Posted by: graemebird | February 27, 2011

Convergence/Certainty/One-Step Induction

  • A bit of a lazy thread taken from elsewhere. But its important not to let the comments section get too long. Also this is a very important matter. Any mainstream theory that has been around awhile and not buttressed by convergent evidence has to be presumed to be wrong. We need to take the convergent evidence blow-torch to every sacred cow there is.


    A philosophical point. There is a myth going around that you cannot have scientific certainty. The example given to me was of all these white swans. And everyone thinking that all Swans were white, but being proven wrong when the Europeans got to Australia and found black Swans.

    But the proposition that all Swans are white is an example of one-step induction. And not an example of a theory proven by convergent evidence. A theory proven by convergent evidence is not going to get unproven.

  • I’ve not seen a theory properly proven by way of convergent evidence ever get unproven. The Big Bang has been debunked but it was never a good theory and relied on red shift alone. That is to say no lines of convergence. Neals theory is as good as it gets. More lines of convergence than anything out there not considered prosaic knowledge. Thus it ought to be the centre-piece and driving force behind new research. But we have to cut off the funds and sack everyone to get there.

    Take the global warming fraud. Strip away all the rigged data and proof-by-nitpicking-opponents …… and all you have is a single inductive inference:

    A question of infra-red absorption/scattering writ large upon the planet entire. Thats all they had. And it turned out to be wrong. Most one-step inductive inferences turn out to be wrong actually. As any creative researcher who gets five new ideas before breakfast knows. But no theories proven by many lines of convergent evidence are ever debunked.

Now it appears that I’m the first person to point out that rightful certainty comes from convergent evidence. Not from deductive exactitude, or from consensus, or from anything else. But from convergent evidence only.

But all of you have always known this really. I mean everyone realizes this in their personal life. Thats why evolution gave us five middling senses and not one terrific one. Everyone knows this on some level and all the good scientists act like they have always known this.




  1. I understand the satirical point of the latest Sinclair thread. But at the risk of nitpicking:

    “From time to time I’m asked what policy the government could undertake to reduce unemployment. Banning farm equipment would ensure that everyone who wanted a job would get a job…..”

    But its not true Sinclair. It may indeed cure unemployment but only by two routes:

    1. It may kill off anyone who could not get a job.

    2. It may lead to a societal breakdown and a defacto deregulation.

    Sinclair is actually reinforcing economic fallacy here, in order to make a coherent satirical piece. Banning farm equipment would not lead to a reduction in mandated wage rates. Its not clear it would lead to less money spent on bigshot salaries and general corporate fat and more on productive expenditure.

    So there really is no reason to expect that we’d all be employed.

    Sinclair appears to be saying he cannot give good advice to reduce unemployment. Hopefully this is not true and this is a glib way to put together a new thread.

    Slashing government spending and using the cuts to get rid of payroll tax would give us employment growth immediately. Slashing government spending and using it for the following two-way policy would work also:

    1. Raise the tax free threshold.

    2. Combine this with moral suasion to cut before tax wages and some working age welfare. So that we get a before tax wage cut and an after-tax wage rise.

    Getting rid of fractional reserve to divert new money creation to government and having that to finance selected above tax cuts would also be massively helpful to clean up remaining unemployment.

    Having policies that bias slightly in favor of small firms ….. and combine this with increasing the ratio of productive expenditure/GDR would increase employment very quickly.

    Getting rid of all regulations supporting credentialism in the workplace and moral suasion to get rid of unofficial credentialism would be a great help.

    Reregulation with a great bias towards slashing old regulation would help.

    Getting rid of any tax on profits would be a good thing. Heading off the carbon tax will stop our unemployment rates going double digit again.

    Getting rid of farm equipment would cause massive unemployment in all the rural areas. This is a very lazy mistake by Sinclair. And its a bad time for making these mistakes since it may convince people that the carbon tax will create employment. It won’t. It will be utterly devastating as far as employment is concerned.

  2. Well I’m certainly not about to be laying death threats on Windsors door. I only ever send emails under my own name.

    I’m still waiting for that evidence from Clive by the way.

  3. Windsor is more victim than anything else. To be sure its a great shame that he is not blocking the carbon tax. But he is going on what he thinks is the science. Anyhow. Here is SOON showing a bit of loyalty for a change. SOON comes through with an alibi

    “Bird’s threatened to break JC’s glasses and nose, break Mark’s ribs, break my nose, push Penny Wong into a swimming pool, put handcuffs on Obama and told Mark Bahnisch to hang himself with a necktie in the lady’s room.

    Clive is the last person who should be worried.”

    Right. And notice the great gentleness I project when it comes to our errant girls.

    Clive good brother. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and make good with that evidence. Wipe your eyes, blow your nose, and settle down to the task at hand.

    We want a CO2 record. We already have Becks record but if Becks record makes you want to cry all over again then you can present your own. Then we need an honest temperature record, or better still a reconstructed heat content record …. And then you need to relate one to the other in a way that goes beyond mere causation.

    I’ve been waiting. Don’t make me shout at you again.

  4. While I will naturally take responsibility for the many emails I send, the fact is that my email address is horribly abused. I’m constantly having to wipe junk mail from every astrology site known to man. All manner of dating sites. The Greens are always contacting me. Lord knows what I am being set up for. Pretty spooky if you ask me.

  5. “Yea, I know. He once tried to throw glass at John H.”

    No I’m not copping that. Get your story straight Cambria. I described this matter in great detail to you over the phone. I’m not copping some attempted glassing accusation.

    Note what an opportunist this bankster is. Trying to smuggle this absolute lie into the mix as soon as he sees all this excitement that Hamilton has generated.

  6. From Crikey:

    What we are after Clive, for starters, is a CO2 record. We already have Becks record but if Becks record makes you want to cry all over again then you can present your own. Then we need an honest temperature record, or better still a reconstructed heat content record …. And then you need to relate one to the other in a way that goes beyond mere correlation.

    Take some time out feeling sorry for yourself and make good with the evidence. You would not do this PRIOR to a carbon tax becoming a fait accompli. We will see if you will do so after the fact of this menace you have visited upon your benefactors.

  7. Bloody Wop opportunistically trying to put a criminal edge to my harmless shenanigans, when I told him the whole story over the phone.

    So what is the story then? I thought he tried to glass John H. Were you there?”

    With one hand I went to tip beer over him in slow motion. He had no choice and plenty of time to grab my wrist. Then I reached back with my other hand to grab a second beer. Thus we were in a stale-mate, and me with a slight edge. The standoff I had orchestrated had no chance of physical injury associated with it.

    Our good friend the writer shouted at us to break it up. She, me and Humphreys stayed up all night at SOONS place chatting in a friendly matter. There is no prospect that this lying Wops story has any truth to it.


    Posted Thursday, 3 March 2011 at 11:55 am | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Clive has been laying abuse on climate rationalists for many many years now, and as soon as people start getting sick of his filthy behavior he’s the victim. Clive cannot be found to refer to a climate rationalist without laying out a term of abuse. And yet this despicable crybaby thinks he’s exempt from return fire.

    Clive may feel its too much to ask for him to make good with the evidence. But I don’t think its too much to ask.

    I’ll check back tomorrow Clive. Have your evidence ready. No need to lose your hair about it. Lets just have the evidence and then you can hold your head up high. Gleaming in the sunlight.

    Here’s the Beck CO2 record if you don’t have your own. No rigged data is ever acceptable nor will it be accepted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: