Double.

Boru

(May 15, 2016 at 5:23 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I don't see anything about this that qualifies it as 'an experiment'.

Boru

Maybe this will help with your eyesight.



EP

(May 15, 2016 at 5:25 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 15, 2016 at 5:23 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Good question. I think our minds sometimes pick on things that we don't consciously notice, and then those details help us make decisions - for example when your intuition tells you to do something, or you correctly predict something just by "feeling" it.

But there are no 'details' to pick up on, just two identical poll options.  I decline to play, but good luck and thank your mother for the chicken soup.

Boru

You can't know that there are no details to pick up on if you're not omniscient.

Thank my mother for the chicken soup? I assume that's an insult, I don't know?

EP

The only factor I see playing into me picking one of the poll options are the numbers "1" and "2".

I've read that if you randomly ask someone to pick one between your forefinger and your middle finger people will choose the forefinger more than the middle finger. (you can try it out with random people to see for yourself). Is this that sort of experiment?

(May 15, 2016 at 5:28 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 15, 2016 at 5:23 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I don't see anything about this that qualifies it as 'an experiment'.

Boru

Maybe this will help with your eyesight.

Wiki

EP

Yeah, not so much. You don't have variable factors or controls, you don't have an hypothesis to validate, and your dataverse is going to be far too small to be of any use.

But don't give up hope. When they start awarding the Nobel Prize for Pointless Douchebaggery, I'm sure you'll be a top contender.

Boru

(May 15, 2016 at 5:35 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 15, 2016 at 5:28 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Maybe this will help with your eyesight.

Wiki

EP

Yeah, not so much.  You don't have variable factors or controls, you don't have an hypothesis to validate, and your dataverse is going to be far too small to be of any use.

But don't give up hope.  When they start awarding the Nobel Prize for Pointless Douchebaggery, I'm sure you'll be a top contender.

Boru

It's technically an experiment by definition, so I don't see what your problem is.

EP

(May 15, 2016 at 5:44 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 15, 2016 at 5:35 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Yeah, not so much.  You don't have variable factors or controls, you don't have an hypothesis to validate, and your dataverse is going to be far too small to be of any use.

But don't give up hope.  When they start awarding the Nobel Prize for Pointless Douchebaggery, I'm sure you'll be a top contender.

Boru

It's technically an experiment by definition, so I don't see what your problem is.

EP

Maybe this will help your eyesight.

http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

Boru

(May 15, 2016 at 5:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 15, 2016 at 5:44 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: It's technically an experiment by definition, so I don't see what your problem is.

EP

Maybe this will help your eyesight.

http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

Boru

This is a simple definition from a dictionary : a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, suppositin,etc.

So, clearly, my use of the word was not faulty, you're just confused about what I said apparently. I'm afraid that last problem doesn't concern me.

EP

(May 15, 2016 at 6:14 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 15, 2016 at 5:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Maybe this will help your eyesight.

http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

Boru

This is a simple definition from a dictionary : a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, suppositin,etc.

So, clearly, my use of the word was not faulty, you're just confused about what I said apparently. I'm afraid that last problem doesn't concern me.

EP

And Samuel Johnson defined a fish as 'an animal that inhabits water'. You dictionary definition isn't merely simple, it's simplistic.

As to the bolded bit, fair enough. Nothing about you concerns me. You're not even interesting enough to make me sick.

Boru

(May 15, 2016 at 6:18 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 15, 2016 at 6:14 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: This is a simple definition from a dictionary : a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, suppositin,etc.

So, clearly, my use of the word was not faulty, you're just confused about what I said apparently. I'm afraid that last problem doesn't concern me.

EP

And Samuel Johnson defined a fish as 'an animal that inhabits water'.  You dictionary definition isn't merely simple, it's simplistic.

As to the bolded bit, fair enough.  Nothing about you concerns me.  You're not even interesting enough to make me sick.

Boru

I think I can see what the problem is now. Since I'm pretty sure you're not trying to win a linguistic argument against me, I think you're just trying to get my attention through whatever means necessary. Missing Dad Syndrome?

EP