Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Anyone who says with certainty that they know how things will be in 10-15 years, no matter what issue they're discussing, is full of crap, and I don't care how 'qualified' they are.
|
But that's exactly it.
No-one's saying the models are perfect. They're projections. If they were exact then they'd be all the same.
All they're doing is saying with a best confidence interval that based on historical data and observations and new knowledge on ocean currents, sinks, temperatures and ecology what is projected to happen. Throw in the addition of fresh water to a saline environment and the whole thing gets complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
On to Bagor, my "junior high lab" comment was meant to illustrate that we're all taught at a very early age that in the Scientific Process you form a hypothesis about what will happen, and then objectively obtain results that will either confirm or refute your original hypothesis. Under no circumstances should you cherry pick or treat data in a manner that will prove your hypothesis simply because you want to be right. Also, I never said current data wasn't useful, in fact it's the only thing we can say that we know with 100% certainty. What I said was that current data is limited in what it can tell us about the future. My post wasn't a knock on data that is known, but using that data to make conclusions about future events.
As for the Ovechkin example, I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from, but allow me to clarify; I'm well aware that a projection such as I indicated is flawed, in fact, that was the whole point of the example. I'll re-word the point I was trying to make: the given data available at any point in time is limited in what it can tell us about future events.
|
100% agreed and to be honest your post rubbed me the wrong way, I was being a bit of a smartarse dick in my reply and apologise.
My point is that as the sample size grows (e.g. 41 games), new variables are understood, models are refined then there is a greater likelihood for a more accurate projection. And as has been proven on the FOI section of the board, you can twist stats to make your point.
IMO of course you can treat data, as long as you don't falsify it.
No-one's claiming things as fact, it's just an educated consensus based international best guess.