Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 04:08

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 08:44 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
Appeal To Authority is as great a fallacy as any other.[/i]).

By rejecting Authority you are saying that all interpretations are equal. That is patently wrong.

Quote:
I don't care who is who, either the arguments withstand scrutiny or they don't.


But scrutinising an argument requires skill and training. You may be omniscient enough to form your own judgements on everything but most of us have gaps in our knowledge and ultimately have to rely on the judgement of Authority

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
dcbwhaley wrote:
But scrutinising an argument requires skill and training. You may be omniscient enough to form your own judgements on everything but most of us have gaps in our knowledge and ultimately have to rely on the judgement of Authority
Come come Mr Whaley, I'm sure you can think of instances where authoritative 'might' wins over what's 'right'.

I certainly can - and it screwed my life up for a long time :x It's a question of whether you accept it or try and do something about it.

We'd still have the Poll Tax if someone didn’t make a stand. Any more examples, anyone?....

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:12 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Big Tone wrote:
Come come Mr Whaley, I'm sure you can think of instances where authoritative 'might' wins over what's 'right'.


I can certainly think of instances where 'might' won over 'right' . But that is an abuse of power rather than an appeal to Authority

Quote:
We'd still have the Poll Tax if someone didn’t make a stand. Any more examples, anyone?....

What the xxxx does that have to do with appeal to Authority being a fallacy.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:24 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
dcbwhaley wrote:
Quote:
We'd still have the Poll Tax if someone didn’t make a stand. Any more examples, anyone?....

What the xxxx does that have to do with appeal to Authority being a fallacy.
I was, obviously I thought, drawing a comparison between the bad legislation and policies of the Pol TAx, CSA and the plethora of other things Gov gets wrong and current road safety policy.

You knew that's what I meant but you've got your mean hat on today. Gotta dash. Weather's too nice :) Laters...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:17 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
Appeal To Authority is as great a fallacy as any other.[/i]).

By rejecting Authority you are saying that all interpretations are equal. That is patently wrong.

By assuming an act is a rejection of authority, simply because one one refuses to automatically accept the claim from the authority, is patently wrong!
There is a great different between the two.

dcbwhaley wrote:
Quote:
I don't care who is who, either the arguments withstand scrutiny or they don't.


But scrutinising an argument requires skill and training. You may be omniscient enough to form your own judgements on everything but most of us have gaps in our knowledge and ultimately have to rely on the judgement of Authority

However, when it is patently obvious that these so-called authorities aren't considering significant and proven confounding factors (RTTM et al), then one must question whether they can rely on the judgement of that authority, right?

Who do you trust: someone anonymous with no vested interest and whose logic has withstood scrutiny (let's not assume I'm referring to myself) from committed questioners, or an 'authority' who has a vested interest from continuing to state claims that have been repeatedly shown to be fallacious and outright misleading?

dcbwhaley wrote:
I can certainly think of instances where 'might' won over 'right' . But that is an abuse of power rather than an appeal to Authority

I don't do Appeal To Popularity either. That's a bit difficult to achieve on a forum - everyone has a voice (even greenshed).
I can think of instances where I've gone against the grain yet succeeded at making my point.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
Appeal To Authority is as great a fallacy as any other.[/i]).

By rejecting Authority you are saying that all interpretations are equal. That is patently wrong.

'Authority' is not infallible don't forget. But this is not the point here. Please let's not get side tracked into any long debate about authority good/bad here.
It is whether it is 'worth' the result and the 'effort' to go to in creating the mass of work required.
The result that comes only says what is and is not agreed with by a few selected people. Like all good research one has to decide if 'those' selected few are in themselves 'worthy' of standing as a 'judge & jury' first. Are they non-biased to start with.
Many now with so much propaganda about would be hard to know if they were truly not influenced by outside influences. Something a Court would condemn if it was to influence any case at any time.
So is the value of result going to take Safe Speed further - in the real world maybe only a little.
You have to decide who will benefit an the value received for the expended effort, and in our case the pause in the Campaign's efforts on a day to day basis.
Then when considering we have based all material from official sources to start with - where there is little boundary to resources. So therefor is it not only therefor the interpretations to the information, than the information itself that needs to be verified.
Therefore considering we do have many others and influential people that do back the Campaign and who have looked, read, considered and then chosen to provide support, is that not approval worthy in itself of credit ?
Steve wrote:
I don't care who is who, either the arguments withstand scrutiny or they don't.
dcbwhaley wrote:
But scrutinising an argument requires skill and training. You may be omniscient enough to form your own judgements on everything but most of us have gaps in our knowledge and ultimately have to rely on the judgement of Authority

That may imply that some have a better appreciation than others just by their position, but whilst some people in 'top positions' are extremely clever and able to hold great respect from many, that never precludes others from holding an equal intelligence, or even (also) to a greater or lesser extent.
Yes it would be nice to know all those that we have support from, especially from many 'recognised' people, as that adds credibility, but we do already. In many ways, because they choose to use our information, and have already considered and approved our research, is huge praise in itself. The fact that they came voluntarily, is praise indeed.
So by this new publishing method of the Internet is it really necessary and essential to be accepted by a few chosen individuals, when all people can take the trouble to research it for themselves.
The only thing that I must do (and I hope v soon) is to (keep) update/d the approval points to each of the webpages and add a new index of those approvals.
I agree that would make it easy, and help some, who have neither the time nor inclination, to study our pages, and they could then see at a 'glance' who's support we hold throughout the site.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:31 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
But scrutinising an argument requires skill and training. You may be omniscient enough to form your own judgements on everything but most of us have gaps in our knowledge and ultimately have to rely on the judgement of Authority


However, when it is patently obvious that these so-called authorities aren't considering significant and proven confounding factors (RTTM et al), then one must question whether they can rely on the judgement of that authority, right?


No. I would deny that a scientist who ignores 'significant and proven confounding factors' is entitled to be considered an Authority. And your use of 'so-called' suggests that you agree with me.

Steve wrote:
Who do you trust: someone anonymous with no vested interest and whose logic has withstood scrutiny (let's not assume I'm referring to myself) from committed questioners, or an 'authority' who has a vested interest from continuing to state claims that have been repeatedly shown to be fallacious and outright misleading?


Again - someone who 'continues to state claims that have been repeatedly shown to be fallacious and outright misleading' is not, in my opinion, entitled to be called an Authority

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:32 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Big Tone wrote:
Gotta dash. Weather's too nice :) Laters...


Have a nice day y'all :D

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
Who do you trust: someone anonymous with no vested interest and whose logic has withstood scrutiny (let's not assume I'm referring to myself) from committed questioners, or an 'authority' who has a vested interest from continuing to state claims that have been repeatedly shown to be fallacious and outright misleading?

Again - someone who 'continues to state claims that have been repeatedly shown to be fallacious and outright misleading' is not, in my opinion, entitled to be called an Authority
Which then implies that you too do agree that the Dft and the Goverenment who have used data selectively and not recognised material that exists to show the 'case against camera's is valid' should then not be called an 'Authority'. Excellent :) As we say they are not 'Fit for Purpose'.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:52 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
However, when it is patently obvious that these so-called authorities aren't considering significant and proven confounding factors (RTTM et al), then one must question whether they can rely on the judgement of that authority, right?


No. I would deny that a scientist who ignores 'significant and proven confounding factors' is entitled to be considered an Authority.

Sorry, but I interpret your response as being self-contradictory (possibly my own doing); your "No" throws me.
Can you rephrase this?

dcbwhaley wrote:
And your use of 'so-called' suggests that you agree with me.

I used the term "so-called" because there's nothing to suggest the folks I was indirectly referring to (SCP analysts/spokespeople) are any form of authority on the matter.

dcbwhaley wrote:
Again - someone who 'continues to state claims that have been repeatedly shown to be fallacious and outright misleading' is not, in my opinion, entitled to be called an Authority

Unless I have misunderstood you, it seems we are in agreement here.

Surely you must agree that folks who have demonstrated the necessary 'skill and training' of scrutinising and rejecting an argument need not "ultimately have to rely on the judgement of Authority"?

So do you accept that, assuming an act is a rejection of authority, simply because one refuses to automatically accept the claim from the authority, is patently wrong!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:57 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
However, when it is patently obvious that these so-called authorities aren't considering significant and proven confounding factors (RTTM et al), then one must question whether they can rely on the judgement of that authority, right?


No. I would deny that a scientist who ignores 'significant and proven confounding factors' is entitled to be considered an Authority.

Sorry, but I interpret your response as being self-contradictory (possibly my own doing); your "No" throws me.
Can you rephrase this?


Certainly. A scientist who ignores 'significant and proven confounding factors' cannot be considered to be an authority. Therefore your opening sentence is meaningless and for that reason it is not "right"

Quote:
I used the term "so-called" because there's nothing to suggest the folks I was indirectly referring to (SCP analysts/spokespeople) are any form of authority on the matter.


If they have no authority then you should not dignify then with the title 'Authority' whatever adjectives you use to qualify it.

Quote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
Again - someone who 'continues to state claims that have been repeatedly shown to be fallacious and outright misleading' is not, in my opinion, entitled to be called an Authority

Unless I have misunderstood you, it seems we are in agreement here.

We are, axcept that I, unlike you, do not refer to them as 'Authority'

Quote:
Surely you must agree that folks who have demonstrated the necessary 'skill and training' of scrutinising and rejecting an argument need not "ultimately have to rely on the judgement of Authority"?


If they are sufficiently well skilled and trained in the topic that is so. But if your conclusions differ from those of a genuine Authority then you must carefully re-evaluate them

Quote:
So do you accept that, assuming an act is a rejection of authority, simply because one refuses to automatically accept the claim from the authority, is patently wrong!


Sorry - that sentence doesn't make sense to me. I think that we are in general agreement that one should not defer to those who falsely claim 'Authority'. We differ in that you still call a false Authority an Authority. Then because such Authorities are untrustworthy you reject all appeal to Authority, even reliable Authority.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 14:14 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Certainly. A scientist who ignores 'significant and proven confounding factors' cannot be considered to be an authority. Therefore your opening sentence is meaningless and for that reason it is not "right"

Ah, I think I get you now.
So you don't regard any SCP representative who makes such claims of camera effectiveness without accounting for RTTM et al as any form of authority (or expert or whatever) who you or anyone else could rely/defer upon?

dcbwhaley wrote:
If they have no authority then you should not dignify then with the title 'Authority' whatever adjectives you use to qualify it.

"I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" :lol:
What about implied/inferred authority?
What about false/fake/not authority?
The signification is adequately removed by the negative clause in front of the description.
Folks understand exactly what is meant by use of the term "so-called".
dcbwhaley previously wrote:
And your use of 'so-called' suggests that you agree with me.

:yesyes: QED

dcbwhaley wrote:
We are, axcept that I, unlike you, do not refer to them as 'Authority'

To reiterate: I have never referred to them as an authority; I actually said "so-called authority".

Are delegated spokespeople quoting claims and conclusions on a matter at risk of being regarded as some sort of 'authority' in that matter?

dcbwhaley wrote:
Quote:
Surely you must agree that folks who have demonstrated the necessary 'skill and training' of scrutinising and rejecting an argument need not "ultimately have to rely on the judgement of Authority"?

If they are sufficiently well skilled and trained in the topic that is so.

Going back to an earlier point, why does scrutinising an argument (checking for fallacies, confounding factors, etc) require 'training'? Are qualifications required?

dcbwhaley wrote:
But if your conclusions differ from those of a genuine Authority then you must carefully re-evaluate them

Absolutely. However, what exactly is a "genuine authority"? Specifically: how would you know one from a "so-called" authority?

dcbwhaley wrote:
Sorry - that sentence doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry, that really was very nonsensical. Try again:

Do you accept that a "rejecting authority" is different to 'refusal to automatically accept claims from an authority'? Do you agree that equating of the two is patently wrong?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 21:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
Pratnership wrote:
I have looked at it all and have my own opinions, and also incorperated into that is various other things, like the way members act on this site.
Don't talk in riddles - just tell me straight, please tell me just what you mean but this ?
Pratnership wrote:
you can't be expected to be taken seriously .. if you constantly say other verification sources might scew the self proclaimed results to being wrong.
I have never stated this ... who said this, when and where ... please ?
Pratnership wrote:
... in that intelligent people have done research into something they are interested in, and found results that don't compare with others.
You are making no sense. I have answered this below too ... (or above depending on your post options?)
Pratnership wrote:
Like I said, either people look upon it as advice as to how SS is protrayed, or not.
How can any 'review' be considered advice? Approval or credibility to others yes and then only those that do not research the info themselves.
No information will be 'skewed' either ! If you do think this then please open a new thread and we can discuss it.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 22:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
First of all, a massive apology. I simply dont have the inclanation to reply to all points raised (namely Steve and SS2).

I realise you spent time answering, and I thank you for that. But in my defence, this was the exact point I raised, about getting totally bogged down in replies.

I'm going to answer a few (call it cherry picking if you like, it's simply not time enough) but from bottom up, so apologies for confusion.

About how members act. Well, to be blunt, I feel it's biased.

1. When I first came on here, I got banned. I'm not going into it, since AFAIK, all my posts are there apart from the few which got deleted by mods (I think steve, though I could be wrong). So look through instead of asking questions about details. To make it very short, I believe it was biased as I was a new member whom didn't appear to fully take on SS's views, and the other member (now banned/deactivated) was a regular whom fully agreed with SS's views. I will say that one of my deleted posts was full of referances to this members posts on other sites, containing all the evidence of him doing things from claiming cloned plates to get off various charges, to contradictiory evidence of accidents posted on here.

2. The constant sniping of anyone whom speaks out against SS. Now to point out, I fully understand forums are full of various people, whom will say such things. But I moderate 2 large forums (I'm not boasting, it's not like it's paid!), and I nor the other mods tolerate such things. members actively dig for any information to discredit them. Imo the effort should instead be made to simply cancel out whatever claims they make, not to bring their name into disrepute.

About other sources being wrong.

I apologise if you have not said this personally Claire. But you must realise, that the forum is now the only major talking peice of SS. And what the moaderators say tends to be what people take in. As is the case being here. That said, I cannot understand the lack of third party confirmation of the SS theory as a whole. I think I also read something akin to the same thing from Paul in this thread, but it's a lot of pages long, so again, forgive me if I am wrong in this respect.

How can any review be considered advice? Good question. That's exactly why you need more than one source. Your average person cannot do all this research themselves - simply a time matter above all else prevents this. You need multiple reviews, from multiple sources to get some sort of opinion. Simply saying 'Look at this data it means this' isn't conclusive.

About RTTM. I googled Dr Linda Mountian. The second link (check it out , it's easy) mentions she gets a grant of £176,226. So why should I respect the opinion of someone getting a massive grant for research, that's recommended by you?

I need a proper review, by an impartial third party, that gives peoples whom have researched it recommended by themselves, not by someone who is an avid supporter of the campaign. By nature, every source you give me is suspect due to possible bias.

Open debate - if you can't see why this forum is not an open debate, then I cannot say anymore.

As for balance - I couldn't disagree with this more. We will not see eye to eye on that, so agree to disagree.

Quote:
I fail to see how any independent 3rd party is anything but a good thing? Sometimes the best plans can have prohibitive costs.


Well I suppose we shall never know then, dispite what you probably beleive, I wouldn't mind either finding.


Costs. I don't have any concept of what it costs to maintain, although sadly I don't have any of what is recently done either. Apologies if this comes across as insulting, but I am speaking frankly.

About road safety. Simply what I said before. It's appears to be a speed camera bashing sites foremost, and safety as a tertiery concern.

Discussing data etc. I thankyou for the offer, but as I already said, I am not one to discuss it. While I want somewhere for an open debate, I need something to go on first, which as I have said over and over, is verification by other sources. not little details either, like RTTM, but the whole concept.

About reporting ad hominem etc. I did, you said you would look into it, nothing happened. Perhaps you concluded nothing was to be done, but I never heard back.

The BBC quote. It could well be the BBC's fault. And I am truely sorry for not being able to remember which thing it was. Basically, the BBC gave a one liner from you, which didn't do anything to enhance the view of SS. Imo of course. I'd happily pull it up if I knew. The best details I can give, is that it was a large amount of motorists caught by a speed camera, but due to the number only ones doing over a certain speed would be done.



Steve - I don't think replying to you is in anyones interestes. And by anyone, I mean you, me, or any readers.

Theres sarcasm -
Quote:
That’s right, everything you don’t understand is deliberately done so you don’t understand it. :roll:


And say things like this knowing full well I've been reading the forums for quite a while: S
Quote:
So you’ve concluded that I misrepresent (put my own slant) these things even though you haven’t actually checked, and you won’t check because you’ve concluded that I misrepresent these things. OK!
Thus read lots of your arguments before, and links.


Quote:
You see, for you this will always remain within the realm of mere opinion because you don’t want to check the given facts. Until you want to follow the arguments (as poorly presented as they may or may not be) you will always be the winner In your mind. I believe that’s called bias confirmation, perhaps resulting from a little cognitive dissonance.


As I pointed out, I was never going to follow your arguments, for the reasons given. Yet you persist, you always perists in saying that the person whom disagrees with you doesn't check the facts, when the very ones you give are your opinion, or cherry picked from your source. I hope you see why these reasons alone make me feel replying to you as a waste of time for the both for us.

You continually miss the point that I am asking for third party verification, yet you continue to argue. I apolgise for not answering anything I've missed, but I see it as pointless.

On that note, I shall bow out, regardless many will see it as a cop out, but I don't mind much, it was for getting my point across only and I hope it was well taken.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 01:40 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Pratnership wrote:
1. When I first came on here, I got banned. I'm not going into it, since AFAIK, all my posts are there apart from the few which got deleted by mods (I think steve, though I could be wrong).

Now why must you have raised me and only me within that point, huh?
I've just checked. I didn't delete/remove them; nor was it me who suspended you; in fact I had absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

Pratnership wrote:
How can any review be considered advice? Good question. That's exactly why you need more than one source. Your average person cannot do all this research themselves - simply a time matter above all else prevents this. You need multiple reviews, from multiple sources to get some sort of opinion. Simply saying 'Look at this data it means this' isn't conclusive.

In the case of RTTM; there is only one solid source of analysis (Dr Linda Mountain's study). What more could be done? Does the maths need to be done again?
Also, we didn't interpret it; we merely repeated what was stated in the Four Year Evaluation Report.

Pratnership wrote:
About RTTM. I googled Dr Linda Mountian. The second link (check it out , it's easy) mentions she gets a grant of £176,226. So why should I respect the opinion of someone getting a massive grant for research, that's recommended by you?

Is your problem with the grant (not that this campaign had anything to do with that), or who recommended it?

Oddly enough, I recommended the Four Year Evaluation Report, compiled by the folks who were charged with the camera rollout. Either way, both parties are pro-camera. When a group who is in support of something states it's nowhere near as good as it was made out, then you can't help but take notice.

Pratnership wrote:
I need a proper review, by an impartial third party, that gives peoples whom have researched it recommended by themselves, not by someone who is an avid supporter of the campaign.

Linda Mountain's study, oh wait, she took a grant, so that one is ruled out !!

Pratnership wrote:
By nature, every source you give me is suspect due to possible bias.

Well then, what exactly is the point of giving you any reference at all?

Pratnership wrote:
While I want somewhere for an open debate, I need something to go on first, which as I have said over and over, is verification by other sources. not little details either, like RTTM,

How can something that undoes the claims of effectiveness of speed cameras to a substantial degree, be considered a mere "little detail"?

Pratnership wrote:
Theres sarcasm -
Quote:
That’s right, everything you don’t understand is deliberately done so you don’t understand it. :roll:

That was in response to "Don't understand. I am hazarding a guess that it's deliberatly worded badly.", so my response was quite fair considering what it was following: a wanton attempt at discrediting.

Then I said that others would have instead sought clarification. Then I gave that clarification, without being promted.
Thus far your only response to that was go back a step in the argument, without acknowledging anything else. How circular!

Pratnership wrote:
Yet you persist, you always perists in saying that the person whom disagrees with you doesn't check the facts,

Prove this please! Show that I always persist in saying that a person whom I disagree with doesn't check the facts.

Hey DCB, about the fallacies: I forgot to tell you that you didn't check your facts!
Oh, I also forgot to tell you that I'm way more qualified than you to review... everything that we've have been debating!


Pratnership wrote:
... when the very ones you give are [your opinion, or] cherry picked from your source.

Prove this cherry picking please!

That's a bit rich considering all the tumbleweeds below (you'll see).

Pratnership wrote:
Thus read lots of your arguments before, and links.

...

As I pointed out, I was never going to follow your arguments, for the reasons given.

So do you or don't you?
Why do you feel you need third party verification if you did follow the arguments and links for yourself (even though you apparently won't)? Did you disagree with them, or did you not understand them? Or are you going to fall back on your "I don't want to discuss it"?

Pratnership wrote:
You continually miss the point that I am asking for third party verification

I didn't miss it, I'm just astounded that you continually miss the much more significant point I have been making: about the comparison of level of scrutiny directed against this campaign against that directed at those who obviously grossly misrepresent and gain advantage from doing so (SCPs). Why aren't folks able to see that when SCP claims were shot down when scrutinised, and that they continue to state the same false claims, whilst deriving a handsome income, while affecting the way we all live? By your own logic, everyone must ignore them, distrust then, and hold them in contempt, yet there is no sign or hint of this.
It's not like I haven't repeatedly, directly prompted you with this.
(I realise I have Tu Quoqued, but I am also validly highlighting a hypocrisy)

Besides, what's the point when everyone is "suspect due to possible bias"?
I guess we can also rule out anyone who takes a grant, or who is recommended by Safe Speed – right?

So in the case of RTTM, what more could be done? Is that not verified enough?




Then there are the reasonable questions/issues SSV2 raised in order to directly resolve this:

SSV2 wrote:
Pratnership wrote:
The average person will simply never know if SS's claims are true. And can never find out. First is that it's claimed all the information is here. And that anyone can understand it.
First off, that's a lie.

I think you must withdraw your lie accusation, there is no LIE.

Pratnership, can you give examples substantiating your claim?

SSV2 wrote:
Pratnership wrote:
Theres no actual evidence (or rather summary) verified from a decent other source. I don't care what any of you claim, it's not open. ............... No one person can stand up to it, it's simply not possible. And it's not open, since there is no debate, and it's very clear that there isn't. One (perhaps 2) people against many others whom are supporters of such views is not an open debate.

I do not see that, can you point to an example/s.

:tumbleweed:

SSV2 wrote:
How do you see how the verification 'should be'?

:tumbleweed:

SSV2 wrote:
Pratnership wrote:
My personal view is that SS has it all wrong. It should be mainly about road safety, ....

We are entirely about Road Safety, cameras are not about intelligent or genuine road safety in our opinion. How do you mean please?

:tumbleweed:

SSV2 wrote:
Pratnership wrote:
I myself have looked at a lot of the evidence on display, and still cannot decide. I can come up with many reasons why I don't think it's sound, but I find myself with nowhere to discuss them. ...

... fair enough ... OK then let's debate those reasons,

:tumbleweed:

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Pratnership wrote:
I have looked at it all and have my own opinions, and also incorperated into that is various other things, like the way members act on this site.
Don't talk in riddles - just tell me straight, please tell me just what you mean but this ?

:tumbleweed:

SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Pratnership wrote:
you can't be expected to be taken seriously .. if you constantly say other verification sources might scew the self proclaimed results to being wrong.
I have never stated this ... who said this, when and where ... please ?

:tumbleweed:

And you've decided to "bow out"!




You’re all over the place. No, there's obviously more going on here than meets the eye. I think folks have read into the very coincidental timing of the very abrupt change of attitude.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:12 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
In response to pratnership's general complaints about balance. I understand where you're coming from fella, but it seems - to me - natural that a forum attached to a campaign group is likely to be biased towards the opinion of that group.

If I went on the Green Party's forum (let's assume there is one) and denied global warming, I would not expect a warm reception. It's just the way of the world.

I think the majority of members make a great effort to debate fairly and without resorting to insult, especailly considering this is the forum I've been a member of that has attracted the most trolling and nastiness by a country mile.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:57 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Pratnership wrote:
So why should I respect the opinion of someone getting a massive grant for research...


That is a ludicrous question. Do researchers have to be on Social Security before you take their results seriously? Not is a grant of £176K massive as it will probably have to fund several post-docs for, I would imagine, at least two years.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 14:04 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Johnnytheboy wrote:
In response to pratnership's general complaints about balance. I understand where you're coming from fella, but it seems - to me - natural that a forum attached to a campaign group is likely to be biased towards the opinion of that group.

Yes, there is indeed an element of confirmation bias going on; it is human nature that folks generally avoid what they don't want to understand. Folks that do try to understand are generally more likely to stay the course.

We're prepared to test and mitigate our own biases by evaluating evidence and supportive logic and doing so openly thus allowing opposing views; a forum is the most logical option to achieve this.

Unlike SCP staff, climate scientists/modellers and other so-called/perceived authorities; the leader(s) of this campaign happily discuss issues directly with any joe public who has issue, viewable by everyone, all done within an (by default) uncontrolled and free environment - surely you can't get much more "open" than that? Show me an SCP forum (or whatever) where I can openly argue the issue of RTTM et al with them!

Indeed it can be seen that this campaign encourages debate on raised issues: "can you point to an example/s", "How do you mean please?", "OK then let's debate those reasons,", "How do you see how [it] 'should be'?"; unfortunately it is not unusual to have responses such as: "I don't care what any of you claim" and 'I don't want to discuss it', or no acknowledgement at all.

So it really is no wonder the regulars who remain are generally in support.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 18:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
My two pence worth, which stands to offend any number of people...

RTTM and BOS do matter and I really didn’t know what they meant, and the importance or impact, until recently here on SS.

But if I am honest that is not where I am personally coming from because I fit into what I believe are one of two categories. I've seen it here many times now, on many different matters. With respect to ALL posters whom are not just trolling we usually have...


1) The scientific debate which works to understand what is happening on our roads, or any other debate, and find a cure which is often too esoteric or ‘deep’ for the public.
2) The guy who has been driving for many years and just sees what is going on without some bullshit agenda!

I think most people will fit in the second category because, (just like in politics), exactly how much time, effort and interest do the public have in spending the time, effort and interest in delving deeply into the science of road safety?

I need to stress this is not to say it isn’t important to understand the facts behind road safety, of course it is!!! But what about the public in general? The people I meet all the time who bitch about cameras and this speed obsessed country but do no more than mumble to their friends at the local pub.

So here’s my ‘proof’..

Like so very many drivers I know, I haven’t killed or hurt anyone but ‘we’ are getting done for speeding in recent years. But I am living proof, like millions of other drivers with a long history of safe driving, that speed is not killing – just the misuse and abuse of it!

Today’s drivers have been brow-beaten into a ‘speed kills’ submission state of mind, looking out for speed signs and watching their speedometers at all times, because even if they kill someone at least if they were not speeding they have a leg to stand on if it goes to court – right?

I’d rather not hurt anyone in the first place actually, even if it means I get done for speeding because I was concentrating on the road instead of an ignorant posted sign.

As arrogant as it must sound I don’t need science, statistics or endorsements on my licence to come to that conclusion or make me a better driver. My record is good and has been so for about 30 years on motorbikes and cars in all weather conditions!

How much more proof do I need? At least my insurance company understands ;)

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
It's like I said at the beginning Steve, your going to absoloutly massive effort to try and convince me otherwise, when I said I simply don't have time nor inclanation to do it.

And again, I see a massive list of quotes and almost half a page of reply from you. You seem to totally ignore what I said about this, and do nothing but be almost fanatical imo about making me look wrong.

Theres a fantastic amount of effort there - why don't you use it to further SS's cause in some way instead? It is, in my view, wasted energy. Your not going to convince me otherwise, and I know your not expecting a reply to everything - it's simply there to try and make dispell any notion of me having a point.

I don't see any valid third party verification about SS, and I simply see SS going nowhere, it just seems a nice little place for a few (not the majority!) people to go on about being superiour in their driving and being able to devote a massive amount of time and effort into blasting anyone who disagrees. Harsh, but my genuine view.

I have taken away some good things - COAST, and pointers about being more aware. There is a goldmine of useful info here about good driving.

I'm well aware of the opinion some of you have of me - another idiot who disagrees and can't prove it. He has swallowed everything the government says and is only here because he was chasing someone else who annoyed him. I can't say I'm that fussed about it, but equally I'm not happy about it either, though I suppose that's how I come across.

But I have made an effort, I have actually spent over a couple of hours looking at the data, not to mention many discussions about it, some of which historical. I also provided proof of things, which got deleted many moons ago (actually I'm pretty sure it got moved into the clubhouse). So take from that what you will. If you still feel I am some sort of loon or government pawn who drives in the middle lane never over 70, so be it. I'll get down now :soapbox:

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 1.816s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]