Plenty of statistical studies out there, based on sampling based on a hypothesis without a shred of experiment. The conclusions there are inferior to the ones based on experiment+data analysis/statistics. Causality is an elusive beasty, requires effort.
Reproducibility is not a proof for the conclusion, but of the reliability of the experimental protocol used, the data obtained and the data analysis performed.
1 Like
I’m confused (and very tired which isn’t helping), are you suggesting having to earn your way out of highsec?
Not to be rude, but I’m not sure what point you are making so I don’t know how to respond.
You state that “statistical evidence” is enough. I share @Anderson_Geten 's view that it isn’t, and I explained why.
You also seem to be under the impression that reproducibility would be some kind of proof. It isn’t, as I pointed out, it is a check on the reliability of the way the data are produced, etc.
Better explanations than those I could provide.
How would you define the proof that the higgs boson is real, if it is not statistical proof.
if you want to bring a counter argument, please bring a counter argument that makes sense.
Here your sentence makes none.
Yes I’m having to mix up terminology because you have lead us down this road. I quite clearly stated there is no such thing as 100% certainty unless it is a mathematical proof.
I don’t agree with that, despite getting killed all the time. I don’t want to be ganked, but I do want to manage to survive the attempt, maybe even kill them back no mater where they are.
Ganking is, to me, a big part of what makes Eve intense, and I’m not a ganker, or even close to being good at PvP. If Eve stops giving me a heart attack I’m going to like it a lot less.
My attitude about PvP in highsec it a polar opposite, I want to be able to fly in a fleet and protect my fleet mates when they are attacked, I want to be able to attack stations even though I can’t make one of my own and wouldn’t even if I could, I want to be able to help miners when they get pounced on, and I want limited engagements unlimited. Concord is absurd and the mechanics of them are preposterous, if people could ask others to escort them for example when hauling expensive stuff, or corporations or fleets could seek revenge it would be a huge improvement. But no. If my fleet mate is being shot and I try to help Concord comes and kills me. This, at least to me, is inane.
It’s also a serious ■■■■■ to explain to new people.
No you don’t “have to” bring physics modeling when the topic is causality and statistical analysis.
1 Like
if they are at war and you are not at war with them, that is expected
I’m not a nuclear physics expert, and know next to nothing about the Higgs boson. From afar it looks similar to the situation in early 20th century when the neutron was postulated, indirectly proven but never actually “captured” unless by its footprint (until Chadwick did the right experiment). But, the bottom line is still that it is based on repeatable, verifiable experiments. It’s not, say, like a conclusion based on sampling the human population and making a correlation between the prevalence of certain infant diseases and exposure of a pregnant mother to certain food dyes - ethically undoable to experiment. In the latter case there might be a correlation, a strong suspicion, but never hard proof.
It’s completely relevant to the discussion. The field of physics is entirely based on finding causality and statistical analyses. It’s a real life example. What could be more relevant than that.
This is also true in the former case. That’s my point.
I know, but I think it’s silly.
Well, look at it this way. Newton was right until Einstein said “erm, nope, there’s something more to this gravity. It’s actually space curvature”. Science keeps refining its working hypotheses. One theory leads to another, better able to include elusive phenomena in its predictions. Simple statistics never achieve that. Experiments do, even theoretical ones that eventually lead to physical ones that give further evidence of the existence of the higgs boson.
Your point is wrong.
Experiment and statistical analyses are coupled. Experiments are meaningless without analysis of the results and analysis can’t be done if there is no data collected by experiment (sampling is a form of experiment).
You are wrong.
You missed the point. I never stated there was no need for statistical analysis on experimental data. I did say that statistical analysis on data not obtained via experiment leads to inferior conclusions.
And as a segue, removing pvp from hs would be a mistake 
1 Like
I certainly wasn’t arguing otherwise. I said conclusions are strengthened based on the amount of data and knowledge available which agrees with them.
Right, if the data is based on Experiment. If not, it will remain a “working hypothesis”, which only means something to the researcher involved, and “believers”.