the dilution is only a part of it.

Consider this statement: "The basis of Judaism is that an invisible pretend man lives in the sky" - now to me that is basically what it is, but you would be dead wrong answering that on a test in a f***ing synagogue.

Your original statement/question should have been something more like "Homeopathic remedies are effectively nothing more than plain water" WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than making a mockery of one of their principles.

Also, already admitted that no scientific theory is 100% proven - and yet you use no reasoning other than science to provide a solution for these answers. I thought this quiz would be more about logic and problem solving.

Don't confuse science with maths. Maths says it's pure water, scientific theory has nothing to do with it.

There isn't enough water in the world to meet the dilution requirements of most homoeopathy treatments. You could bottle any source of water and claim it is diluted with any substance you wish as all water has at one time or another been in contact with all forms of substances on Earth.

what is possible in homeopathy today, zy?

No you guys dont understand the basis of Homeopathy.
The More Diluted it is in water
the more powerful the dose becomes.

Its the Memory of the substance that is the magical property.
Its not meant to contain any physical presence of the original ingredient.
If there is any of the original substance then that is a weak dosage and ineffective.

Its completely kooky

deadlyf - I know what you mean, numbers don't lie, but coming to a theoretical conclusion about physical properties using observable numbers is science. The numbers don't give the answer, Billy gives it. The human interpretation factor is there.

No you guys dont understand the basis of Homeopathy.
The More Diluted it is in water
the more powerful the dose becomes.

This doesn't sound like a homeopathic idea. They can't be that retarded? The more I read about homeopathy the more it sounds like toxicology but taken too far (and simply for profit). National Geo had a great article about toxins, depending on the dose they could either be lethal or life saving/changing. Take for example mercury, it was once used to cure syphilis.

The original idea of the homeopathy inventor's treatments was simply that if someone has some symptoms it can treated by the same thing that causes those symptoms. This obviously would kill the patients eventually, so the whole dilution thing needed to be brought in as a workaround. So as far as basis goes, it would be the treating-symptoms-with-the-cause-of-those-symptoms idea that is the basis. The whole 'memory' explanation is even more modern than that.

Greazy, unfortunatly it is, check out this table from wikipedia, the one at the top is 1 part whatever to 10 parts water, and it gets more dilute as you go down.

X Scale 	C Scale 	Ratio 	Note

1X 	— 	1:10 	described as low potency

2X 	1C 	1:100 	called higher potency than 1X by homeopaths

6X 	3C 	10−6 	

8X 	4C 	10−8 	allowable concentration of arsenic in U.S. drinking water[44]

12X 	6C 	10−12

24X 	12C 	10−24 	Has a 60% probability of containing one molecule of original material if one mole of the original substance was used.

60X 	30C 	10−60 	Dilution advocated by Hahnemann for most purposes

on average, this would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient.

400X 	200C 	10−400 	Dilution of popular homeopathic flu remedy Oscillococcinum

so clearly there are preparation that are only diluted by a small amount, and some that require all the water on earth (probably the deadly chemicals).



last edited by thermite at 18:11:12 21/Aug/09

For everyone that wants more, I encourage you to check out the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, from which I stole this idea. The host of that podcast is Steve Novella, who is a neurosurgeon and teacher at Yale. He has such a huge knowledge of everything it is incredible. If you know Dr Karl, multiply that by one million, and you'll get Steve Novella. His "panel of skeptics" are hilarious too, and between the 5 of them they are able to intelligently discuss all these debates, and they often argue with each other over the same points in this thread, which is important.

Here is one more that I came up with to keep this thread rolling. I'm going to try to learn from my mistakes and be as unambiguous as possible.:

1) An object that is 60degrees Celsius does not have twice as much heat as the same object that is 30degrees Celsius.

2) When simultaneously placed in a freezer, near boiling water (for plok, >90degreesC) will freeze faster than cold water if the volume of each are equal at the time they are placed in the freezer.

3) If you were floating through outter-space naked, you would freeze to death in a matter of seconds (eg < 30 seconds).

1) True
2) True
3) False

(Total thumb-suck, no Google was used in the writing of this reply)

1) An object that is 60degrees Celsius does not have twice as much heat as the same object that is 30degrees Celsius.

True - but question doesn't make sense. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. If you mean KE, then obviously you'd use absolute zero as the base instead of zero deg C.

2) When simultaneously placed in a freezer, near boiling water (for plok, >90degreesC) will freeze faster than cold water if the volume of each are equal at the time they are placed in the freezer.

False - it may cool faster initially, but it won't freeze faster.

3) If you were floating through outter-space naked, you would freeze to death in a matter of seconds (eg < 30 seconds).

True. Outer space is basically a vacuum and well away from any heat sources, aside from yourself. There's a paper around somewhere that NASA did on this, I remember them saying the "exploding due to the pressure difference" thing was a myth, the gas in your lungs etc. would just slowly (relative to exploding) escape while you froze to death.

1) False
2) True
3) True

The only one I'm certain of is number 2. You might die from something else before you freeze to death in space.

1) An object that is 60degrees Celsius does not have twice as much heat as the same object that is 30degrees Celsius.

This is true if you just mean "twice as hot".

2) When simultaneously placed in a freezer, near boiling water (for plok, >90degreesC) will freeze faster than cold water if the volume of each are equal at the time they are placed in the freezer.

What does "freeze faster" mean? To begin with it will cool faster due to the greater difference in temperature. All things being equal though it won't beat the colder water to 0 degrees C. Once it reaches the temperature of the original cold water it will then cool at exactly the same rate as the cold water.

There's also the question of what happens to the temperature of the freezer and how well it refrigerates, but this shouldn't alter the gross outcome of tha race.

3) If you were floating through outter-space naked, you would freeze to death in a matter of seconds (eg < 30 seconds).

This is false. Space sure is cold, but because its a vacuum there is no conductive material to draw off heat - you would have to radiate your body's energy away which would take ages. You're much more likely to asphyxiate first, or die due to some other adverse effect of being naked in space.

last edited by Hogfather at 14:24:59 22/Aug/09

So, thanks to teh Googles, my answers were (don't look if you're planning on answering yourself):

Spoiler:

1) True - MAYBE - Ambiguous due to nature of question
2) True - CORRECT - Source
3) False - CORRECT - Source



last edited by euphoria at 14:52:56 22/Aug/09

Yeh apologies for ambiguity which I'm obviously prone to. For #1, I mean, twice as hot, as hogfather said. Is this the same as saying "twice as much thermal energy"?

"twice as much thermal energy"?

"Twice as much thermal energy" would be a measurement in Kelvin so 60˚C would be twice as much thermal energy as -106˚C (166˚K). For water though, you could say 60˚C is "twice as hot from freezing point" (which is by no means a "zero" value, its just the critical phase changing temperature for water.

Just be aware, 3dee, that "60˚C is 'twice as hot from freezing point"' is not what I wrote;)

lol yeah well then its true (it doesnt) :D

Just be aware, 3dee, that "60˚C is 'twice as hot from freezing point"' is not what I wrote;)

Actually that is what you wrote. It might not be what you meant but with no mention of using the SI unit it is what you said.

You used Centigrade as your unit of measurement which is really where the ambiguity is. There are a lot of ways to measure temperature and if you use one form in the question it is only logical that the answer would be based on that form unless otherwise stated.

Second area of ambiguity would be there is a difference between Heat and Temperature and since you used the word heat it'd be calculated by joules and to determine that you'd have to actually know the ambient temperature. A 30°C object in a 30°C room is actually giving off no heat at all since heat is a process of transfer from hot to cold and with nothing cold to transfer too there is no heat energy produced AFAIK. Since you used °C, if we were to assume calculations from 0°C then an object at 60°C would have exactly twice as much heat as the same object at 30°C.

deadlyf, I'm not ignoring your post but I'll come back a little later with the answers and replies to your comments.