Says who? The vast majority of google servers are located in the USA.
And you're still missing the point: the ruling is explicitly said to have jurisdiction world-wide, so whether or not 'it's the same servers' is of no importance to that ruling. Even if all the servers are in Canada, and even if Google would move them elsewhere, that ruling would still stand. And it's the intention and explicit mention of a national court saying it has jurisdiction even over other sovereign countries which is absurd. Don't you get that?
Read the article. It specifically yhandles the question whether Canadian law has extra-judicial power over other sovereign countries, and it decided that it has. It's THAT that makes a dangerous precedent. If they can do it, than others can do it too, whether some see it as free speech or not.
Whether the Canadians think it's infringing copyright law is NOT the issue: they can already sue the culprits - in accordance with the 'ratified international agreements' you cite - IN those countries that have ratified it. That's already possible, and has been the case for decennia. What this decision says however, goes way beyond that, don't you get that? It orders to comply in *whatever* country in the world google is, whether they have a right under a treaty or not, or whether that country has even ratified any such treaty or not.
It just says its (national) decision and ruling has to be applied world-wide, even on other sovereign countries, period. That's pure foolishness.
It boggles the mind how some are still defending it. The logical consequences of a national court saying it's rulings are to be applied worldwide, including other jurisdictions - thus ignoring the juridical sovereignty of other states - means OTHER countries can do exactly the same, and - if they want to remain consistent - Canadian courts should accept other countries (like China) imposing their laws on Canada as well.
And so EVERY country in the world may impose their laws on every other country?? Absurd and un-maintainable, and in flagrant conflict with the centuries old adagio that courts do not have extra-juridical powers in other sovereign countries.
Of course, in practise, nothing changes for google (in the USA or elsewhere) since they DO NOT have to comply. But it still creates a dangerous precedent, which should be combated. Since it's the high court, the only option for google is according to treaties or an even higher court, mayhaps under WTO rules?
To clarify (if there would be a misunderstanding about it): I'm not for or against Elon nor Bezos. I just find the haters and bashers equally worthless.
Both are not perfect, but have accomplished some things which they should get credit for. The mentality of the fanfappers and zealous fantrolls on both sides - reminiscent to the xbox vs PS - crave attention and flamewars more then anything else. And it's that which is similar with both crowds.
Just like with the xbox vs PS flamewars, after a while you begin to note that it isn't really about the content nor about rational arguments anymore, but just about the 'side' which one is on in a 'we vs them' context. The polarisation of it determines and overshadows everything else, deplorable as that may be. And it happens equally on both sides of the fence.
Indeed, and as you correctly surmises, one can't conclude much out of a sample of one. However, nothing stops science from doing that same experiment over and over again, until the sample DOES become significant. And the scientific community has already done that a long time ago.
Frankly, I have always found science to be fascinating, not boring. Because it is, in effect, the way to get to the closest approximation of the observable reality, nothing more, nothing less.
And the more you repeat that experiment, the more likelihood you've got in reaching the right answer, both in correlation and causation, provided the set-up and methodology is done well. What won't give a more close approximation of the observable reality is people thinking something is true, and therefor it becomes true or gains validity through it. Imho, of course. If I have to choose between a number of options as to what represents reality the most, and you have a majority of people thinking one way, but science reaches another conclusion by strict appliance of the scientific methodology, I would always go for the latter, not the former.
Anyway, besides some hick-ups here and there in our debate - which (I assume) we both think is mostly attributable to the other side, while the truth will actually lay somewhere in between - I think we've remained fairly good within the realms of a normal debate. Which is pretty seldom on the internet, these days.
As you correctly pointed out, even the discussion about homeopathy wasn't the original point of discussion, though it took the majority of the time/debate between us. The original point about the Tesla and the autopilot seems rather pretty 'far away' at this point in time (to me), however, so I'm not very inclined to re-focus the debate on that again. So unless you really, really insist, I would prefer to close our debate in this thread, since I see little sense in continuing it at this point.
No doubt other opportunities will present themselves on slashdot. We'll surely meet again.
I suspect you're going to deny what I wrote and go on about how it IS necessary and elemental to deal with linguistic issues first, but whatever.. skip that paragraph, then. Ask your two (yes/no) questions then, so we can at least get on.
My two questions pertain not to any analogy of homeopathy, but directly to homeopathy. Furthermore, I would insist on getting further progress, but it's not absolutely a necessity that you answer me first. As I've already indicated, you're free to ask questions too - about homeopathy, from the stance of reciprocity. Only, you don't ask them.
Ergo, as you can see, I do not fall under 'my own definition of a troll'. As, I think, you were already aware off before even stating that.
The reason speaking about language, meaning of words, semantics, etc. is because it will get us nowhere at all, and it detracts from the actual discussion about homeopathy, which has been the subject of the vast majority of our current debate. discussing language is yet another topic, and even if one claims it will aid in establishing a common basis for then talking about Homeopathy, I find this very unlikely to be the case, even if we went for hours going on about it. Let's keep the linguistics for another time, and just use the most common dictionary definition if we have problems in determining what is meant by a word. In that case, for instance, we won't have to debate the meaning of you saying 'parable', since a parable is a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.
Since my two questions are nothing of the sort, you can't be referring to that with the word 'parable'. So I guess you must mean your own story..but alas, I'm not really interested in getting a moral or sprititual lesson about linguistics from you, apart from the question whether you are even qualified to do that in the first place.
So, you *do* feel I'm pressuring you with questions... let's do it this way then: ask two questions first, that can be as succinctly answered, as my questions were, and that can be answered by me with a yes or no. That way, we can maybe progress a bit further. It may even be questions about language, if you really feel like diverting to that topic, as long as they're direct and clear questions, not a 'parable' or a whole wall of text where you mostly state your opinion but do not ask much (and certainly not in a clear manner). Ask away.
Yes, well... let's get back on track, here. If I'm going to respond to each of those points about language and meaning of words, we're going to be busy for hours and deviate even more from the original topic (which, granted, wasn't homeopathy from the start, but which currently involves the majority of our conversation for the moment). Some of your statements about it I outright refute, and some of it is really unrelatable to me, such as your insistence that there is no such thing as a homeopathic substance. Yes, there is. It might be that it means something else for you than for me, but I already explained to you what is meant by that: any material, matter or 'stuff' which has undergone the homeopathic treatment of enormous dilution of a base organic or chemical substance that has the same symptoms as the disease it wants to combat. Now, you might not agree with this, but within THAT context, and with that definition, you DO have 'homeopathic substances'. It is directly (ampules) or indirectly (when it's dripped on pellets of sugar or starch what you take in.
Coming back to my two questions, they are pretty succinct, clear and straightforward:
- Say you have an ampule of ordinary water, not being sold nor treated in a homeopathic way, and you drip that on a small, white pill and give it to a person with some illness, and you do not see any measurable effect. Thus, it does not work. You now drip it on a large, colored pill, and you measure an effect. Would you say that effect is caused by the ordinary water, or the placebo effect of having the large, colored pill?
- Say you do exactly the same, but now you have treated the water to become homeopathic water, following the homeopathic ways (using a substance that shows the same symptoms of the cure, and then diluting it endlessly and shaking it). Do you now claim the effect is due to the homeopathic water?
What I ask is very clear, and can even be answered *very succinctly* with a yes or no, just like my former 4 points.
tssk, tssk! No analogies anymore!;-) Before you know it, we're back at my injection with salt water and then your voodoo, and then...
Now, it may be that 'homeopathy' may be a lot of things to you, and other things to others, that it even is, but there too, I gave a specific dictionary (well, wikipedian) definition for it. I would like to point out, for future reference, that, just like with the case when I gave the definition of 'characteristics', I do not give these dictionaries definition as a small fait divers. There is a meaning to it, and that's that I use *that* definition, because it's the most accepted standard definition. After all, if we all implement our own definitions and interpretations of words and terms, one can never have a sensible discussion, because everyone can talk about something else, even when using the same words and thinking the other will magically understand. It makes common sense to use the most common definition, to which everyone can agree to in equal terms and be easily demonstrable, and that's the dictionary meaning of the word.
I find it strange that you find the addition of 'medicine' is giving another connotation to it, given the fact of the context of my definition of homeopathy, which describes how homeopathic *substances* (aka; the medicine) is described and thus pertains to the working of that very same substance. What use is the signifier 'homeopathic' in 'homeopathic medicine', if the 'homeopathic' part has nothing to do with the working of the medicine? It's like...well, I can't resist to use my analogy again, but since you mentioned yours here too, you'll forgive me for bringing it up once too, no doubt - it's like saying 'salt water works against malaria' because you've put anti-malaria medicine (aka; the working component) in a salt-water injection. I can't see how it changes anything to the (in)correctness of the claim, by saying 'salt water medicine works'. That's because the working has nothing to do with salt water, and salt water does not cure malaria, so using that signifier in there, is misleading. But I might be totally mistaken with your take on this, so I'll try to pinpoint your reasoning down a bit more before further elaborating on anything.
Now, you don't have to respond to my example of an analogy, since I didn't with yours, and if we both respond to it we're back where we started and it gets more convoluted instead of more clear (which is the principal use of using an analogy), so it has little use in our discussion. But I do want - or at least, I would like - to get an answer on my two questions. Since I don't want you to feel overly pressured by only me asking questions, and since I'm a proponent of reciprocity, you can ask a couple of questions directly pertaining to the subject at hand as well, if you feel I should make my stance a bit more clear. So we'll both come to an understanding of our respective reasonings, and see if there is a logical way to come to a conclusion we both agree on. So I'll repeat it a third time;-) :
- Say you have an ampule of ordinary water, not being sold nor treated in a homeopathic way, and you drip that on a small, white pill and give it to a person with some illness, and you do not see any measurable effect. Thus, it does not work. You now drip it on a large, colored pill, and you measure an effect. Would you say that effect is caused by the ordinary water, or the placebo effect of having the large, colored pill?
- Say you do exactly the same, but now you have treated the water to become homeopathic water, following the homeopathic ways (using a substance that shows the same symptoms of the cure, and then diluting it endlessly and shaking it). Do you now claim the effect is due to the homeopathic water?
Now, it may be that you find those questions (or your answers on them) irrelevant to the statement(s) you made, but it's necessary for me that you answer them as succinctly and clearly as possible (like with the 4 points), so that I know what, precisely, it is where it might diverge with my reasoning and at which exact point. Feel free to then ask two questions of your own, btw, if you feel the 'answering' is too much one sided.
Also, if you didn't think homeopathy worked, your answer to the first question should have been a clear 'no'. As succinct as your other yes/no answers, thus. If you could do it with the other questions, you could do it with the first too.
By saying 'Homeopathic medicine works.' you created a certain impression (at least to me), since it *implies* accordance with the notion that you do think homeopathy works. Otherwise, you could just have said 'no'. I get the impression you somehow see it differently, and think that the fact that there is 'medicine' added to it, changes the basic tenets of homeopathy and its efficacity. I don't understand that train of thought. This why it's of the utmost importance, that you answer the former questions (as you see it, as straightforward as possible), so I can understand where our differences in thought-processes lay:
- Say you have an ampule of ordinary water, not being sold nor treated in a homeopathic way, and you drip that on a small, white pill and give it to a person with some illness, and you do not see any measurable effect. Thus, it does not work. You now drip it on a large, colored pill, and you measure an effect. Would you say that effect is caused by the ordinary water, or the placebo effect of having the large, colored pill?
- Say you do exactly the same, but now you have treated the water to become homeopathic water, following the homeopathic ways (using a substance that shows the same symptoms of the cure, and then diluting it endlessly and shaking it). Do you now claim the effect is due to the homeopathic water?
As you said, we've known some progress since we've abandoned all clutter and came to a more succinct and to the point way of asking specific, direct questions, so I think these last two will clear up a lot of things. At least then we'll know, where our thinking differs, specifically. For now, I have a few assumptions where you and I diverge and either have other opinions or start with other premises, but I can't get further into it as long as I don't know what train of thought you're following. I know MY ansers to the above questions, but I don't know yours.
"You have not replied to my questions about your meaning of the word "characteristic", after the first one where you referred to the dictionary. I am not sure which of the meanings of the dictionary apply in which way , so I would say I do not understand the question."
There are a few variants in the meaning of the word in the dictionary, but I explicitly only used one (the first), so it should have been clear what 'my meaning' of the word is, since I explicitly gave *that* definition. To repeat: "1.a feature or quality belonging typically to a thing and serving to identify it."
First, let me apologize for having been rude here and there in my later responses. I usually try to remain civil in any debate, unless I feel the other side is being personal offensive, trolling or playing (word)games and just trying to be willfully obtuse. I had the impression the latter three applied more and more to your posts, but a troll would have become far more personal insulting, and while I do think you've been trying to argue some things on the border of being pedantic and leaving the impression of not *wanting* to comprehend - just like with your insistence now you do not know what meaning I give to it, while I've explicitly given the dictionary definition and said 'when in doubt, use this' - I must also acknowledge you've been and remained fairly civil. And your last response showed at least a willingness to progress, because a troll would have just gone on about his analogies and insisting that one would answer those first. Instead, you've answered the questions, and with a clear yes or no, which has somewhat surprised me, for all to often a person answering such questions go on a diatribe with long winding 'if' and 'buts'.
I will try to see your manner of (certain) responses as some...quirk. Maybe what is obvious to me in the answers given and questions asked isn't obvious for you, and vice versa.
Now, it's clear we differ of opinion on point 1 and 4. I think point 4 is also the reason why we differ at 1, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. Point 3 wasn't all to clear to you, but apparently you do agree they are different, and thus distinct.
Can you explain why, if you think they are different things, you make the statement that homeopathy, on itself, works (aka, the effect is due to the homeopathic nature of the 'medicine'), if it only shows a placebo effect equal to that of something non-homeopathic? To make it more clear - we don't want to have more miscommunication, after all - let me explain what I mean (while not using analogies, because otherwise we're back where we started):
- Say you have an ampule of ordinary water, not being sold nor treated in a homeopathic way, and you drip that on a small, white pill and give it to a person with some illness, and you do not see any measurable effect. Thus, it does not work. You now drip it on a large, colored pill, and you measure an effect. Would you say that effect is caused by the ordinary water, or the placebo effect of having the large, colored pill?
- Say you do exactly the same, but now you have treated the water to become homeopathic water, following the homeopathic ways (using a substance that shows the same symptoms of the cure, and then diluting it endlessly and shaking it). Do you now claim the effect is due to the homeopathic water?
Since I asked the four things first, AND they are more to the point (since they are not analogies to the topic at hand, but directly about the topic), I would ask you to first answer the 4 points I raised.
After all, if those are directly answered there is no need for any analogy to translate to the actual topic. Thus:
1)Do you think homeopathy works, yes or no? 2)Do you think the placebo effect works, yes or no? 3)Do you agree they are distinct and one is not characteristic of the other and vice versa? 4)Do you think that, if the difference between receiving nothing and receiving a homeopathic treatment show no difference in effect, while if one adds a placebo effect (like coloring the pills) shows an equal difference in effect as with something which is not homeopathic at all, it means that homeopathy has no effect, and the effect is purely due to the placebo effect?
"Maybe, but since nobody around us is saying "voodoo magic works", you are distracting from the topic to avoid having to concede the point."
Again, you're doing it. You did say homeopathy works. Since voodoo is the analogy used for homeopathy, then the claim is 'voodoo works'. If you say voodoo does not work, and thus homeopathy doesn't work, we're at the end of the discussion, because I agree. That other people mistakingly think voodoo, homeopathy, toothfairy-magic , astrology, telepathy, etc. work, is not my problem and doesn't make it true (in the sense of being scientifically substantiated).
"2 points : A. In many homeopathic medicines, there is no "homeopathic substance"."
No, there is ALWAYS a homeopathic substance. That that substance is completely inert (water) and does not contain 1 molecule on millions of liters of water, is exactly why it doesn't work. I've already given you the definition of homeopathy; it's the principle of diluting something which has similar symptoms as the disease to such a degree that nothing remains, but the water 'remembers' it by the constant shaking of it. ALL that follow that treatment is homeopathic.
"B. I am not quite grasping who knows what. One knows one thing, and "you" know another thing. How can "you" derive something from the two things without knowing what "one" knows ?"
Again; word games. You understand perfectly fine, you're just acting up. If you're confused by the 'one' and 'you', transfer everything into 'one', and that will make it clear to you, if you're going to whine about such things. Pretending you got 'lost' because of the 'you' and 'one' is pretty weak, dude. You (yes, you) know as well as I what is meant. Next you're going to whine and complain about spelling-mistakes and grammar too, no doubt, to strengthen your case?
"If your comfort in some other language is better , could you also add an explanation in that language?"
Not add, but sure, let's speak Dutch, then. But don't complain afterwards.
"Seriously ? Add ?"
You don't think adding color to pills isn't adding something?
"Please quote me saying this."
"An air conditioner created for voodoo purposes works exactly as an air conditioner created for cooling one's living room"
Let me guess. You're now going to say: ah, but I said FOR voodoo purposes, not BY voodoo purposes? In that case, your analogy makes no sense at all. A placebo effect isn't made FOR homeopathy. At all. Nor is homeopathy made FOR the placebo effect. the placebo effect is irrespective of homeopathy, as I have said numerous times by now.
This constant weasel-wording is getting on my nerves. Let's be VERY clear and succinct about this:
1)Do you think homeopathy works, yes or no? 2)Do you think the placebo effect works, yes or no? 3)Do you agree they are distinct and one is not characteristic of the other and vice versa? 4)Do you think that, if the difference between receiving nothing and receiving a homeopathic treatment show no difference in effect, while if one adds a placebo effect (like coloring the pills) shows an equal difference in effect as with something which is not homeopathic at all, it means that homeopathy has no effect, and the effect is purely due to the placebo effect?
Sigh. you *are* being beligrant here, aren't you? In that case, I have little appetite to continue the discussion, because it's already clear it will go nowhere.
"A. who said air conditioners work by voodoo magic ?"
You're increasingly leaning on wordplays here, always a sign of weak arguments.
The point is that saying voodoo magic works (thus, in the analogy: homeopathy works) is demonstrably false.
"A placebo effect, I repeat, is NOT homeopathy
2 points : A. Who said that it is ?"
This is a prelude on establishing what works and doesn't work, since YOU seem to conflate the two when talking about what works and doesn't work. It stands to reason that, if one knows the effect of a placebo, and you know the effect of a non-homeopathic substance, you can also derive the effectiveness of the homeopathic substance on itself. Ergo, if you agree it are two separate things, and all the effects are due to the one, and not to the other, then the other doesn't work.
Its elemental logic. Why are we even debating this?
"You forgot to document how to remove the placebo effect from the world."
No I did not. You seem to conveniently forget me addressing this, as well as the analogy with the question "How are you going to get rid of Charles law?" the answer, and I'll repeat it a second time, is: You do not need to 'remove' Charles law of the world to show if the effects are real or not. Similarly, you do NOT have to remove the placebo effect from the world to show what effect it has. It is sufficient that you can quantify the effect and the level of it, to determine what an additional substance (homeopathy) adds to it. When it adds nothing to it, homeopathy doesn't ahve any effect, thus; it does not work.
"you seem to have understood that Charles' law is to air conditioners what placebo effect is to homeopathy"
No, it shows that I've understood that you want to use the analogy in that way. again, I feel you're playing with words, here. You start by saying an air conditioner works. Then you say Charles' law works. Both is true. Then you say an air conditioner works even if one says it's due to voodoo magic. Yes, the air conditioning will still work if one says or thinks it's because of voodoo, but it is NOT due to Voodoo magic, even if it's said or thought that it is. So claiming voodoo magic works is false.
Similarly, claiming homeopathy works is false as well.
1.
a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it.
When in doubt of the meaning of a word, use the dictionary definition.
"Irrelevant. An air conditioner created for voodoo purposes works exactly as an air conditioner created for cooling one's living room , if the air conditioner is otherwise identical. Why, how, with what purpose or while smoking what drugs homeopathy / air conditioner is created is irrelevant."
Untrue. An airconditioner doesn't work by voodoo-magic. Therefor saying voodoo magic works because the airconditioner works, is faulty reasoning. You seem to forget which statement is being disputed here: it's not that its disputed an air conditioner works, but that the voodoo magic works. The two are not interchangeable, just as the placebo effect and homeopathy are not interchangeable.
"A. How do you remove Charles' law from the world ? Or how do you remove placebo effect from the world ?" "B. Once you succeed in removing Charles' law from the world, air conditioner may not work either. We might never know, unless you answer the questions in point A."
That's fairly simple: you do not need to remove the law, only the effects that the law pertains to. Since Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law that describes how gases tend to expand when heated, it suffices to go into an environment which does not contain gases, such as a vacuum. Logic would dictate, then, that the air conditioner will not work in a vacuum. And indeed, it doesn't. In contrast, however, if the the air conditioner would work by voodoo-magic, it would still work in a vacuum. Therefor, the logical conclusion is that an air conditioner works by Charles' law, NOT by Voodoo magic.
Since A has been answered, B becomes irrelevant.
"Contrast with your statement "Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition". GOTCHA."
Now I think you really are being willfully obtrusive. A placebo effect, I repeat, is NOT homeopathy. Homeopathic preparations and the placebo effect are unrelated. So it are not the homeopathic preparations that have any effect, its the placebo effect that has a small effect. So my statement is entirely correct. Homeopathic preparations have no effect, as long as hey are homeopathic preparations. If you add a placebo effect to a homeopathic preparation it can have an effect, but that's do to the placebo effect, not the homeopathic effect. Therefor, homeopathy does not work, while the palcebo efect does, albeit in a minor way.
I do not understand your confusion (or is it unwillingness to concede the point) in this. What you're doing is akin to saying: "Salt water works against malaria. Because, look; if you inject salt water with some anti-malaria medicine into a person, he gets cued from malaria. Ergo, salt water treatments are effective against malaria". Surely I do not have to explain to you what an unbelievably logical fallacy you've made here?
"No, they don't show homeopathy doesn't work. They show it is not better than placebo."
No. It can easily be shown homeopathy doesn't work. This is because, just like with your question of charles' law, it's not necessary tn remove the placebo effect 'from the world', but rather see to it that it has no measurable effect. The way to do that is to have a set-up, with a control group who gets nothing, a group who gets homeopathy, and a group who gets something other than homeopathy with and without a placebo effect. When the control group and the group who gets a homeopathic substance shows no measurable difference, then it means the placebo effect is not at work. If the same setting is then used for the non-homeopathic substance, logic indicates it will not give any differe
I didn't say anything should be 'manufatcured into it', I said 'makes an integral part of it'. Meaning, Charles law has relevance to the working of an aircondition, by the mere fact it's a natural law - if it didn't work, the airconditioning wouldn't work. The placebo effect however is IRRELEVANT to the question whether homeopathy works or not, since it's not a characteristic of homeopathy.
I don't know if your really unaware, or if you're being willfully obtuse.
Let's recapitulate and see if logic brings us any further.
Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), a claim that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people and that extreme dilutions of a substance can retain the magical essence of the substance. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition.
A placebo effect is a physiological effect. This can be for several psychological reasons, and is detremined by outside factors that have nothing to do with homeopathy, for instance: large pills seem to work better than small pills, colored pills work better than white pills, an injection is more powerful than a pill, and surgery gives a stronger placebo effect than injections do, etc.
It is therefor easy to see that:
1)You have homeopathy without a placebo effect: this does not work 2)You have homeopathy with a placebo effect: this has a small effect 3)You have regular medicine without a placebo effect: this has a great effect 4)You have regular medicine with a placebo effect: this has a great effect + an added small effect
Now, where does that set of data leads us? It's very simple and logically straightforward.
It means that the placebo effect has a small effect, regular medicine has a great effect, and homeopathy has NO EFFECT.
As for your "the phenomenon by which human beings understand": this was exactly the point we were discussing, and to which I said that humans the lack of understanding of something *does not* mean it actually works that way. That's also why I said it's extremely dangerous to go that route of thought and conviction, because it ultimately means it's not the truth or objective observation that matters anymore, but ignorance leading to superstition. When something does not work, it does not work, and numerous scientific double-blind tests (the only ones you can eliminate bias and wrong convictions with) have shown homeopathy does not work. And it does not work, even if a large part of the populace think it does because they misunderstand the workings of it, just like the Earth isn't flat, even if there is a rising amount of flatearthers in the USA that are convinced it is.
"The vehicle would *not* suddenly stop without giving any warning here..."
I sure would hope not.;-)
I agree with your last part, which is why I said it probably made sense for Tesla to - indeed - make the car stop after some warnings. It's exactly because they surmised (rightfully so, I think) that the majority of people whom don't respond, is because of laziness and not paying attention (or not willing to pay attention, to be exact). In those cases, it will certainly help to go slower and slower to a full stop and even calling 911. Since that IS something they won't want, since it disturbs their little comfort-zone in relaxing without worries more than anything.
In the rare(r) cases of drivers falling into (temporary) unconsciousness, it would be better/safer to continue driving on, but those few don't outweigh the vast majority of lazy drivers that *will* benefit from (a threat to) stop the car in the middle of the road.
Ah well...with how fast things are progressing now, I predict that even within ten years, the first cat 5 autonomous vehicles will hit the road, and then none of this will matter much anymore.
Only, the placebo effect isn't an integral part of homeopathy, and has nothing to do with it.
It would be akin to saying "I have this little copper device the size of a shoebox that creates microgravity." And then go up the ISS with a rocket and once there pressing the button, and saying: you see, it works! At least, it works roughly as good as being in the International Space station."
That's because you ARE in the space station.
Similarly, the 'homeopathic medicine' can (not always) work as good as a placebo effect, because IT IS the placebo effect.
However, the placebo effect != homeopathy. This is proven by the fact that - and I'm repeating myself here, so I wonder if you've read my former comment completely - that 'homeopathic medicine' without the placebo effect does not work, and conversely, that normal medicine also can have the (added) benefit of a placebo effect.
This in stark contrast with your own (invalid) analogy and example, where Charles's law is an integral part of the workings of an air conditioner, and an air conditioner wouldn't work without Charles's law.
No-one is denying a placebo effect works (to some minor degree), what is said is, that homeopathy doesn't work. Since the placebo effect is irrespective of homeopathy, your reasoning and conclusion makes no sense.
"So it is correct then. Because homeopathic medicine does work. Roughly as well as a placebo, but placebos work too."
It is not, because it's not the "homeopathic medicine" that is working, but the placebo effect. You can get a placebo effect added to regular, working medicine as well, after all, so that proves it has nothing to do with homeopathy.
So you're wrong, even when trying to somewhat obfuscate things with your wording. It's not that 'homeopathic medicine' works as well as a placebo, it IS the placebo that is at work in that case. Apart from that, there are also loads of 'homeopathic medicine' that does not have a placebo effect as well, nor any other effect: as said, it doesn't work.
I once again refute the notion that it is 'widely regarded' as such, or that because it's widely regarded, that it thus is like that. The right attitude to misconceived and ignorant 'common notions' is not to cater to it, but to rectify it. Which I am doing with you right now, though I suspect you're actually intelligent enough to know the notion of 'autopilot = self-driving car' is wrong.
Now, as to the 'years of harsh training' and 'required to learn the car company lingo for years', that's just hyperbolic nonsense. I'll repeat it once again:
it takes - as some others have pointed out already - a pretty stupid guy to NOT understand even the basics of the Tesla autopilot while 1)It's straightforward explained by the seller when buying the car what the autopilot does and doesn't do, 2)It's clearly described in the manual of the car, 3)it's explicitly indicated and mentioned EVERY god damn time you start up autopilot.
So, you have a situation where the driver is being told over and over again it's not a self-driving car system, you always have to keep your hands on the wheel, and you must respond to the warnings... and the guy does nothing of the sort, and then it's Tesla's fault for choosing the word 'wrong'. Let's get real here.
The truth of the matter is - and you know this as well as I - that the driver knew full well that he had to keep his hands on the wheel, that it wasn't a self-driving car, and that he had to respond to the warnings. (Yeah - responding to warnings: a real brain-wrecker, need a university diploma and years of training for that! He didn't know how to put his hands on the steering wheel, I suppose?)
No, my friend. I get a bit fed up with all the comments as if Tesla drivers don't know about it, and just innocently, ignorantly think the semantics of the word are more important than anything else which they have been told and know, and thus the poor souls are 'misled' by the mere word . That's bull. They know, alright. They ALL know they need to keep their hand on the wheel. They ALL know it's not a self-driving system. It's been made abundantly clear so even an idiot can grasp it.
So it's not a matter of lack of knowledge, nor of a complicated system that needs years of harsh training: they just need to do what they always need to do: keeping their eyes open and their hands on the wheel. He KNOWS that. And yet, if the guy then doesn't do that out of stupidity and a search for comfort and laziness, coupled with irresponsibility..., it's Tesla's fault, and not the drivers'?
I don't think so.
The truth is, even if Tesla called it 'auto assistance' or 'keep your hands on the wheel -system', it won't make any difference, since the guys being irresponsible and stupid now by ignoring all what they already know, will be irresponsible and stupid as well, even if if you called it the 'instant death-wish button'. As said, the comments pretending that a lack of knowledge of the system is the problem for the behavior of the drivers is nonsensical and untrue: they know full well what they have to do - the system even explicitly and repeatedly tells them- , but they ignore it nevertheless. No word-change or semantic subtlety will change anything to that. The fault here lays not with the system, nor a lack of knowledge, nor the word used for the system. That's all a thinly veiled smokescreen for the trolls around here.
The fault lays squarely with the driver, who knows what he's supposed to do and don't do, but chooses to ignore it.
I doubt anything out of the ordinary is 'entirely' safe. Seen the fact that there are even accidents where the driver parked his car on the emergency lane due to some trouble with his car, and it still happens that other cars crash into it, , I doubt standing still on a highway will ever be 'entirely safe'. Even if the car right after you doesn't crash because he sees you go slower, it's not said that any other car wouldn't crash into you. There is a reason why cars need to maintain a certain speed and may not stop on a highway, after all.
And once the Tesla has stopped, there is no way to avoid an accident on his part when another cars nears and crashes into it.
It may be of course, that it's safer to stop than to continue driving if the driver does not respond fast enough, granted, and that's the real question. Apparently, since this happened there has been an update, which indeed, let's the Tesla automatically slow down. But all in all, it's not that clear cut. Normally, if the car is set on 'following' the car before him, it's actually pretty safe to do, compared with stopping altogether on the highway. It's just that the sensors aren't/weren't up to the task to recognize and get around every obstacle and avoid it, and this driver got unlucky. But let's face it, if the car had stopped and then another car crashed into it, many trolls/people here would then complain "Why did it stop?? Wouldn't it have been better if it just followed a car on a safe distance!". As always, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
I would say that, if it's statistically proven to be better to stop - even when the driver is incapacitated/unconscious - then that's what they should follow. I think the reason they changed the behavior of the car is because they figger (rightly so, imho) that most of those guys not responding is just because they're irresponsible, lazy drivers. If the majority of the not-responding was due to getting unconscious, it may be better to leave it and follow the car before you and continue. The reason being, that the vast majority of people getting unconscious is only temporary: a dozen seconds to a few minutes, after which they regain consciousness and can take over the car again. In those cases, stopping would be, statistically, more dangerous for the driver then continuing.
But I think they're right in their assessment what the biggest 'marketshare' of people is that don't respond, and it ain't people falling unconscious.
But it does mean these sort of things are pretty complex and need some thought: what is good for the one, isn't therefor good for another situation.
That's a proper thing to do for a self-driving car category 4 and 5. It's NOT a thing that the autopilot on the Tesla (or any other car for that matter) can do as of yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Says who? The vast majority of google servers are located in the USA.
And you're still missing the point: the ruling is explicitly said to have jurisdiction world-wide, so whether or not 'it's the same servers' is of no importance to that ruling. Even if all the servers are in Canada, and even if Google would move them elsewhere, that ruling would still stand. And it's the intention and explicit mention of a national court saying it has jurisdiction even over other sovereign countries which is absurd. Don't you get that?
Read the article. It specifically yhandles the question whether Canadian law has extra-judicial power over other sovereign countries, and it decided that it has. It's THAT that makes a dangerous precedent. If they can do it, than others can do it too, whether some see it as free speech or not.
Whether the Canadians think it's infringing copyright law is NOT the issue: they can already sue the culprits - in accordance with the 'ratified international agreements' you cite - IN those countries that have ratified it. That's already possible, and has been the case for decennia. What this decision says however, goes way beyond that, don't you get that? It orders to comply in *whatever* country in the world google is, whether they have a right under a treaty or not, or whether that country has even ratified any such treaty or not.
It just says its (national) decision and ruling has to be applied world-wide, even on other sovereign countries, period. That's pure foolishness.
Well said, sir.
It boggles the mind how some are still defending it. The logical consequences of a national court saying it's rulings are to be applied worldwide, including other jurisdictions - thus ignoring the juridical sovereignty of other states - means OTHER countries can do exactly the same, and - if they want to remain consistent - Canadian courts should accept other countries (like China) imposing their laws on Canada as well.
And so EVERY country in the world may impose their laws on every other country?? Absurd and un-maintainable, and in flagrant conflict with the centuries old adagio that courts do not have extra-juridical powers in other sovereign countries.
Of course, in practise, nothing changes for google (in the USA or elsewhere) since they DO NOT have to comply. But it still creates a dangerous precedent, which should be combated. Since it's the high court, the only option for google is according to treaties or an even higher court, mayhaps under WTO rules?
To clarify (if there would be a misunderstanding about it): I'm not for or against Elon nor Bezos. I just find the haters and bashers equally worthless.
Both are not perfect, but have accomplished some things which they should get credit for. The mentality of the fanfappers and zealous fantrolls on both sides - reminiscent to the xbox vs PS - crave attention and flamewars more then anything else. And it's that which is similar with both crowds.
Just like with the xbox vs PS flamewars, after a while you begin to note that it isn't really about the content nor about rational arguments anymore, but just about the 'side' which one is on in a 'we vs them' context. The polarisation of it determines and overshadows everything else, deplorable as that may be. And it happens equally on both sides of the fence.
Also nice try. ;-) Not necessarily, but likely.
Oh, wait, it's the Bezos haters... well, same crowd - at least in mentality.
Indeed, and as you correctly surmises, one can't conclude much out of a sample of one. However, nothing stops science from doing that same experiment over and over again, until the sample DOES become significant. And the scientific community has already done that a long time ago.
Frankly, I have always found science to be fascinating, not boring. Because it is, in effect, the way to get to the closest approximation of the observable reality, nothing more, nothing less.
And the more you repeat that experiment, the more likelihood you've got in reaching the right answer, both in correlation and causation, provided the set-up and methodology is done well. What won't give a more close approximation of the observable reality is people thinking something is true, and therefor it becomes true or gains validity through it. Imho, of course. If I have to choose between a number of options as to what represents reality the most, and you have a majority of people thinking one way, but science reaches another conclusion by strict appliance of the scientific methodology, I would always go for the latter, not the former.
Anyway, besides some hick-ups here and there in our debate - which (I assume) we both think is mostly attributable to the other side, while the truth will actually lay somewhere in between - I think we've remained fairly good within the realms of a normal debate. Which is pretty seldom on the internet, these days.
As you correctly pointed out, even the discussion about homeopathy wasn't the original point of discussion, though it took the majority of the time/debate between us. The original point about the Tesla and the autopilot seems rather pretty 'far away' at this point in time (to me), however, so I'm not very inclined to re-focus the debate on that again. So unless you really, really insist, I would prefer to close our debate in this thread, since I see little sense in continuing it at this point.
No doubt other opportunities will present themselves on slashdot. We'll surely meet again.
I suspect you're going to deny what I wrote and go on about how it IS necessary and elemental to deal with linguistic issues first, but whatever.. skip that paragraph, then. Ask your two (yes/no) questions then, so we can at least get on.
My two questions pertain not to any analogy of homeopathy, but directly to homeopathy. Furthermore, I would insist on getting further progress, but it's not absolutely a necessity that you answer me first. As I've already indicated, you're free to ask questions too - about homeopathy, from the stance of reciprocity. Only, you don't ask them.
Ergo, as you can see, I do not fall under 'my own definition of a troll'. As, I think, you were already aware off before even stating that.
The reason speaking about language, meaning of words, semantics, etc. is because it will get us nowhere at all, and it detracts from the actual discussion about homeopathy, which has been the subject of the vast majority of our current debate. discussing language is yet another topic, and even if one claims it will aid in establishing a common basis for then talking about Homeopathy, I find this very unlikely to be the case, even if we went for hours going on about it. Let's keep the linguistics for another time, and just use the most common dictionary definition if we have problems in determining what is meant by a word. In that case, for instance, we won't have to debate the meaning of you saying 'parable', since a parable is a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.
Since my two questions are nothing of the sort, you can't be referring to that with the word 'parable'. So I guess you must mean your own story..but alas, I'm not really interested in getting a moral or sprititual lesson about linguistics from you, apart from the question whether you are even qualified to do that in the first place.
So, you *do* feel I'm pressuring you with questions... let's do it this way then: ask two questions first, that can be as succinctly answered, as my questions were, and that can be answered by me with a yes or no. That way, we can maybe progress a bit further. It may even be questions about language, if you really feel like diverting to that topic, as long as they're direct and clear questions, not a 'parable' or a whole wall of text where you mostly state your opinion but do not ask much (and certainly not in a clear manner). Ask away.
Yes, well... let's get back on track, here. If I'm going to respond to each of those points about language and meaning of words, we're going to be busy for hours and deviate even more from the original topic (which, granted, wasn't homeopathy from the start, but which currently involves the majority of our conversation for the moment). Some of your statements about it I outright refute, and some of it is really unrelatable to me, such as your insistence that there is no such thing as a homeopathic substance. Yes, there is. It might be that it means something else for you than for me, but I already explained to you what is meant by that: any material, matter or 'stuff' which has undergone the homeopathic treatment of enormous dilution of a base organic or chemical substance that has the same symptoms as the disease it wants to combat. Now, you might not agree with this, but within THAT context, and with that definition, you DO have 'homeopathic substances'. It is directly (ampules) or indirectly (when it's dripped on pellets of sugar or starch what you take in.
Coming back to my two questions, they are pretty succinct, clear and straightforward:
- Say you have an ampule of ordinary water, not being sold nor treated in a homeopathic way, and you drip that on a small, white pill and give it to a person with some illness, and you do not see any measurable effect. Thus, it does not work. You now drip it on a large, colored pill, and you measure an effect. Would you say that effect is caused by the ordinary water, or the placebo effect of having the large, colored pill?
- Say you do exactly the same, but now you have treated the water to become homeopathic water, following the homeopathic ways (using a substance that shows the same symptoms of the cure, and then diluting it endlessly and shaking it). Do you now claim the effect is due to the homeopathic water?
What I ask is very clear, and can even be answered *very succinctly* with a yes or no, just like my former 4 points.
tssk, tssk! No analogies anymore! ;-) Before you know it, we're back at my injection with salt water and then your voodoo, and then...
Now, it may be that 'homeopathy' may be a lot of things to you, and other things to others, that it even is, but there too, I gave a specific dictionary (well, wikipedian) definition for it. I would like to point out, for future reference, that, just like with the case when I gave the definition of 'characteristics', I do not give these dictionaries definition as a small fait divers. There is a meaning to it, and that's that I use *that* definition, because it's the most accepted standard definition. After all, if we all implement our own definitions and interpretations of words and terms, one can never have a sensible discussion, because everyone can talk about something else, even when using the same words and thinking the other will magically understand. It makes common sense to use the most common definition, to which everyone can agree to in equal terms and be easily demonstrable, and that's the dictionary meaning of the word.
I find it strange that you find the addition of 'medicine' is giving another connotation to it, given the fact of the context of my definition of homeopathy, which describes how homeopathic *substances* (aka; the medicine) is described and thus pertains to the working of that very same substance. What use is the signifier 'homeopathic' in 'homeopathic medicine', if the 'homeopathic' part has nothing to do with the working of the medicine? It's like...well, I can't resist to use my analogy again, but since you mentioned yours here too, you'll forgive me for bringing it up once too, no doubt - it's like saying 'salt water works against malaria' because you've put anti-malaria medicine (aka; the working component) in a salt-water injection. I can't see how it changes anything to the (in)correctness of the claim, by saying 'salt water medicine works'. That's because the working has nothing to do with salt water, and salt water does not cure malaria, so using that signifier in there, is misleading. But I might be totally mistaken with your take on this, so I'll try to pinpoint your reasoning down a bit more before further elaborating on anything.
Now, you don't have to respond to my example of an analogy, since I didn't with yours, and if we both respond to it we're back where we started and it gets more convoluted instead of more clear (which is the principal use of using an analogy), so it has little use in our discussion. But I do want - or at least, I would like - to get an answer on my two questions. Since I don't want you to feel overly pressured by only me asking questions, and since I'm a proponent of reciprocity, you can ask a couple of questions directly pertaining to the subject at hand as well, if you feel I should make my stance a bit more clear. So we'll both come to an understanding of our respective reasonings, and see if there is a logical way to come to a conclusion we both agree on. So I'll repeat it a third time ;-) :
- Say you have an ampule of ordinary water, not being sold nor treated in a homeopathic way, and you drip that on a small, white pill and give it to a person with some illness, and you do not see any measurable effect. Thus, it does not work. You now drip it on a large, colored pill, and you measure an effect. Would you say that effect is caused by the ordinary water, or the placebo effect of having the large, colored pill?
- Say you do exactly the same, but now you have treated the water to become homeopathic water, following the homeopathic ways (using a substance that shows the same symptoms of the cure, and then diluting it endlessly and shaking it). Do you now claim the effect is due to the homeopathic water?
Now, it may be that you find those questions (or your answers on them) irrelevant to the statement(s) you made, but it's necessary for me that you answer them as succinctly and clearly as possible (like with the 4 points), so that I know what, precisely, it is where it might diverge with my reasoning and at which exact point. Feel free to then ask two questions of your own, btw, if you feel the 'answering' is too much one sided.
Also, if you didn't think homeopathy worked, your answer to the first question should have been a clear 'no'. As succinct as your other yes/no answers, thus. If you could do it with the other questions, you could do it with the first too.
By saying 'Homeopathic medicine works.' you created a certain impression (at least to me), since it *implies* accordance with the notion that you do think homeopathy works. Otherwise, you could just have said 'no'. I get the impression you somehow see it differently, and think that the fact that there is 'medicine' added to it, changes the basic tenets of homeopathy and its efficacity. I don't understand that train of thought. This why it's of the utmost importance, that you answer the former questions (as you see it, as straightforward as possible), so I can understand where our differences in thought-processes lay:
- Say you have an ampule of ordinary water, not being sold nor treated in a homeopathic way, and you drip that on a small, white pill and give it to a person with some illness, and you do not see any measurable effect. Thus, it does not work. You now drip it on a large, colored pill, and you measure an effect. Would you say that effect is caused by the ordinary water, or the placebo effect of having the large, colored pill?
- Say you do exactly the same, but now you have treated the water to become homeopathic water, following the homeopathic ways (using a substance that shows the same symptoms of the cure, and then diluting it endlessly and shaking it). Do you now claim the effect is due to the homeopathic water?
As you said, we've known some progress since we've abandoned all clutter and came to a more succinct and to the point way of asking specific, direct questions, so I think these last two will clear up a lot of things. At least then we'll know, where our thinking differs, specifically. For now, I have a few assumptions where you and I diverge and either have other opinions or start with other premises, but I can't get further into it as long as I don't know what train of thought you're following.
I know MY ansers to the above questions, but I don't know yours.
"Homeopathic medicine works."
If you do not believe homeopathy works, yet you believe homeopathic medicine work, do you believe the word 'medicine' makes the difference?
"You have not replied to my questions about your meaning of the word "characteristic", after the first one where you referred to the dictionary. I am not sure which of the meanings of the dictionary apply in which way , so I would say I do not understand the question."
There are a few variants in the meaning of the word in the dictionary, but I explicitly only used one (the first), so it should have been clear what 'my meaning' of the word is, since I explicitly gave *that* definition. To repeat: "1.a feature or quality belonging typically to a thing and serving to identify it."
First, let me apologize for having been rude here and there in my later responses. I usually try to remain civil in any debate, unless I feel the other side is being personal offensive, trolling or playing (word)games and just trying to be willfully obtuse. I had the impression the latter three applied more and more to your posts, but a troll would have become far more personal insulting, and while I do think you've been trying to argue some things on the border of being pedantic and leaving the impression of not *wanting* to comprehend - just like with your insistence now you do not know what meaning I give to it, while I've explicitly given the dictionary definition and said 'when in doubt, use this' - I must also acknowledge you've been and remained fairly civil. And your last response showed at least a willingness to progress, because a troll would have just gone on about his analogies and insisting that one would answer those first. Instead, you've answered the questions, and with a clear yes or no, which has somewhat surprised me, for all to often a person answering such questions go on a diatribe with long winding 'if' and 'buts'.
I will try to see your manner of (certain) responses as some...quirk. Maybe what is obvious to me in the answers given and questions asked isn't obvious for you, and vice versa.
Now, it's clear we differ of opinion on point 1 and 4. I think point 4 is also the reason why we differ at 1, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. Point 3 wasn't all to clear to you, but apparently you do agree they are different, and thus distinct.
Can you explain why, if you think they are different things, you make the statement that homeopathy, on itself, works (aka, the effect is due to the homeopathic nature of the 'medicine'), if it only shows a placebo effect equal to that of something non-homeopathic? To make it more clear - we don't want to have more miscommunication, after all - let me explain what I mean (while not using analogies, because otherwise we're back where we started):
- Say you have an ampule of ordinary water, not being sold nor treated in a homeopathic way, and you drip that on a small, white pill and give it to a person with some illness, and you do not see any measurable effect. Thus, it does not work. You now drip it on a large, colored pill, and you measure an effect. Would you say that effect is caused by the ordinary water, or the placebo effect of having the large, colored pill?
- Say you do exactly the same, but now you have treated the water to become homeopathic water, following the homeopathic ways (using a substance that shows the same symptoms of the cure, and then diluting it endlessly and shaking it). Do you now claim the effect is due to the homeopathic water?
Since I asked the four things first, AND they are more to the point (since they are not analogies to the topic at hand, but directly about the topic), I would ask you to first answer the 4 points I raised.
After all, if those are directly answered there is no need for any analogy to translate to the actual topic. Thus:
1)Do you think homeopathy works, yes or no?
2)Do you think the placebo effect works, yes or no?
3)Do you agree they are distinct and one is not characteristic of the other and vice versa?
4)Do you think that, if the difference between receiving nothing and receiving a homeopathic treatment show no difference in effect, while if one adds a placebo effect (like coloring the pills) shows an equal difference in effect as with something which is not homeopathic at all, it means that homeopathy has no effect, and the effect is purely due to the placebo effect?
"Finally you have beaten the dictionary, congratulations : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... [wiktionary.org]."
Thanks.
"Maybe, but since nobody around us is saying "voodoo magic works", you are distracting from the topic to avoid having to concede the point."
Again, you're doing it. You did say homeopathy works. Since voodoo is the analogy used for homeopathy, then the claim is 'voodoo works'. If you say voodoo does not work, and thus homeopathy doesn't work, we're at the end of the discussion, because I agree. That other people mistakingly think voodoo, homeopathy, toothfairy-magic , astrology, telepathy, etc. work, is not my problem and doesn't make it true (in the sense of being scientifically substantiated).
"2 points :
A. In many homeopathic medicines, there is no "homeopathic substance"."
No, there is ALWAYS a homeopathic substance. That that substance is completely inert (water) and does not contain 1 molecule on millions of liters of water, is exactly why it doesn't work. I've already given you the definition of homeopathy; it's the principle of diluting something which has similar symptoms as the disease to such a degree that nothing remains, but the water 'remembers' it by the constant shaking of it. ALL that follow that treatment is homeopathic.
"B. I am not quite grasping who knows what. One knows one thing, and "you" know another thing. How can "you" derive something from the two things without knowing what "one" knows ?"
Again; word games. You understand perfectly fine, you're just acting up. If you're confused by the 'one' and 'you', transfer everything into 'one', and that will make it clear to you, if you're going to whine about such things. Pretending you got 'lost' because of the 'you' and 'one' is pretty weak, dude. You (yes, you) know as well as I what is meant. Next you're going to whine and complain about spelling-mistakes and grammar too, no doubt, to strengthen your case?
"If your comfort in some other language is better , could you also add an explanation in that language?"
Not add, but sure, let's speak Dutch, then. But don't complain afterwards.
"Seriously ? Add ?"
You don't think adding color to pills isn't adding something?
"Please quote me saying this."
"An air conditioner created for voodoo purposes works exactly as an air conditioner created for cooling one's living room"
Let me guess. You're now going to say: ah, but I said FOR voodoo purposes, not BY voodoo purposes? In that case, your analogy makes no sense at all. A placebo effect isn't made FOR homeopathy. At all. Nor is homeopathy made FOR the placebo effect. the placebo effect is irrespective of homeopathy, as I have said numerous times by now.
This constant weasel-wording is getting on my nerves. Let's be VERY clear and succinct about this:
1)Do you think homeopathy works, yes or no?
2)Do you think the placebo effect works, yes or no?
3)Do you agree they are distinct and one is not characteristic of the other and vice versa?
4)Do you think that, if the difference between receiving nothing and receiving a homeopathic treatment show no difference in effect, while if one adds a placebo effect (like coloring the pills) shows an equal difference in effect as with something which is not homeopathic at all, it means that homeopathy has no effect, and the effect is purely due to the placebo effect?
Sigh. you *are* being beligrant here, aren't you? In that case, I have little appetite to continue the discussion, because it's already clear it will go nowhere.
"A. who said air conditioners work by voodoo magic ?"
You're increasingly leaning on wordplays here, always a sign of weak arguments.
The point is that saying voodoo magic works (thus, in the analogy: homeopathy works) is demonstrably false.
"A placebo effect, I repeat, is NOT homeopathy
2 points :
A. Who said that it is ?"
This is a prelude on establishing what works and doesn't work, since YOU seem to conflate the two when talking about what works and doesn't work. It stands to reason that, if one knows the effect of a placebo, and you know the effect of a non-homeopathic substance, you can also derive the effectiveness of the homeopathic substance on itself. Ergo, if you agree it are two separate things, and all the effects are due to the one, and not to the other, then the other doesn't work.
Its elemental logic. Why are we even debating this?
"You forgot to document how to remove the placebo effect from the world."
No I did not. You seem to conveniently forget me addressing this, as well as the analogy with the question "How are you going to get rid of Charles law?" the answer, and I'll repeat it a second time, is: You do not need to 'remove' Charles law of the world to show if the effects are real or not. Similarly, you do NOT have to remove the placebo effect from the world to show what effect it has. It is sufficient that you can quantify the effect and the level of it, to determine what an additional substance (homeopathy) adds to it. When it adds nothing to it, homeopathy doesn't ahve any effect, thus; it does not work.
"you seem to have understood that Charles' law is to air conditioners what placebo effect is to homeopathy"
No, it shows that I've understood that you want to use the analogy in that way. again, I feel you're playing with words, here. You start by saying an air conditioner works. Then you say Charles' law works. Both is true. Then you say an air conditioner works even if one says it's due to voodoo magic. Yes, the air conditioning will still work if one says or thinks it's because of voodoo, but it is NOT due to Voodoo magic, even if it's said or thought that it is. So claiming voodoo magic works is false.
Similarly, claiming homeopathy works is false as well.
"How is "characteristic" defined ?"
characteristic
ker()ktristik/
adjective
adjective: characteristic
noun
noun: characteristic; plural noun: characteristics
1.
a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it.
When in doubt of the meaning of a word, use the dictionary definition.
"Irrelevant. An air conditioner created for voodoo purposes works exactly as an air conditioner created for cooling one's living room , if the air conditioner is otherwise identical. Why, how, with what purpose or while smoking what drugs homeopathy / air conditioner is created is irrelevant."
Untrue. An airconditioner doesn't work by voodoo-magic. Therefor saying voodoo magic works because the airconditioner works, is faulty reasoning. You seem to forget which statement is being disputed here: it's not that its disputed an air conditioner works, but that the voodoo magic works. The two are not interchangeable, just as the placebo effect and homeopathy are not interchangeable.
"A. How do you remove Charles' law from the world ? Or how do you remove placebo effect from the world ?"
"B. Once you succeed in removing Charles' law from the world, air conditioner may not work either. We might never know, unless you answer the questions in point A."
That's fairly simple: you do not need to remove the law, only the effects that the law pertains to. Since Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law that describes how gases tend to expand when heated, it suffices to go into an environment which does not contain gases, such as a vacuum. Logic would dictate, then, that the air conditioner will not work in a vacuum. And indeed, it doesn't. In contrast, however, if the the air conditioner would work by voodoo-magic, it would still work in a vacuum. Therefor, the logical conclusion is that an air conditioner works by Charles' law, NOT by Voodoo magic.
Since A has been answered, B becomes irrelevant.
"Contrast with your statement "Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition". GOTCHA."
Now I think you really are being willfully obtrusive. A placebo effect, I repeat, is NOT homeopathy. Homeopathic preparations and the placebo effect are unrelated. So it are not the homeopathic preparations that have any effect, its the placebo effect that has a small effect. So my statement is entirely correct. Homeopathic preparations have no effect, as long as hey are homeopathic preparations. If you add a placebo effect to a homeopathic preparation it can have an effect, but that's do to the placebo effect, not the homeopathic effect. Therefor, homeopathy does not work, while the palcebo efect does, albeit in a minor way.
I do not understand your confusion (or is it unwillingness to concede the point) in this. What you're doing is akin to saying: "Salt water works against malaria. Because, look; if you inject salt water with some anti-malaria medicine into a person, he gets cued from malaria. Ergo, salt water treatments are effective against malaria". Surely I do not have to explain to you what an unbelievably logical fallacy you've made here?
"No, they don't show homeopathy doesn't work. They show it is not better than placebo."
No. It can easily be shown homeopathy doesn't work. This is because, just like with your question of charles' law, it's not necessary tn remove the placebo effect 'from the world', but rather see to it that it has no measurable effect. The way to do that is to have a set-up, with a control group who gets nothing, a group who gets homeopathy, and a group who gets something other than homeopathy with and without a placebo effect. When the control group and the group who gets a homeopathic substance shows no measurable difference, then it means the placebo effect is not at work. If the same setting is then used for the non-homeopathic substance, logic indicates it will not give any differe
I didn't say anything should be 'manufatcured into it', I said 'makes an integral part of it'. Meaning, Charles law has relevance to the working of an aircondition, by the mere fact it's a natural law - if it didn't work, the airconditioning wouldn't work. The placebo effect however is IRRELEVANT to the question whether homeopathy works or not, since it's not a characteristic of homeopathy.
I don't know if your really unaware, or if you're being willfully obtuse.
Let's recapitulate and see if logic brings us any further.
Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), a claim that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people and that extreme dilutions of a substance can retain the magical essence of the substance. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition.
A placebo effect is a physiological effect. This can be for several psychological reasons, and is detremined by outside factors that have nothing to do with homeopathy, for instance: large pills seem to work better than small pills, colored pills work better than white pills, an injection is more powerful than a pill, and surgery gives a stronger placebo effect than injections do, etc.
It is therefor easy to see that:
1)You have homeopathy without a placebo effect: this does not work
2)You have homeopathy with a placebo effect: this has a small effect
3)You have regular medicine without a placebo effect: this has a great effect
4)You have regular medicine with a placebo effect: this has a great effect + an added small effect
Now, where does that set of data leads us? It's very simple and logically straightforward.
It means that the placebo effect has a small effect, regular medicine has a great effect, and homeopathy has NO EFFECT.
As for your "the phenomenon by which human beings understand": this was exactly the point we were discussing, and to which I said that humans the lack of understanding of something *does not* mean it actually works that way. That's also why I said it's extremely dangerous to go that route of thought and conviction, because it ultimately means it's not the truth or objective observation that matters anymore, but ignorance leading to superstition. When something does not work, it does not work, and numerous scientific double-blind tests (the only ones you can eliminate bias and wrong convictions with) have shown homeopathy does not work. And it does not work, even if a large part of the populace think it does because they misunderstand the workings of it, just like the Earth isn't flat, even if there is a rising amount of flatearthers in the USA that are convinced it is.
"The vehicle would *not* suddenly stop without giving any warning here..."
I sure would hope not. ;-)
I agree with your last part, which is why I said it probably made sense for Tesla to - indeed - make the car stop after some warnings. It's exactly because they surmised (rightfully so, I think) that the majority of people whom don't respond, is because of laziness and not paying attention (or not willing to pay attention, to be exact). In those cases, it will certainly help to go slower and slower to a full stop and even calling 911. Since that IS something they won't want, since it disturbs their little comfort-zone in relaxing without worries more than anything.
In the rare(r) cases of drivers falling into (temporary) unconsciousness, it would be better/safer to continue driving on, but those few don't outweigh the vast majority of lazy drivers that *will* benefit from (a threat to) stop the car in the middle of the road.
Ah well...with how fast things are progressing now, I predict that even within ten years, the first cat 5 autonomous vehicles will hit the road, and then none of this will matter much anymore.
Only, the placebo effect isn't an integral part of homeopathy, and has nothing to do with it.
It would be akin to saying "I have this little copper device the size of a shoebox that creates microgravity." And then go up the ISS with a rocket and once there pressing the button, and saying: you see, it works! At least, it works roughly as good as being in the International Space station."
That's because you ARE in the space station.
Similarly, the 'homeopathic medicine' can (not always) work as good as a placebo effect, because IT IS the placebo effect.
However, the placebo effect != homeopathy. This is proven by the fact that - and I'm repeating myself here, so I wonder if you've read my former comment completely - that 'homeopathic medicine' without the placebo effect does not work, and conversely, that normal medicine also can have the (added) benefit of a placebo effect.
This in stark contrast with your own (invalid) analogy and example, where Charles's law is an integral part of the workings of an air conditioner, and an air conditioner wouldn't work without Charles's law.
No-one is denying a placebo effect works (to some minor degree), what is said is, that homeopathy doesn't work. Since the placebo effect is irrespective of homeopathy, your reasoning and conclusion makes no sense.
"So it is correct then. Because homeopathic medicine does work. Roughly as well as a placebo, but placebos work too."
It is not, because it's not the "homeopathic medicine" that is working, but the placebo effect. You can get a placebo effect added to regular, working medicine as well, after all, so that proves it has nothing to do with homeopathy.
So you're wrong, even when trying to somewhat obfuscate things with your wording. It's not that 'homeopathic medicine' works as well as a placebo, it IS the placebo that is at work in that case. Apart from that, there are also loads of 'homeopathic medicine' that does not have a placebo effect as well, nor any other effect: as said, it doesn't work.
I once again refute the notion that it is 'widely regarded' as such, or that because it's widely regarded, that it thus is like that. The right attitude to misconceived and ignorant 'common notions' is not to cater to it, but to rectify it. Which I am doing with you right now, though I suspect you're actually intelligent enough to know the notion of 'autopilot = self-driving car' is wrong.
Now, as to the 'years of harsh training' and 'required to learn the car company lingo for years', that's just hyperbolic nonsense. I'll repeat it once again:
it takes - as some others have pointed out already - a pretty stupid guy to NOT understand even the basics of the Tesla autopilot while 1)It's straightforward explained by the seller when buying the car what the autopilot does and doesn't do, 2)It's clearly described in the manual of the car, 3)it's explicitly indicated and mentioned EVERY god damn time you start up autopilot.
So, you have a situation where the driver is being told over and over again it's not a self-driving car system, you always have to keep your hands on the wheel, and you must respond to the warnings... and the guy does nothing of the sort, and then it's Tesla's fault for choosing the word 'wrong'. Let's get real here.
The truth of the matter is - and you know this as well as I - that the driver knew full well that he had to keep his hands on the wheel, that it wasn't a self-driving car, and that he had to respond to the warnings. (Yeah - responding to warnings: a real brain-wrecker, need a university diploma and years of training for that! He didn't know how to put his hands on the steering wheel, I suppose?)
No, my friend. I get a bit fed up with all the comments as if Tesla drivers don't know about it, and just innocently, ignorantly think the semantics of the word are more important than anything else which they have been told and know, and thus the poor souls are 'misled' by the mere word . That's bull. They know, alright. They ALL know they need to keep their hand on the wheel. They ALL know it's not a self-driving system. It's been made abundantly clear so even an idiot can grasp it.
So it's not a matter of lack of knowledge, nor of a complicated system that needs years of harsh training: they just need to do what they always need to do: keeping their eyes open and their hands on the wheel. He KNOWS that. And yet, if the guy then doesn't do that out of stupidity and a search for comfort and laziness, coupled with irresponsibility..., it's Tesla's fault, and not the drivers'?
I don't think so.
The truth is, even if Tesla called it 'auto assistance' or 'keep your hands on the wheel -system', it won't make any difference, since the guys being irresponsible and stupid now by ignoring all what they already know, will be irresponsible and stupid as well, even if if you called it the 'instant death-wish button'. As said, the comments pretending that a lack of knowledge of the system is the problem for the behavior of the drivers is nonsensical and untrue: they know full well what they have to do - the system even explicitly and repeatedly tells them- , but they ignore it nevertheless. No word-change or semantic subtlety will change anything to that. The fault here lays not with the system, nor a lack of knowledge, nor the word used for the system. That's all a thinly veiled smokescreen for the trolls around here.
The fault lays squarely with the driver, who knows what he's supposed to do and don't do, but chooses to ignore it.
I doubt anything out of the ordinary is 'entirely' safe. Seen the fact that there are even accidents where the driver parked his car on the emergency lane due to some trouble with his car, and it still happens that other cars crash into it, , I doubt standing still on a highway will ever be 'entirely safe'. Even if the car right after you doesn't crash because he sees you go slower, it's not said that any other car wouldn't crash into you. There is a reason why cars need to maintain a certain speed and may not stop on a highway, after all.
And once the Tesla has stopped, there is no way to avoid an accident on his part when another cars nears and crashes into it.
It may be of course, that it's safer to stop than to continue driving if the driver does not respond fast enough, granted, and that's the real question. Apparently, since this happened there has been an update, which indeed, let's the Tesla automatically slow down. But all in all, it's not that clear cut. Normally, if the car is set on 'following' the car before him, it's actually pretty safe to do, compared with stopping altogether on the highway. It's just that the sensors aren't/weren't up to the task to recognize and get around every obstacle and avoid it, and this driver got unlucky. But let's face it, if the car had stopped and then another car crashed into it, many trolls/people here would then complain "Why did it stop?? Wouldn't it have been better if it just followed a car on a safe distance!". As always, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
I would say that, if it's statistically proven to be better to stop - even when the driver is incapacitated/unconscious - then that's what they should follow. I think the reason they changed the behavior of the car is because they figger (rightly so, imho) that most of those guys not responding is just because they're irresponsible, lazy drivers. If the majority of the not-responding was due to getting unconscious, it may be better to leave it and follow the car before you and continue. The reason being, that the vast majority of people getting unconscious is only temporary: a dozen seconds to a few minutes, after which they regain consciousness and can take over the car again. In those cases, stopping would be, statistically, more dangerous for the driver then continuing.
But I think they're right in their assessment what the biggest 'marketshare' of people is that don't respond, and it ain't people falling unconscious.
But it does mean these sort of things are pretty complex and need some thought: what is good for the one, isn't therefor good for another situation.
A rhetorical question, since you are already well aware how it's called, so you don't actually need a response on that question.
As has been said over and over again, 'auto' stands for 'automatic', NOT 'autonomous'. Why keep acting as if you don't already know that?
That's a proper thing to do for a self-driving car category 4 and 5. It's NOT a thing that the autopilot on the Tesla (or any other car for that matter) can do as of yet.