|
Post by raiswakesho on Jan 31, 2013 4:10:29 GMT 3
I appeal to the PM & the VP to meet Mr.Waiganjo as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by raiswakesho on Jan 31, 2013 5:18:39 GMT 3
Which one is worse....candidates storming IEBC in the middle of the night or a Mr. Musyoka arriving late (before 5pm) to present his papers for clearance to run for the presidency? A candidate accused of crimes against humanity is cleared to run & rightly so I may argue but yet someone is barred for being late, really? Hon. Hassan's action was pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 1, 2013 5:24:33 GMT 3
A very interesting debate on the emotive issue of land. It became very clear from the discussion that apart from the rhetoric from CORD, they have ZERO plan on how to deal with the otherwise very explosive issue.
I can safely say, going by this discussion, that the PM's introduction of the land issue in his campaign is to cause tension among communities especially those in Rift Valley with the thinking that the falling out of these communities will work to his advantage, a very dangerous card to play if you asked me.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 5, 2013 6:48:06 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi's projection, The Tyranny of Numbers. Very interesting:
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Feb 5, 2013 7:59:33 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi's projection, The Tyranny of Numbers. Very interesting:
Mwalimumkuu, there are just too many assumptions in his projection (& you know what they say of when you "assume" anything....). A solid block tribal vote isn't humanly possible. I doubt Mudavadi has locked in all the Luhya vote solidly behind him. The same applies for Ruto although Uhuru & Raila may fare better on that score. But worst of all what he calls minimum cut off of 7.1 million (or 50 plus 1) to avoid a run off cannot be based on voter registration as per December 18th but on voter turn out on March 4th. My money's still on too close to call ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mobimba on Feb 5, 2013 8:56:47 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi's projection, The Tyranny of Numbers. Very interesting:
In his PowerPoint presentation, when Mr. Ngunyi says “WE”, he really means himself, his Burmese cat, his goldfish and his laptop. There’s absolutely no way two or more human brains can interact to produce this cacophony. I do not believe this was made for public consumption. And even if it was made for UhuRuto’s amusement or comic relief, the duo should not pay for it. If they did, they were fleeced. Tyranny of numbers? No. Correct title: 13 minutes of tyranny.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 5, 2013 9:14:23 GMT 3
Away from Mutahi's continued view that Jubilee will hack it based on numbers, there is one element that is bound to be a game changer. The High Court ruling on elegibility will be what determines if this is a 90 minute game or extra time will be required.
I hold the view that there are those holding on voting based on the court barring the two from contesting and if they are cleared by the courts, then there will be a significant bounce for jubilee that could the game in 90 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 5, 2013 18:44:54 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi's projection, The Tyranny of Numbers. Very interesting:
Mwalimumkuu, there are just too many assumptions in his projection (& you know what they say of when you "assume" anything....). A solid block tribal vote isn't humanly possible. I doubt Mudavadi has locked in all the Luhya vote solidly behind him. The same applies for Ruto although Uhuru & Raila may fare better on that score. But worst of all what he calls minimum cut off of 7.1 million (or 50 plus 1) to avoid a run off cannot be based on voter registration as per December 18th but on voter turn out on March 4th. My money's still on too close to call ;D B6K,He actually winds up the presentation with a reminder that, everything in the slide show is hypothetical. But I have to add, there is a lot of truth to what he is saying, I do find him to be more credible than those Ambitho polls.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 5, 2013 18:56:05 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi's projection, The Tyranny of Numbers. Very interesting:
In his PowerPoint presentation, when Mr. Ngunyi says �WE�, he really means himself, his Burmese cat, his goldfish and his laptop. There�s absolutely no way two or more human brains can interact to produce this cacophony. I do not believe this was made for public consumption. And even if it was made for UhuRuto�s amusement or comic relief, the duo should not pay for it. If they did, they were fleeced. Tyranny of numbers? No. Correct title: 13 minutes of tyranny. Lincoln,Mutahi Ngunyi's weakness is his ability to present an otherwise very complex scenario in a very silly simple way to the extend of sounding very stupid. I remember when he broke down the then draft constitution to us, people became so angry at him, he even lost favor with the Sunday Nation. But, alas how right he was. On this one, he is simply telling you that Jubilee has this thing in the bag, whichever way you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by raiswakesho on Feb 5, 2013 21:10:10 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi's credentials as a political analyst/ commentator isn't better than mine or some of my colleagues here in jukwaa. His analysis is intended to suit his audience and he sure knows how to capture thier attention and drive their emotions!
The presidential election will be won on March 4TH not a day earlier nor a day later! All the players from Dida to RAO see nothing but victory and their supporters have no reason to believe otherwise, I mean isn't that what we expect? Folks can decorate this blog on how their candidate has won the yet to be conducted election on so many ways but the truth won't be known until then. I'm only sure of my vote and so are you!!
You might wanna check to make sure your voter's card is still safe lest your noise in this forum be for nothing!
|
|
|
Post by chokoraa on Feb 5, 2013 22:14:22 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi's projection, The Tyranny of Numbers. Very interesting:
I believe this is to divert attention from something, because I do not imagine any serious person using NUMBERS to give out such a funny hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 5, 2013 22:35:30 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi's credentials as a political analyst/ commentator isn't better than mine or some of my colleagues here in jukwaa. His analysis is intended to suit his audience and he sure knows how to capture thier attention and drive their emotions! The presidential election will be won on March 4TH not a day earlier nor a day later! All the players from Dida to RAO see nothing but victory and their supporters have no reason to believe otherwise, I mean isn't that what we expect? Folks can decorate this blog on how their candidate has won the yet to be conducted election on so many ways but the truth won't be known until then. I'm only sure of my vote and so are you!! You might wanna check to make sure your voter's card is still safe lest your noise in this forum be for nothing! My friend, I know some of these things bring a day long diarrhea to some of us. In the end of the world where I was born, raised and call home, we do a lot of farming. Even though we know the planting season would normally start in March/April, we start tilling the land in late December, harrow it in February and again in March, then buy fertilizers and mbegu and be ready. As soon as the rains hit the ground, we are good to go. It is impossible to plant in a field you've never prepared for the planting season. Same thing with these kinds of events, those who are waiting to win elections on March 4th, have already lost it
|
|
|
Post by raiswakesho on Feb 5, 2013 23:49:34 GMT 3
Well so far nobody has lost...even Mwalimu Dida told us he's sure of nailing this thing in round one and I believe the rest of the candidates have assured their supporters the same yet they still burn millions if not billions criss-crossing the country to woo voters...
FYI:We've been Ready since yesterday ...btw have you decided whether you are rolling with Amani or Jubilee ama unaongoja uamuzi wa High Court?
...
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 6, 2013 6:57:45 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi explains his Tyranny of Numbers hypothesis
|
|
emali
Full Member
Posts: 219
|
Post by emali on Feb 6, 2013 9:12:50 GMT 3
Mutahi Ngunyi explains his Tyranny of Numbers hypothesisWhat makes Ngunyi different from other prognosticators is that he boils down his analysis to two simple facts; -It’s about tribe and Jubilee has the numbers -Voter turnout compounded Jubilees numbers He won’t find any argument from me to the contrary, what I find interesting is the reason for the high Gikuyu voter turnout (I disagree with him on the high Kalenjin turnout because it wasn’t high). The Central voter turnout was very high (same for Nakuru & I would assume other places Gikuyu’s reside), I even remember a picture in the Nation of a Truck sponsored by some ‘NGO’ ferrying people to registration centers in Kiambu... Was the reason for this high turnout based on Uhuru’s popularity? Saving Uhuru from The Hague?, a fear of a Raila presidency? Not wanting to be out of power? IMHO in Central elections is a Job and one with very tangible results the sooner rest of the country catches up the better for all of us... if the voter turnout was the same in the rest of the country Uhuruto wouldn’t stand a chance at the presidency,Habari ndio hiyo folks now lets talk about manifesto’s ;D... At least Ngunyi isn’t sugar-coating what our politicians have been doing for decades he is simple saying it as it is...
|
|
|
Post by raiswakesho on Feb 7, 2013 1:21:28 GMT 3
One of Kenya's gifted writers Bw. Miguna Miguna wrote the following about Mutahi Ngunyi...
A long time ago, I was among a legion of avid readers of Mutahi Ngunyi’s clever reproductions of ancient Chinese allegories and myths couched as analytical pieces on Kenyan politics. As Ngunyi presented pithy narratives of ancient Oriental history interspersed with Kenyan bar-room anecdotes, his readership exploded. Soon, he was regarded as a distinguished political analyst and given a column by the Nation Media Group. Thereafter, he became a certified commentator on topical issues.
However, what Ngunyi’s readers never cared to do was to investigate the sources of his juicy renditions. Had we done that, Ngunyi’s plagiarisms would have become apparent and in the process serious questions would have been asked about his integrity.
Apart from the little details known about his misappropriation of donor funds when he once operated a non-government organization in town, we also ignored the fact that Ngunyi has no credentials to call himself a political scientist or an expert of any kind. Both his academic and intellectual credentials are in doubt. Thus, he has absolutely no basis for lecturing anybody on anything.
He is, of course, entitled to express his views. But those views do not rise to the level of expert knowledge merely because Ngunyi is allowed to repeat them in various newspapers and TV stations.
...
|
|
|
Post by raiswakesho on Feb 7, 2013 2:13:00 GMT 3
Aren't we all waiting for the Kenya's first presidential debate? Unlike U.S, the candidates will not be appealing to the undecided because there aren't any, at least in this election!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 7, 2013 2:28:47 GMT 3
In his PowerPoint presentation, when Mr. Ngunyi says �WE�, he really means himself, his Burmese cat, his goldfish and his laptop. There�s absolutely no way two or more human brains can interact to produce this cacophony.
I do not believe this was made for public consumption. And even if it was made for UhuRuto�s amusement or comic relief, the duo should not pay for it. If they did, they were fleeced.
Tyranny of numbers? No. Correct title: 13 minutes of tyranny. Lincoln,
Mutahi Ngunyi's weakness is his ability to present an otherwise very complex scenario in a very silly simple way to the extend of sounding very stupid. I remember when he broke down the then draft constitution to us, people became so angry at him, he even lost favor with the Sunday Nation. But, alas how right he was.
On this one, he is simply telling you that Jubilee has this thing in the bag, whichever way you look at it. I recall well the time this man analyzed the then draft constitution because to those of Jukwaa who shoot the messenger when the message is inconvenient I became a target of their frustration as I proclaimed that the man was indeed right in his analysis. There was one man from Bondo in particular who would post very nasty things against any affirmation of Ngunyi's analytical conclusions, but as Ngunyi's forecasts started to fall in place, the man started shifting positions but never acknowledging that the new position was essentially what he had been insulting Ngunyi for forecasting long before ... well, water under the bridge. It is a brave man who makes the call that Ngunyi has made this time. The one on elections date was really a no-brainer. On the elections, its an obstinate assumption that tribe will be the principal basis of elections this time as it has always been. In certain parts of the country there is clearly a departure from history in that regard. For example, in Meru, CORD is positioned to get votes in numbers that would never have been in its favour in any elections before this, had CORD existed in its current form. To the extent that Ngunyi's analysis does not factor the prospect of a thunderous departure from history in Meru, I find his analysis uncomfortable to rally behind. However there is no indication that the country has generally changed. If only pockets of the country are breaking with history in this elections time, then certainly Ngunyi's analysis will be favoured by the passage of time. It is probably not enough for Ngunyi's disclaimer to say that his presentation is of a hypothetical case - he would do better adding "the above is predictive, and there is no guarantee that it will come to be. All forecasting involves errors, and I reserve the right to be wrong." He certainly deserves the right to be wrong, just as OO deserves to be wrong when he predicts that Raila Odinga will win hands down ... OO's does not present tight numerical arguments though. He would have done well to impose his stochastic futures on Ngunyi's model, as it seems they both are using the same framework only with disagreements on the parameters. For people to spend so much time calling Ngunyi names simply because they do not like what he predicts, its a sign of pathetic ignorance. We would be doing more justice to the usual claim that we are an elite group of discussants if we spend time poking holes into the theoretical and factual underpinnings of Ngunyi's analysis than calling the man names and even going to the extent of pretending that the man has no credentials - by the way, would any credentials matter more than being validated by time? He's been validated once, and that was in a subject where the dismissive assertions and name calling were even sharper on this board. He's very likely to be validated yet again (I don't need to include a disclaimer here really, or do I)!
|
|
|
Post by raiswakesho on Feb 7, 2013 2:50:06 GMT 3
Mank,
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and I hope we all agree on this. We should not dwell so much on the accuracy of personal opinions or even opinion polls for that matter because there's a reason why March 4th is a special day!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 7, 2013 5:31:18 GMT 3
Mank,
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and I hope we all agree on this. We should not dwell so much on the accuracy of personal opinions or even opinion polls for that matter because there's a reason why March 4th is a special day! You sound really uncomfortable welcoming the idea that Ngunyi's analysis could be correct. That can be the only reason you would not have realized where I stand on Ngunyi's analysis. I wish to clarify for you where I stand - it is on his methodology and the guiding assumptions. It departs the realm of personal opinions when someone uses numbers, and enters the realm of science. Some of us like discussing the science and will not agree with a misguided advice that we say nothing when we disagree with, or are skeptical about the use of science. You should not have pitched on Ngunyi's presentation at all if your position is that we either agree or disagree with him but say nothing about his methods and data. But to give your views a deserved chance, tell me, if we should not dwell on work like that of Ngunyi, what would you like us to dwell on? Might you have found something on this bond where you would have given a constructive input rather than the useless rant you gave here?
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Feb 7, 2013 6:40:38 GMT 3
Mank,
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and I hope we all agree on this. We should not dwell so much on the accuracy of personal opinions or even opinion polls for that matter because there's a reason why March 4th is a special day! You sound really uncomfortable welcoming the idea that Ngunyi's analysis could be correct. That can be the only reason you would not have realized where I stand on Ngunyi's analysis. I wish to clarify for you where I stand - it is on his methodology and the guiding assumptions. It departs the realm of personal opinions when someone uses numbers, and enters the realm of science. Some of us like discussing the science and will not agree with a misguided advice that we say nothing when we disagree with, or are skeptical about the use of science. You should not have pitched on Ngunyi's presentation at all if your position is that we either agree or disagree with him but say nothing about his methods and data. But to give your views a deserved chance, tell me, if we should not dwell on work like that of Ngunyi, what would you like us to dwell on? Might you have found something on this bond where you would have given a constructive input rather than the useless rant you gave here?Ooho! There we go again. Please mark the phrase 'a constructive input rather than the useless rant you gave here'. Somebody is trying very hard to force a discussion on an unscientific opinion! I can only say that such an approach is self defeating, since opinions are just that, opinions! An attempt to scientifically dissect an opinion is akin to scientifically trying to dissect a rumour! OO just gave us his opinion about the results of the impending elections on another thread. How can we, on God's good earth, subject such an opinion to a scientific methodology? It is simply impossible if one understands matters science! All else is simply subjective!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 7, 2013 7:17:01 GMT 3
You sound really uncomfortable welcoming the idea that Ngunyi's analysis could be correct. That can be the only reason you would not have realized where I stand on Ngunyi's analysis. I wish to clarify for you where I stand - it is on his methodology and the guiding assumptions.
It departs the realm of personal opinions when someone uses numbers, and enters the realm of science. Some of us like discussing the science and will not agree with a misguided advice that we say nothing when we disagree with, or are skeptical about the use of science. You should not have pitched on Ngunyi's presentation at all if your position is that we either agree or disagree with him but say nothing about his methods and data.
But to give your views a deserved chance, tell me, if we should not dwell on work like that of Ngunyi, what would you like us to dwell on? Might you have found something on this bond where you would have given a constructive input rather than the useless rant you gave here?
Ooho! There we go again. Please mark the phrase 'a constructive input rather than the useless rant you gave here'.
Somebody is trying very hard to force a discussion on an unscientific opinion!
I can only say that such an approach is self defeating, since opinions are just that, opinions!
An attempt to scientifically dissect an opinion is akin to scientifically trying to dissect a rumour!
OO just gave us his opinion about the results of the impending elections on another thread. How can we, on God's good earth, subject such an opinion to a scientific methodology?
It is simply impossible if one understands matters science! All else is simply subjective![/size][/quote] Actually we can. I did some of that in my critique of both Ngunyi's and OO's. There is a big difference between the predictions of these two, and other predictions that are pure opinions and advocacy. Ngunyi's and OO's open themselves to analytical scrutiny because they claim to be mathematical constructs premised on fundamental voting patterns. When an analyst clearly states assumptions and quantifies factors in a model explaining or predicting a phenomenon, he gives us openings to either tear down, or build up their predictions, openings that we do not have when someone simply states unsubstantiated opinions. Formulation of hypothesis and the use of data to predict phenomena is a well recognized and highly formalized practice. You can't dismiss that easily. Before jumping in to fill a posting with red you would have been wiser to read a few postings up above what you responded to. Or perhaps you are subconsciously itching to validate Jakaswanga's name for you.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Feb 7, 2013 10:29:00 GMT 3
[/size][/quote] Actually we can. I did some of that in my critique of both Ngunyi's and OO's. There is a big difference between the predictions of these two, and other predictions that are pure opinions and advocacy. Ngunyi's and OO's open themselves to analytical scrutiny because they claim to be mathematical constructs premised on fundamental voting patterns. When an analyst clearly states assumptions and quantifies factors in a model explaining or predicting a phenomenon, he gives us openings to either tear down, or build up their predictions, openings that we do not have when someone simply states unsubstantiated opinions. Formulation of hypothesis and the use of data to predict phenomena is a well recognized and highly formalized practice. You can't dismiss that easily. Before jumping in to fill a posting with red you would have been wiser to read a few postings up above what you responded to. Or perhaps you are subconsciously itching to validate Jakaswanga's name for you.[/quote] I think we will first have to agree on the meaning of an opinion and how it differs from the meaning of a hypothesis if any. Can an opinion be at the same time a hypothesis? Once we have clarified that then we can proceed with this debate. From my research, hypothesis means any of the following: 1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. 2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption. 3.The antecedent of a conditional statement. 4. a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification (working hypothesis) or accepted as likely to be true e.g theory 5. an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition 6. (Philosophy / Logic) an unproved theory; a conjecture Hypothesis: A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. Usage: The words hypothesis, law, and theory refer to different kinds of statements, or sets of statements, that scientists make about natural phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts in a unified way. It generally forms the basis of experiments designed to establish its plausibility. Simplicity, elegance, and consistency with previously established hypotheses or laws are also major factors in determining the acceptance of a hypothesis. Though a hypothesis can never be proven true (in fact, hypotheses generally leave some facts unexplained), it can sometimes be verified beyond reasonable doubt in the context of a particular theoretical approach. A scientific law is a hypothesis that is assumed to be universally true. A law has good predictive power, allowing a scientist (or engineer) to model a physical system and predict what will happen under various conditions. New hypotheses inconsistent with well-established laws are generally rejected, barring major changes to the approach. An example is the law of conservation of energy, which was firmly established but had to be qualified with the revolutionary advent of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, consists of statements that were originally considered to be hypotheses (and daring at that). But all the hypotheses of relativity have now achieved the authority of scientific laws, and Einstein's theory has supplanted Newton's laws of motion. In some cases, such as the germ theory of infectious disease, a theory becomes so completely accepted, it stops being referred to as a theory. www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesisNow, do you recognise the meaning of an opinion in any of the above definitions? And where exactly do we place Ngunyi's and OO's constructs? And now on a very serious note, I would like to request you to desist from this below. OO is already seized of the matter unless you want me to hand you over to OO as well. Am ready anytime. You have already attacked someone from Bondo, not even involved in this current debate, in one of your posts above.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Feb 7, 2013 14:43:10 GMT 3
Actually we can. I did some of that in my critique of both Ngunyi's and OO's. There is a big difference between the predictions of these two, and other predictions that are pure opinions and advocacy. Ngunyi's and OO's open themselves to analytical scrutiny because they claim to be mathematical constructs premised on fundamental voting patterns.
When an analyst clearly states assumptions and quantifies factors in a model explaining or predicting a phenomenon, he gives us openings to either tear down, or build up their predictions, openings that we do not have when someone simply states unsubstantiated opinions. Formulation of hypothesis and the use of data to predict phenomena is a well recognized and highly formalized practice. You can't dismiss that easily.
Before jumping in to fill a posting with red you would have been wiser to read a few postings up above what you responded to. Or perhaps you are subconsciously itching to validate Jakaswanga's name for you. I think we will first have to agree on the meaning of an opinion and how it differs from the meaning of a hypothesis if any. Can an opinion be at the same time a hypothesis? Once we have clarified that then we can proceed with this debate.
From my research, hypothesis means any of the following:
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. 2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption. 3.The antecedent of a conditional statement. 4. a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification (working hypothesis) or accepted as likely to be true e.g theory 5. an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition 6. (Philosophy / Logic) an unproved theory; a conjecture
Hypothesis:
A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. Usage: The words hypothesis, law, and theory refer to different kinds of statements, or sets of statements, that scientists make about natural phenomena.
A hypothesis is a proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts in a unified way. It generally forms the basis of experiments designed to establish its plausibility. Simplicity, elegance, and consistency with previously established hypotheses or laws are also major factors in determining the acceptance of a hypothesis. Though a hypothesis can never be proven true (in fact, hypotheses generally leave some facts unexplained), it can sometimes be verified beyond reasonable doubt in the context of a particular theoretical approach.
A scientific law is a hypothesis that is assumed to be universally true. A law has good predictive power, allowing a scientist (or engineer) to model a physical system and predict what will happen under various conditions. New hypotheses inconsistent with well-established laws are generally rejected, barring major changes to the approach. An example is the law of conservation of energy, which was firmly established but had to be qualified with the revolutionary advent of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.
A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, consists of statements that were originally considered to be hypotheses (and daring at that).
But all the hypotheses of relativity have now achieved the authority of scientific laws, and Einstein's theory has supplanted Newton's laws of motion. In some cases, such as the germ theory of infectious disease, a theory becomes so completely accepted, it stops being referred to as a theory.
www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesis
Now, do you recognise the meaning of an opinion in any of the above definitions? And where exactly do we place Ngunyi's and OO's constructs?
And now on a very serious note, I would like to request you to desist from this below. OO is already seized of the matter unless you want me to hand you over to OO as well. Am ready anytime. You have already attacked someone from Bondo, not even involved in this current debate, in one of your posts above.
[/quote] I don't think I am in any debate with you. I used commonly understood language and very practically distinguished pure or unsubstantiated opinion and advocacy from opinion guided by quantified assumptions. You want us to get out of that conversation and debate dictionary meanings of "opinion" and a bunch of other words that are not the import of the posting that you are contesting. I am not aware that I attacked anyone. Referencing an exchange that occurred in the past on a topical issue is not an attack. And then what you reference in the last sentence in block letters and in red is no joking matter. I was the one very recently going to pains trying to change someone's mind when I thought he misunderstands you. Your behaviour in this thread makes me think that he was correct after all, and that I may owe him an apology - so what you make so red and unattractive was my polite way of saying you make me lament my intervention. I really would rather be talking about Ngunyi's and OO's assumptions and math than indulging you in your pursuit for the irrelevant. So I will end it here, but as a final point let me assure you that your threats won't bother me. OO is right on this board, so he does not need you scouting around for people to report to him after you inflame anything they had to say.
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Feb 7, 2013 15:04:13 GMT 3
I think we will first have to agree on the meaning of an opinion and how it differs from the meaning of a hypothesis if any. Can an opinion be at the same time a hypothesis? Once we have clarified that then we can proceed with this debate.
From my research, hypothesis means any of the following:
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. 2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption. 3.The antecedent of a conditional statement. 4. a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification (working hypothesis) or accepted as likely to be true e.g theory 5. an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition 6. (Philosophy / Logic) an unproved theory; a conjecture
Hypothesis:
A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. Usage: The words hypothesis, law, and theory refer to different kinds of statements, or sets of statements, that scientists make about natural phenomena.
A hypothesis is a proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts in a unified way. It generally forms the basis of experiments designed to establish its plausibility. Simplicity, elegance, and consistency with previously established hypotheses or laws are also major factors in determining the acceptance of a hypothesis. Though a hypothesis can never be proven true (in fact, hypotheses generally leave some facts unexplained), it can sometimes be verified beyond reasonable doubt in the context of a particular theoretical approach.
A scientific law is a hypothesis that is assumed to be universally true. A law has good predictive power, allowing a scientist (or engineer) to model a physical system and predict what will happen under various conditions. New hypotheses inconsistent with well-established laws are generally rejected, barring major changes to the approach. An example is the law of conservation of energy, which was firmly established but had to be qualified with the revolutionary advent of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.
A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, consists of statements that were originally considered to be hypotheses (and daring at that).
But all the hypotheses of relativity have now achieved the authority of scientific laws, and Einstein's theory has supplanted Newton's laws of motion. In some cases, such as the germ theory of infectious disease, a theory becomes so completely accepted, it stops being referred to as a theory.
www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesis
Now, do you recognise the meaning of an opinion in any of the above definitions? And where exactly do we place Ngunyi's and OO's constructs?
And now on a very serious note, I would like to request you to desist from this below. OO is already seized of the matter unless you want me to hand you over to OO as well. Am ready anytime. You have already attacked someone from Bondo, not even involved in this current debate, in one of your posts above.
I don't think I am in any debate with you. I used commonly understood language and very practically distinguished pure or unsubstantiated opinion and advocacy from opinion guided by quantified assumptions. You want us to get out of that conversation and debate dictionary meanings of "opinion" and a bunch of other words that are not the import of the posting that you are contesting. I am not aware that I attacked anyone. Referencing an exchange that occurred in the past on a topical issue is not an attack. And then what you reference in the last sentence in block letters and in red is no joking matter. I was the one very recently going to pains trying to change someone's mind when I thought he misunderstands you. Your behaviour in this thread makes me think that he was correct after all, and that I may owe him an apology - so what you make so red and unattractive was my polite way of saying you make me lament my intervention. I really would rather be talking about Ngunyi's and OO's assumptions and math than indulging you in your pursuit for the irrelevant. So I will end it here, but as a final point let me assure you that your threats won't bother me. OO is right on this board, so he does not need you scouting around for people to report to him after you inflame anything they had to say. Cool, then we shall let it rest there!!
|
|