A long time ago when the computers started to be able to make computer graphics I went to a class telling us about how to make good graphs.
It also told us all kinds of things to avoid not to confuse the reader. Like when you show increase in wine consumtion from 2 to 4 and plot the bars looking like barrels so the reader would get the impression in a 3d image in his mind even if the height of the barrels were just double. The practise of showing the y scale is one of the worst practises. Very small changes made to look very big. I once made an application that shows pollution from a factory. The factory paid for the application. Sometimes the filters broke so the numbers increased a lot and did not look good so those numbers had to be filtered out. Ever since I took the class of good presentation practises and what to avoid I have seen every trick in the book used all over the place to deceive the onlooker. It looks like the most useful lesson is how to fool people. This global warming seems to be really bad example of trying to fool everybody and scare everybody to behave or else. Just like a realy badreligion. Be afraid of the gwgod or it will flood the world and kill everyone who are not afraid. You can not see it. You are not allwed to speak against it. A few years back people tried to scare you because it was getting colder. By the way in our religion/custom hell is cold not hot. We do not like cold. There are good stories about our gods. They do not tell us what to do or not to do. There is no begging the gods. They will not do it anyway. On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 12:44 Don Guinn, <[email protected]> wrote: > Watched the video. Interesting on comments on truncated graphs on > temperature. On his untruncated graph started at 0 degrees Celsius. Maybe > it was still truncated. Perhaps it should have started at 0 degrees > Fahrenheit. Or maybe 0 degrees Kelvin. The problem is we are graphing the > wrong thing. The problem is a temperature graph is not a good way to show > the trend. A better way to graph would be to show the change in temperature > from year to year and include the error range. > > We tend to ignore errors in measurements, particularly if the data is > processed to 16 significant digits on a computer. > > Oil reserves is a good one too. In reality we don't know what the reserves > are even to the first significant digit. Yet we want to know "precisely" > how much there is for tax purposes and a countries security. Then throw in > changing technology. New recovery techniques have made oil shale included > in the reserves where it was not included before because it was impractical > to get the oil out previously. > > The thing is we really don't know what makes the world's climate. We make > guesses based on things we can measure. The air temperature and > composition. The ocean temperature and composition. But there are many > other variables. We don't even know what they may be. > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:24 AM Björn Helgason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQqPQ0i_fl0 > > > > Þann fös., 21. jún. 2019, 01:54 Ian Clark skrifaði < > [email protected] > > >: > > > > > Jose – thank you for introducing me to Alhazen. > > > Significantly predates René Descartes, whom I recall being taught was > the > > > originator of the Method of Systematic Doubt. > > > Quite clearly the priority belongs to Alhazen. > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > Like the reason why the human eye couldn't have arisen by blind > chance. > > > > > > That was a serendipitous blunder. Pun not intended, and not even > noticed, > > > until Raul pointed it out. > > > > > > Yes, the Devil's Dictionary is a work of splendid absurdity, and that > > > particular entry a topic for dangerous meditation… > > > Perhaps we'd had gills – and lost them? > > > Perhaps we were supposed to evolve them all by ourselves? > > > After all, the Elohim only gave themselves a day to create us (…albeit > > they > > > wasted the following day). > > > Come to think of it, nobody ever explained to me where the Garden Of > Eden > > > actually was – or where it disappeared to after the Fall. > > > :-D > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 00:35, Jose Mario Quintana < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > " > > > > Science is only ever 'settled' in the sense of "it looks stable for > > now". > > > > " > > > > > > > > The following is a translation of what was reportedly written around > > > 1,000 > > > > years ago: > > > > > > > > *The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if > > > > learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all > that > > > he > > > > reads, and attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself > as > > > he > > > > performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling > > > into > > > > either prejudice or leniency.* > > > > > > > > > > > > *— Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham)* > > > > > > > > More recently, the following is attributed to Karl Popper: > > > > > > > > *No number of sightings of white swans can prove the theory that all > > > swans > > > > are white. The sighting of just one black one may disprove it.* > > > > > > > > " > > > > My vision of TABULA is as a tool to show students what's possible. > Not > > to > > > > chisel out idols to bow down to. > > > > " > > > > > > > > Amen ;) > > > > > > > > " > > > > Like the reason why the human eye couldn't have arisen by blind > chance. > > > > " > > > > > > > > For some reason that reminded me of the following entry in the > *Devil's > > > > Dictionary*: > > > > > > > > *Ocean, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made > > for > > > > man—who has no gills.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ian Clark <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > (…"the science is settled"). > > > > > > > > > > Science is only ever "settled" in the sense of "it looks stable for > > > now". > > > > > > > > > > My vision of TABULA is as a tool to show students what's possible. > > Not > > > to > > > > > chisel out idols to bow down to. > > > > > > > > > > And I mean it primarily for students. What I recall of school was > > > > enduring > > > > > impatience with debates on matters where we knew the answer was > > known. > > > We > > > > > wanted to be told what was so and what wasn't. And when it wasn't, > we > > > > > wanted to be given one reason why not, to hurl back at critics. > > Battle > > > > > cries, not debates. > > > > > > > > > > But some of the "reasons" we were given don't stand up to simple > > > > modelling. > > > > > Like the reason why the human eye couldn't have arisen by blind > > chance. > > > > Or > > > > > that natural selection can give rise to sterile worker ants (Darwin > > > > spent a > > > > > lot of time on these topics: > > > > > http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22764/22764-h/22764-h.htm#page171 > ). > > > > > > > > > > Maybe that's just the cultural bubble I was brought up in? I hope > > > that's > > > > > the case, and it's a bubble long burst. But I see little evidence > of > > it > > > > > with my children, and now grandchildren. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > For information about J forums see > > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
