Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 116360	2011-02-28 18:57:00	Ken Ring on Campbell Live last night	Colpol (444)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1182277	2011-03-01 02:47:00	You can only flex even the strongest of materials just so many times before they weaken and ultimately fracture, Billy Can you give me the reference where you learned this "fact"? Perhaps it's from Mr Ring himself? Because it's certainly not from orthodox science. AFAIK, providing you flex a material within its elastic range, it will not "weaken and ultimately fracture".	TideMan (4279)
1182278	2011-03-01 02:55:00	I'm going to watch the interview tonight when I get home, sounds like a hoot. Ken Ring relies on Subjective Validation (www.skepdic.com) I suspect, people who believe in this sort if thing tend to find a way to match what happens with what was predicted, that is they fit the events to the prediction after the fact. The more vague the prediction the better, because it provides greater opportunities to make a link, hence why predictions rarely come out and say exactly what they are predicting (although many try to claim they were specific after the fact). So with something like weather, there is a lot of scope to make the prediction successful after the fact if you want to make the match. It has been shown under controlled experimental conditions that believers in ESP, Nostradamus and the like are strongly prone to making matches between unrelated things. For anyone interested in reading about this an related things, Psychology of the Psychic (en.wikipedia.org) provides a more detailed explanation and Flim Flam (www.amazon.com) attacks the whole psychic industry with a sledge hammer.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1182279	2011-03-01 03:13:00	I'm going to watch the interview tonight when I get home, sounds like a hoot. Ken Ring relies on Subjective Validation (www.skepdic.com) I suspect, people who believe in this sort if thing tend to find a way to match what happens with what was predicted, that is they fit the events to the prediction after the fact. The more vague the prediction the better, because it provides greater opportunities to make a link, hence why predictions rarely come out and say exactly what they are predicting (although many try to claim they were specific after the fact). So with something like weather, there is a lot of scope to make the prediction successful after the fact if you want to make the match. "While his weather predictions can be spot on, within a window of several days, I've found they can be far out, which he tends to manipulate to his advantage with the sometimes ambiguous way he writes" What I was saying, but didn't know it was called subjective validation. Thanks for that :)	WalOne (4202)
1182280	2011-03-01 04:12:00	"While his weather predictions can be spot on, within a window of several days, I've found they can be far out, which he tends to manipulate to his advantage with the sometimes ambiguous way he writes" What I was saying, but didn't know it was called subjective validation. Thanks for that :) For anyone wanting to forge a career as a psychic reader, the article "How to convince strangers you know all about them" remains a solid grounding in the "art". ruahmidbar.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/strangers.doc Of course it is completely unethical, possibly illegal under the Summary Offences act, but the customer demand will be strong and the customer satisfaction almost guaranteed. Hell if you give it a weather spin you will be able to write books and sell a reasonable number as well.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1182281	2011-03-01 04:20:00	Whether Ken Ring is correct or not is really not the point here. He was not allowed to state his opinion so why interview him? That was Campbell's idea of a incisive interview.	Cicero (40)
1182282	2011-03-01 04:41:00	Who gives a sh*t what the GNS scientists say, for all the money that goes their way, they have yet to predict or warn people of coming earthquakes	SolMiester (139)
1182283	2011-03-01 05:01:00	Who gives a sh*t what the GNS scientists say, for all the money that goes their way, they have yet to predict or warn people of coming earthquakes You are on a roll Solly.	Cicero (40)
1182284	2011-03-01 06:49:00	Just watched the interview, Campbell didn't do a great job but Ring appears to be a guy who gives himself three days either side of every prediction (well four because he acknowledged being outside the three day window and still claimed a success). Given he makes a lot of predictions, changes his mind and gives new dates, and gives himself a eight day window for each prediction, it is hardly surprising he can claim a success after the fact. Clear signs of subjective validation in the interview, the recalulation of dates (widening the chance of a hit), the window either side of predictions, the volume of predictions, and the lack of acknowledgement he ever gets it wrong. Seems a genuinely deluded man though, like James Randi found with water diviners, they often really beleive they can do but can never replicate the claimed ability under controlled conditions.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1182285	2011-03-01 09:08:00	Can you give me the reference where you learned this "fact"? Perhaps it's from Mr Ring himself? Because it's certainly not from orthodox science. AFAIK, providing you flex a material within its elastic range, it will not "weaken and ultimately fracture". So, you never heard of metal fatigue in materials working within their so-called elastic range? Or work-hardening leading to reduction of flexibility and ultimately failure? Seems that AFAYK may not go quite far enough. Flex concrete and sooner or later it will fail, however, in nature any concept of a formal "elastic" range is irrelevant. Who is to say what the elastic range of a geological formation might be, or that of an unknown fault line? It is a composite of its physical composition and components, formed in nature, and nature does not set such formal boundaries, though it does set rules. Rule No. 1: Expect the unexpected. Nothing is more fickle and unpredictable than nature. Rule No. 2: Nature does not take any notice of human provisos. And don't let's get onto Gods and their whims and fancies; the last refuge of scoundrels and those who have run out of arguments. Quote: Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 'supernatural beings', of which 2870 can be considered deities (gods). Those numbers are probably a very conservative estimate because we have no accurate information before 4000 B.C. This means any deities worshipped by man before this period are unaccounted for. In truth, the possibilities are nearly infinite. For example, in Hindu the entire living universe is merely a unique manifestation of Ishvara. This leads to the fact that there are 330 million "gods or goddesses." Clearly they've got a lot to answer for.......... Billy	Billy T (70)
1182286	2011-03-01 09:28:00	AFAIK, providing you flex a material within its elastic range, it will not "weaken and ultimately fracture". In many cases rock layers that collapse and cause earthquakes are indeed layers that are forcefully expanded or contracted. Obviously the term 'elastic' in this case is not used in the same vein as in the elasticity of rubber bands, but these rock layers do expand and/or contract.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25