haha Luna came out of the word work to post data XD
Google analytics uses cookies, which are per browser, not per IP, so it is possible those unique numbers are closer to the truth.
However their locations are a different story.
^ per browser, yep.
Inquirer said:[..] proving what's reasonable and what isn't.
Popular vote? That's a logical fallacy.
One at that that'd be more rife with room for error than usual, considering the general group here cannot speak enough Swedish for themselves to back anyone up with any consistency, having them gatekept as much as we are. Inquirer meanwhile can at least boast knowing the language and living there, even if that still would give him room to give us deceptive if not mistaken reports over other's legitimacy, as that's at least one small step closer than attempting to appeal towards the bandwagon for said legitimacy.
You are stuck on the idea that we're trying to prove nationalities here, instead of trying to prove what's reasonable to believe. Popular vote is clearly not conclusive proof, but why can't it be used to show what is reasonable?
If you're so worried I'll lie about the Swedish we could always ask someone else to verify.
Inquirer said:If you don't then my list is meaningless (in the context of verifiable evidence) and I'll discard it. Now we're back to your list lacking evidence.Except his list isn't contingent and isn't even his list, but a guess list of what yours could have been.
[...]
No one is defending his mock list, just comparing it to yours. From an outside eye, by comparison there is more reason to take his reasoning seriously than yours
My argument was that if he can't provide a reasonable list of Swedes then it shows he lacks knowledge of the topic and the forum, which in turn (and on top of all the other unreasonable claims he's made) makes him and his crusade against me even more laughable. You might take someone seriously once or twice, but if they keep proving themselves to be clueless then it's reasonable to stop.
We have, from him, a list of names he claims are Swedish, without stated reasons and where one is an obvious sock and two others have themselves denied being Swedish. By comparison we have my list, where most people have had (at minimum) some kind of reputation of being Swedish (verified by me, you and MissC). If I need to have more people verify it then I could do so. Would that satisfy you?
Inquirer said:What use is it in a debate about reasonableness if you can hide behind Bayesian logic no matter how silly your claim is?He never left the realm of theories and structure when it came to his own arguments. He was calculating odds, which you shat on but then did nothing of value to disprove otherwise.
I never entered "his" realm of theories and only referred to his paper in passing. I specifically made a claim about his list, in and of itself, not his statistical logic.
Inquirer said:And like I said, you are free to revert back to strong verifiable evidence if you want. But I've never claimed to be able to prove my list then, so we'd be left with only yours.Basic question then: Is your list better than his?
I should start pasting my old answers to you.
Yes, I think my list is superior to his when it comes to reasoning (he never gave any and neither of you have argued my list makes no sense, only that you want more evidence). I also disagree that we can't "shortcut" by using common SC knowledge, which we could prove by asking around if necessary.
If I can provide you with evidence, which is accessible to you, for a list of people that have talked on vocaroo in Swedish, typed in Swedish beyond Google translate, all that shit, plus minus a few conditions.
Then will you find the condition acceptable?
Yes, sure, unless you're trying to use some loophole I can't currently think of.
What condition would I find acceptable by the way? That I'm wrong?
Yes, if you could show with more stringent evidence what I am trying with less, then naturally your list would be more reasonable.
Would be more reasonable? No, hold on, I want you to say "then I will promise to give similar evidence, accessible to you, for the people on my list -- or admit I am wrong."
Inquirer said:[..] proving what's reasonable and what isn't.
Popular vote? That's a logical fallacy.
One at that that'd be more rife with room for error than usual, considering the general group here cannot speak enough Swedish for themselves to back anyone up with any consistency, having them gatekept as much as we are. Inquirer meanwhile can at least boast knowing the language and living there, even if that still would give him room to give us deceptive if not mistaken reports over other's legitimacy, as that's at least one small step closer than attempting to appeal towards the bandwagon for said legitimacy.
You are stuck on the idea that we're trying to prove nationalities here, instead of trying to prove what's reasonable to believe.
If you're so worried I'll lie about the Swedish we could always ask someone else to verify.
It's one and the same. I explained how it's dubious to rely on non-Swedish people to verify Swedish authenticity. Like what, am I supposed to just know who is and isn't Swedish from what I've seen? From what Xadem's seen? From what Spatial Mind's seen? From what Legga's seen?
Based on who's currently logging into the website, which people could actually verify it instead of simply back you up without the means of actually proving it themselves? These votes just tell us what we've been lead to believe, and I don't even trust my own answers there, so why should I trust yours? You're a self-contained expert who refuses to show his findings, so you're building no bridges here as your list currently has nothing for it's foundation beyond your memory.
Your list does not even have a single quote, vocaroo, or anything to show your words to be anything more than what you currently believe. It's just you reciting what you think you remember with the hopes that someone else will do the work for you. Since it's all from memory on your end I can't even confirm or deny which ones might have been a mistake on your part for even just attempting to downsize the list, you just spouted a bunch of names and claimed that they follow the criteria by describing what proof you think they fall into.
Popular vote is clearly not conclusive proof, but why can't it be used to show what is reasonable?
Because it's beyond a fallacy. I can explain it both through debate logic and specific context, which from an outside perspective is even more reasonable than "Inquire Evidence" solely.
Inquirer said:If you don't then my list is meaningless (in the context of verifiable evidence) and I'll discard it. Now we're back to your list lacking evidence.Except his list isn't contingent and isn't even his list, but a guess list of what yours could have been.
[...]
No one is defending his mock list, just comparing it to yours. From an outside eye, by comparison there is more reason to take his reasoning seriously than yoursMy argument was that if he can't provide a reasonable list of Swedes then it shows he lacks knowledge of the topic and the forum, which in turn (and on top of all the other unreasonable claims he's made) makes him and his crusade against me even more laughable. You might take someone seriously once or twice, but if they keep proving themselves to be clueless then it's reasonable to stop.
He can, but that isn't what he was doing when he made the list that you asked him for. His methods have literally been spelled out at length now and you're still going on about something no one else is defending. Effectively, you're fighting ghosts instead of really reading the components within his logic and my layman's reiterations.
I explained earlier how his list is not contingent on either his paper or your list, your list is the one on trial here as it's contingent on both his paper (past tense) and your ego's claims (past and present tense). I've then gone at length about how your list is no more valid than his, which is something you can't seem to grasp even after you've asked that your list itself be disregarded.
His list isn't right, that was never the point, the point is that your list isn't any more valid than his. You could get a group to sign petitions to try to convince us that this is the reality, but all that'd show us is what they believe, a belief that'd be held with even less ground than your own if they aren't themselves a verified Swede (like when Misscomm threw in her two cents).
We have, from him, a list of names he claims are Swedish, without stated reasons and where one is an obvious sock and two others have themselves denied being Swedish.
As I said earlier, unproven claims are just as valid as false ones in a debate. They both offer nothing beyond your beliefs, and I compare it to Christianity through how they could accomplish the same thing without proof on the back of similar ideas that you're trying to peddle now.
By comparison we have my list, where most people have had (at minimum) some kind of reputation of being Swedish (verified by me, you and MissC). If I need to have more people verify it then I could do so. Would that satisfy you?
I didn't verify those names in the slightest and neither did you nor MissComm. We all just spouted what we think we know, and if you actually read my reasonings they're why I'd CONSIDER them, not validate them for you. I am not a reliable source, so using me as a resource for who is and isn't Swedish is, too, a fallacy. I don't know and I don't claim to, this is instead about your methods.
If it was a matter of betting odds, I'd only bet if it was over if you were or weren't Swedish. I have no reason to trust their background matching yours beyond your word, and while I as a shortcut would typically just go with it from figuring that you likely know what you're talking about, this is a matter of praxis in this discussion not what I'd be liable to do or not to do, as what I'd do or not do does not denote accuracy in either direction for your claims.
It does not matter how much I do or don't believe your list, nor does it matter how much that I think you could compile it (I do, I think you could), what matters is what's actually been established. Even if I wanted to trash Legga's paper you'd be giving me no means to do that.
As I said earlier, in spite of how it only encompasses a year and a half of time and is likely thrown off from proxies, even what Luna's presented, as skewed as the data is, is technically closer to proof than anything you've shown us.
Inquirer said:I never entered "his" realm of theories and only referred to his paper in passing. I specifically made a claim about his list, in and of itself, not his statistical logic.
He from the start announced his theory as Bayesian, and his list is a matter I've explained multiple times now. He was never trying to be right, he was trying to seek the truth from a starting basis of odds, and from it you attacked his mock guess about what "your" list is, mistaken as if it were his own, and in spite of how you were winning by downsizing his list a few names at a time when it came to his paper... he got out of it what your actual list is, a list of names that's actually larger than his original theory that suddenly re-validates his paper.
You then did nothing to prove these names for weeks beyond saying things you claimed to have witnessed over the years while stamping your feet about your memory not being enough proof for us, further validating his paper's room to call your theory "insane" while still presenting an otherwise usable list. Based on statistics in lieu of prior knowledge within this forum that the majority of us would lack, his questioning of the Swede population here is a valid one that only is taken as nutty from you based on the reputation of the one making the point.
TLDR; You had him on the ropes when you reduced his Inquirer guess list to a few names, but then you completely gave away that advantage once you posted a list with even more than six names with a bunch of fluff to back it up.
His list is a giant red herring, and you can't seem to turn your head away from it. He's not defending his list, I'm not defending his list, he's even repeatedly emphasized how that'd be foolish and untenable to do. What's been discussed that you cannot grasp is how your list is of equal validity to his own obviously bunk list.
Seriously, he was adjusting his list as you said who on it you didn't believe to be Swedish, even in spite of his own beliefs. The first list changed overtime as you argued at it until you gave your own list that superseded it, as his list was meant to be a rough guess of your own, hence why it changed as you gave "reasons" for each name being wrong. The lists were always meant to be about your beliefs, his list and yours, and is why his was adjusting to reflect your opinion, not his, as you corrected it. It's like you missed his downsizing and figures adjustments as you rambled on about only his list's first draft.
Once you gave your own list, his list was replaced with yours for the sake of his paper and priority was established because of "The Stack", both as a counter and as a substitution. He had no reason to keep his own list with your data, and what makes your list faulty is independent of his list entirely beyond the room for coincidence and objective usefulness.
Inquirer said:Turncoat said:Inquirer said:And like I said, you are free to revert back to strong verifiable evidence if you want. But I've never claimed to be able to prove my list then, so we'd be left with only yours.Basic question then: Is your list better than his?
I should start pasting my old answers to you.
Yes, I think my list is superior to his when it comes to reasoning (he never gave any and neither of you have argued my list makes no sense, only that you want more evidence).
We don't want "more", we want evidence at all.
If I can provide you with evidence, which is accessible to you, for a list of people that have talked on vocaroo in Swedish, typed in Swedish beyond Google translate, all that shit, plus minus a few conditions.
Then will you find the condition acceptable?
Yes, sure, unless you're trying to use some loophole I can't currently think of.
What condition would I find acceptable by the way? That I'm wrong?
Yes, if you could show with more stringent evidence what I am trying with less, then naturally your list would be more reasonable.
Would be more reasonable? No, hold on, I want you to say "then I will promise to give similar evidence, accessible to you, for the people on my list -- or admit I am wrong."
I stand with Inq
If you disagree fill this form to contact me(must register first):
I on the other think I'll regularly bump this thread so members of SC will never forget your true colors.
Legga said:You said you'd be consistently bumping this topic. I think I'll do that.
As I said earlier, unproven claims are just as valid as false ones in a debate. They both offer nothing beyond your beliefs, and I compare it to Christianity through how they could accomplish the same thing without proof on the back of similar ideas that you're trying to peddle now.
Again, that's true if we were trying to conclusively prove or validate the lists, but what I am asking for (and providing myself) is a reasonable rationale for who's Swedish. This can be done without really proving anything since some things are self-evident (we shouldn't count an obvious sock) and others, I argue, can be assumed to be common knowledge on SC.
His list is a giant red herring, and you can't seem to turn your head away from it. He's not defending his list, I'm not defending his list, he's even repeatedly emphasized how that'd be foolish and untenable to do. What's been discussed that you cannot grasp is how your list is of equal validity to his own obviously bunk list.
You keep trying to explain over and over how you think my list is of equal validity to his and how Legga's list is bunk and doesn't have to be backed up in the first place anyway, but you're missing the point:
What I have argued for is that his continual inability to make (or accept) reasonable claims or inferences about SC and the users on it allows us to stop taking him seriously. I made a point about his list precisely because it was unreasonable (and it is doesn't matter why it is).
Both of you are defending his reasoning/rationale when compared to mine and both of you are defending his right to post clearly bogus claims and still be taken seriously.
