If you like your Ebola, you can keep it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

We live in a world of shorthand discussions. Technically 2+2 does NOT equal 4, except in certain situations where it does. However, we use the phrase as a shorthand for something everybody knows to be true. This shorthand approach, where we leave out the conditions necessary for the statement to be true (the lawyer-speak), makes it possible to communicate without being too boring, yet it makes a definitive statement out of things that aren't definitive.

I read a fundamentalist christian cartoon that attacked science using the phrase "opposites attract", as if it were an absolute rule in the world rather than a shorthand description (not complete) of how electromagnetic forces behave. They weren't being argumentative, they just didn't understand that the shorthand wasn't "THE LAW!", and built there argument on the assumption that it was.

Essentially, shorthand rules like that are convenient, but they also fail to communicate as well as we might hope. As long as people are a bit fuzzy with their understanding, it's fine, but those misunderstandings can cause mischief.

I'm not suggesting anything here, just musing. In the last post I tried to be a-musing, in this one I dropped the a.

---

Seemed like a long-winded way of saying "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

OK...accepting that, is there any doubt in your mind what my point was? If in daily communication everything was broke down as you mentioned it would really slow communications up. For example if someone said to you "It's as plain as two plus two equals four", would you say "Technically NOT, except in certain situations where it does"? If you do I'll bet you don't get invited back to very many parties...

I'm just musing also. There are times were exact parameters are necessary for understanding. Programmers can be pendantic to the point it drives non IT people crazy. My post was trying to point out dilettante's use of part of the definition of Ad Hominem reasoning to prove a point was in fact false logic in it self as I see it.

But hell, if I'm wrong and off base it wouldn't be the first time I was all wet with egg on my face :blush:

---

Any one who was around in the early Intel days will be very familiar with the fact that 2 + 2 may or may not equal 4. But 2 just might equal 1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

-tg

Quote:

---

Any one who was around in the early Intel days will be very familiar with the fact that 2 + 2 may or may not equal 4. But 2 just might equal 1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

---

I'm not and a quick Google search didn't pull anything up other than "The Infamous .999... = 1" from here:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55748.html

With a quick blurb being:

"By the way, there is nothing special about 1 as being a non-unique
decimal expansion. Here are a couple of others:

2 = 1.9999...
3.71 = 3.709999999...
2.778 = 2.77799999999999..."

Nothing about Intel in any of that. I seem to remember hearing about errors in an intel processor many years ago but not specifics. At any rate I'm terrible at math and the advanced extentions of it.

Do we at least agree we all exist? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

OK...accepting that, is there any doubt in your mind what my point was?

---

No, there was no doubt in MY mind, but that's kind of my point. We communicate well enough that we expect that we are getting through to 70-90% of the audience. We probably feel that we are getting through to 90% or better, but there's always a possibility that there's a segment of the audience that think they understood what we said, but didn't really understand what we meant to communicate. Still, either way, there is still that 'other' segment out there. Generally, we can ignore them...until they get their own microphone and we hear our message filtered through somebody elses incomprehension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

Seemed like a long-winded way of saying "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
-tg

---

I didn't have time to write a short statement, so I wrote a long one.


By the way, I was thinking of water drops: Two water drops added to two more water drops results in one (bigger) water drop. In other words: 2 + 2 = 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

I'm not and a quick Google search didn't pull anything up other than "The Infamous .999... = 1" from here:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55748.html

With a quick blurb being:

"By the way, there is nothing special about 1 as being a non-unique
decimal expansion. Here are a couple of others:

2 = 1.9999...
3.71 = 3.709999999...
2.778 = 2.77799999999999..."

Nothing about Intel in any of that. I seem to remember hearing about errors in an intel processor many years ago but not specifics. At any rate I'm terrible at math and the advanced extentions of it.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

Quote:

---

Do we at least agree we all exist? :p

---

We can agree that we think we exist... "I think, therefor I am." ??? But I guess it depends on if we take the blue pill or the red pill.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I didn't have time to write a short statement, so I wrote a long one.


By the way, I was thinking of water drops: Two water drops added to two more water drops results in one (bigger) water drop. In other words: 2 + 2 = 1

---

I remember seeing an algebraic equation once that showed that 2=1 ... not once did it break any algebra rules either. It started with the premise: A=B, B != 0... then it expanded it out, keeping both sides balanced, reduced it down, divided, simplified and you're left with 2=1 in the end. It all seemed very bizarre but looked like it worked.

-tg

I believe that was posted here on the forums at some point.

Quote:

---

But I guess it depends on if we take the blue pill or the red pill.

---

Heh, heh! :D

Quote:

---

"I think, therefor I am."

---

I love that statement because it's so often missunderstood and it's actually more apt to the discussion than some might realise. Descarte never meant it to be a philosphical statement but rather a logical one. He was looking for a single atomic truth which required no predicates but which could be used as a predicate for inferring further truths. He figured that if he could find such a truth he could ultimately infer the rules for the whole of reality. Notably he failed.

It's particularly apt to this discussion because it's an attempt to circumnavigate the issue that Shaggy's referring to. We build what appear to be logical arguments based on predicates we take to be truths. But if you examine those predicates you find they're based on further predicates and so on back until you inevitably arrive at assumptions. Any argument can ultimately be destroyed so we should probably all just forget about it and have a nice cup of tea and some biscuits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I love that statement because it's so often misunderstood and it's actually more apt to the discussion than some might realize. Descartes never meant it to be a philosophical statement but rather a logical one. He was looking for a single atomic truth which required no predicates but which could be used as a predicate for inferring further truths. He figured that if he could find such a truth he could ultimately infer the rules for the whole of reality. Notably he failed.

It's particularly apt to this discussion because it's an attempt to circumnavigate the issue that Shaggy's referring to. We build what appear to be logical arguments based on predicates we take to be truths. But if you examine those predicates you find they're based on further predicates and so on back until you inevitably arrive at assumptions. Any argument can ultimately be destroyed so we should probably all just forget about it and have a nice cup of tea and some biscuits.

---

Well, that wasn't lost on me which is why I posted "Do we at least agree we all exist? :o". I wanted to at least establish a baseline of understanding between us since we couldn't even agree on 2 + 2 = 4.

By now I'm sure, there is that assumptive thinking again, everyone has heard of the doctor with Ebola in NY city. That does not change my position that the risk of an Ebola epidemic in the U.S. is minimal at best. What bothers me is this guy is out bowling, riding subways, etc. knowing damn well he was treating Ebola victims in Africa recently. He was "watching" himself for symptoms. It seems to me that he of all people should have known better than to be doing that. And what about the people he works for? Are their head up their asses? At the very least, what real risk there was aside, just for appearances they should be setting the best
examples.

Quote:

---

But if you examine those predicates you find they're based on further predicates and so on back until you inevitably arrive at assumptions. Any argument can ultimately be destroyed...

---

Truth in human terms is not an absolute, normally it's the guys with the biggest guns that get to decide truth !!

Quote:

---

that wasn't lost on me

---

Yeah, I wasn't sure who would know the background and who wouldn't which is why I hedged with a "some". I suspect TG probably got it as well.

Quote:

---

we couldn't even agree on 2 + 2 = 4

---

Gotta love chitChat. Only a dangerous fool would want to mod it.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

What bothers me is this guy is out bowling, riding subways, etc

---

I don't know much about it but that certainly does seem crazy. The incubation period is only 3 weeks max so a quarantine for such an obviously high-risk case seems like a no brainer. I caught an article on Radio 4 the other day about a returning nurse (I think) who'd put herself in a self imposed quarantine (I only caught half the story so the details are hazy). At the time I found myself thinking, "wait, why did that have to be self imposed?"

I still personally think this is low risk in the West and is really just a media scarathon for us. If you live in rural Africa, on the other hand, where the climate is perfect for virii and hygiene standards are much lower, then you should be worried about this.

I typoed my last post:

This:

That does change my position that the risk of an Ebola epidemic in the U.S. is minimal at best.

Should have been:

That does not change my position that the risk of an Ebola epidemic in the U.S. is minimal at best.

Amazing how one word can change the meaning of something.

There is a difference between the incubation period and the contagious period. Normally with infections you're most dangerous during the incubation period. With Ebola though, the contagious period doesn't show up until you start showing signs. It's possible to be exposed to it, w/o ever actually contracting it. Which is why anyone at the bowling alley, subway, etc where the most recent case went, are likely OK. From what I understand, Ebola has a very short surface life unlike influenza which can hang around a while. It also isn't airborne.

I know there have been a number of people (not here specifically, but in general on the interwebs) that think that ANYone that's been to Africa (yes, I've seen it as a generic blanket statement like that) should be banned from entering the country. That's not the right solution. But maybe a mandatory 30 day quarantine should be used. That covers the 21-day, plus a bit of a buffer, just in case. If after 30-days, if you're symptom free, great! Otherwise, stay home. I don't know that that would work any better or not, it does seem like a rational solution to me. After all, we quarantine animals coming from other countries.

I had something else I was going to say but after writing that much, I've forgotten what it was. Maybe if I remember later I'll post it. Seemed like it was a good idea at the time, which means it probably isn't.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

There is a difference between the incubation period and the contagious period. Normally with infections you're most dangerous during the incubation period. With Ebola though, the contagious period doesn't show up until you start showing signs. It's possible to be exposed to it, w/o ever actually contracting it. Which is why anyone at the bowling alley, subway, etc where the most recent case went, are likely OK. From what I understand, Ebola has a very short surface life unlike influenza which can hang around a while. It also isn't airborne.

I know there have been a number of people (not here specifically, but in general on the interwebs) that think that ANYone that's been to Africa (yes, I've seen it as a generic blanket statement like that) should be banned from entering the country. That's not the right solution. But maybe a mandatory 30 day quarantine should be used. That covers the 21-day, plus a bit of a buffer, just in case. If after 30-days, if you're symptom free, great! Otherwise, stay home. I don't know that that would work any better or not, it does seem like a rational solution to me. After all, we quarantine animals coming from other countries.

I had something else I was going to say but after writing that much, I've forgotten what it was. Maybe if I remember later I'll post it. Seemed like it was a good idea at the time, which means it probably isn't.

-tg

---

Agreed but what was in the news this morning, and granted that may change, was he was out in public within hours of being sick. Meaning he was contagious and walking around in public. I probably don't know all the facts but based on that I think that was very irresponsible considering he is a doctor and was just recently treating ebola patients.

I'm not sure I'd advocate quarantining everyone who's been to Africa. I imagine the cost of that would be huge unless you quarantine them in their own home in which case you've got no guarantee they'd adhere to it without some expensive policing. Folks who've been treating ebola victims (in Africa or anywhere else for that matter) seems like an obvious high risk group to me and worth quarantining. I'm sure you could probably identify some other high risk groups as well.

What spreads FAR faster than Ebola is fear:

http://www.kxly.com/news/north-idaho...-trip/29267368

The basic story is a few teachers went on a trip to Texas, and a bunch of parents are freaking out. They want the teachers quantined, and some parents have held their kids home from school. Apparently, visiting the state of Texas is about as bad as visiting West Africa. Didn't somebody suggest restricting flights from Texas? Up here...people want that to be a reality.

I believe the 21 days is at a 95% confidence level - typically what is used in other disciplines.

Personally, I think there's a conspiracy not to use 4 weeks. Because 28 Days Later, or something...

If you thought you had ebola, would you 'turn yourself in'? What would you do? If you walked into an ER, and said I think I have ebola...

If there was a remote chance that I thought I had it, yup, I'd head down to the big hospital downtown (MUSC - they're the closest place that's equipped to handle cases if they need to) and check in. Sooner I'm seen, better chance I have of making it through. But I haven't traveled out of state, let alone out of the country. And I haven't come into close contact with any one that has.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

Personally, I think there's a conspiracy not to use 4 weeks. Because 28 Days Later, or something...

---

Ooooo...I hadn't thought of that. Excellent observation.

Quote:

---

If you thought you had ebola, would you 'turn yourself in'? What would you do? If you walked into an ER, and said I think I have ebola...

---

If I wasn't concerned about the utter hysteria that would surround it, I'd claim I had it so that I could spend three weeks coding in peace. Except for the doggone SQL Server issue I'm having, at the moment, which has me on the net seeking answers (as opposed to just being on VBForums, which is my normal drug), I could use a few weeks uninterrupted about now.