Friday, 24 October 2014

Clown-Hats and spaceships

Hi Mike and Richard,

The below is taken from that NASAPEDIA website that is so corrupt no-one ever references it. Except when it suits them. Like you do Mike. Oh man does it describe both of you perfectly. I knew you were both ill in the head. Anxiously waiting Hoagland's take on space station 67P/CG. 

As we predicted with "stunningly confirmatory confirmation" Hoagland would call THIS COMET !!!!!, NOT A COMET, but an "ancient artificial spaceship" with LIBRARIES and SKYSCRAPERS onboard.

In our model Hoagland is once again "stunningly, embarrassingly wrong !!!!!"

Kindest Regards you two clown-hats

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias manifesting in two principal ways: unskilled individuals tend to suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate, while highly skilled individuals tend to rate their ability lower than is accurate. In unskilled individuals, this bias is attributed to a meta-cognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.
David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".

Ancient Spacestation. Image credit: ESA.

1 comment:

  1. That reminds me of the paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" from John Ioannidis. ( To summarize the quality of a research publication would be, generally, inversely proportional to some of all of the following factors:

    1. Only one or a very few researchers have done the research.
    2. It's not published in any scientific journal of "minimal prestige".
    3. Only relatively very few objects or test subjects were involved.
    4. It involves a new discovery (original research) and is not build on earlier discoveries.
    5. The publishers or authors collect immediate gains with the publication.
    6. A "spontaneous" discovery is being made inside data ("follow the data") instead of systematic testing of any earlier formed hypothesis.
    7. The subject is popular or involves some current "meme".
    8. The discovery goes against common sense.
    9. The discovery confirms prejudices or suspicions present.

    If the average scientific publication already suffers from this big time, one can only imagine how publications on blogs, websites and radio shows which venture into the scientific suffer. Ironically, the actual, real problems with much of actual published science is sometimes used as argument by pseudo-scientists themselves to justify their own methods (as to "correct" these problems). And of course the usual disclaimer: yes, despite the list above, an actual important discovery can still be made breaking all the rules outlined. But for some reason so many people believe they are the exception while merely confirming the rule.