Evaluating Risk

[dvcochran]

Do me a favour by calling me names , is tthat what you call it ?

By pointing out your faults.

 

[dvcochran]

The rain just made it to Middle TN.

 

[jobo]

I took the definition from Cambridge.
I’m sorry but you don’t get to choose ‘your’ definition over ‘the’ definition.

Ownership and ckasse

By pointing out your faults.

I've had two wives and a mother for that, and even they didn't call me stupid, but then you set fire to a bale of hay by not maintaining your tractors, so your probably the sort that knows what stupid is

 

[jks9199]

Attention all users,
Let's remember to debate the post, not the poster. If you can't do that, points may well land upon you... If you feel someone is violating the rules, use the Report function and let The Staff handle it.

Jks9199
Adminstrator

 

[drop bear]

I've just had a quick Google hurricane Harvey affected 13 million people and had a death toll of 88 which is shame, but at 12 per million , it's not a high chance of it being you or anyone you know , so not really worth getting in state worrying over

Sort of. There are a few things that can effect your life without being life threatening.

So we had cyclone Debbie a bit back. And it shut everything down for 48 hrs.

Which is 48 hrs of locked in the house with no power and eventually no water and no emergency services.

Now the issue with the lawn furniture isn't loosing it. It is having your deck chair going through your window and basically making inside outside.

Which has some pretty craptastic results. Not the least then spending 48hrs hiding in the toilet.

Now there was no power for two weeks or so and no water for one. A full tank of petrol and your barbecue filled up makes a huge difference. Shops don't just open up without power and your ATM card doesn't work.

So that hour to run around can make a pretty big difference in the week coming.

 

[dvcochran]

Attention all users,
Let's remember to debate the post, not the poster. If you can't do that, points may well land upon you... If you feel someone is violating the rules, use the Report function and let The Staff handle it.

Jks9199
Adminstrator

Got it.

 

[jobo]

The death toll is lower because of risk mitigation. When people don't pay attention to them, the death toll, injury rate, and loss of property increases.

You know, that's really the point of this thread, I think, and you've missed it entirely.

this yet another case of people using inducative logic to come to a conclusion that can not possibly be supported by the data, not adidn't and was my opening point that people generally have no idea how to accurately assess risk, so to come to any sort of thought out conclusion, you need to look at the numbers who did mitigate and what lmitigation they took and what effect that actually had on their fate

if your sayingthat the 88 people that unbfirtunety died didn't mitigate and that's why they died then support that. ! its seems extremely unlikely that they were the only one's out if 13 million that didnt,

there's no data at all to show that mitigation made any difference at all to the death toll, what's far more logical is they were just extremely unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can't mitigate 100000 to one bad luck, you just cant,neither would any one with any sense invest any money on a horse with those odds, but then people think its sensible to invest time/money in trying to mitigate the same extremely unlikely event

 

[Gerry Seymour]

this yet another case of people using inducative logic to come to a conclusion that can not possibly be supported by the data, not adidn't and was my opening point that people generally have no idea how to accurately assess risk, so to come to any sort of thought out conclusion, you need to look at the numbers who did mitigate and what lmitigation they took and what effect that actually had on their fate

if your sayingthat the 88 people that unbfirtunety died didn't mitigate and that's why they died then support that. ! its seems extremely unlikely that they were the only one's out if 13 million that didnt,

there's no data at all to show that mitigation made any difference at all to the death toll, what's far more logical is they were just extremely unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can't mitigate 100000 to one bad luck, you just cant,neither would any one with any sense invest any money on a horse with those odds, but then people think its sensible to invest time/money in trying to mitigate the same extremely unlikely event

You're asking me to prove a statement I didn't make. You clearly don't understand, and I'm tired of trying to help.

 

[jobo]

You're asking me to prove a statement I didn't make. You clearly don't understand, and I'm tired of trying to help.

I'm asking you to support a point you made about the effective of risk miutigations in hurricanes in general and hurricane Harvey in particular.

perhaps if you actually made a statement of your opinion rather then being evasive we could discuss that ?

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

Sort of. There are a few things that can effect your life without being life threatening.

So we had cyclone Debbie a bit back. And it shut everything down for 48 hrs.

Which is 48 hrs of locked in the house with no power and eventually no water and no emergency services.

Now the issue with the lawn furniture isn't loosing it. It is having your deck chair going through your window and basically making inside outside.

Which has some pretty craptastic results. Not the least then spending 48hrs hiding in the toilet.

Now there was no power for two weeks or so and no water for one. A full tank of petrol and your barbecue filled up makes a huge difference. Shops don't just open up without power and your ATM card doesn't work.

So that hour to run around can make a pretty big difference in the week coming.

Facts. A couple of MREs served me really well a few years back when Hurricane Sandy hit Long Island. A little preparation goes a long way!

 

[drop bear]

Facts. A couple of MREs served me really well a few years back when Hurricane Sandy hit Long Island. A little preparation goes a long way!

Well that is still an anecdote not fact. But yes good point.

(Sorry but I do like to stay consistent)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well that is still an anecdote not fact. But yes good point.

(Sorry but I do like to stay consistent)

Anecdotes aren't not facts. It's a fact (from his point of view, because he knows it's true). To us, it's an anecdote that may or may not be fact.

 

[jobo]

Anecdotes aren't not facts. It's a fact (from his point of view, because he knows it's true). To us, it's an anecdote that may or may not be fact.

well maybe, facts are things that are independently verifiable, just because he know it to be " true" doesn't make it a fact. other wise ghosts and magic etc would be facts, as plenty if people believe these to be true

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well maybe, facts are things that are independently verifiable, just because he know it to be " true" doesn't make it a fact. other wise ghosts and magic etc would be facts, as plenty if people believe these to be true

Something can be true (and, by common definitions) a fact without any way to verify it. It is a fact that I had a cup of coffee this morning, though there’s no way for you to verify that with any reliability.

What that means is that you can’t reliably treat it as fact.

 

[Buka]

Something can be true (and, by common definitions) a fact without any way to verify it. It is a fact that I had a cup of coffee this morning, though there’s no way for you to verify that with any reliability.

What that means is that you can’t reliably treat it as fact.

I'm having coffee right now. Here's to you, bro.

Or am I?



Yeah, I am. Or is that really me? Anyway, here's to you.

 

[jobo]

Something can be true (and, by common definitions) a fact without any way to verify it. It is a fact that I had a cup of coffee this morning, though there’s no way for you to verify that with any reliability.

What that means is that you can’t reliably treat it as fact.

well facts are reliable or they are not facts, your coffee consumption could easily be verified if it ever became of any importance, that it wasn't means it just w memory, memory is quite unreliable as I discover every time my keys aren't were I believe I left them, either that or I have a poltergeist

 

[JR 137]

Something can be true (and, by common definitions) a fact without any way to verify it. It is a fact that I had a cup of coffee this morning, though there’s no way for you to verify that with any reliability.

What that means is that you can’t reliably treat it as fact.

Are you sure you had that coffee? Ever meet Morpheus?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm having coffee right now. Here's to you, bro.

Or am I?

View attachment 22353

Yeah, I am. Or is that really me? Anyway, here's to you.

The real - and only valid - question is, "What's in the coffee, Buka?"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well facts are reliable or they are not facts, your coffee consumption could easily be verified if it ever became of any importance, that it wasn't means it just w memory, memory is quite unreliable as I discover every time my keys aren't were I believe I left them, either that or I have a poltergeist

Facts are reliable. Whether you can rely upon something as a fact depends what you know (and/or can verify).

How would you verify I had coffee this morning? There's no real evidence of it, beyond my statement of it. It's still a fact, but you can't really rely upon it as such. You could safely accept it as a fact if you know I have coffee every morning, or just because it's such a bland claim as to not be worth bothering to doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a fact you cannot verify.

This is why we have to be cautious using anecdotal evidence. We can listen to it, but have to question whether the claims included are bland enough to be taken at face value, or bold enough we need something else to give us reason to accept them. We don't know whether a given anecdote is factual or not, but our lack of knowing it doesn't change whether it's true or not.

 

[jobo]

Facts are reliable. Whether you can rely upon something as a fact depends what you know (and/or can verify).

How would you verify I had coffee this morning? There's no real evidence of it, beyond my statement of it. It's still a fact, but you can't really rely upon it as such. You could safely accept it as a fact if you know I have coffee every morning, or just because it's such a bland claim as to not be worth bothering to doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a fact you cannot verify.

This is why we have to be cautious using anecdotal evidence. We can listen to it, but have to question whether the claims included are bland enough to be taken at face value, or bold enough we need something else to give us reason to accept them. We don't know whether a given anecdote is factual or not, but our lack of knowing it doesn't change whether it's true or not.

it's a fact i cant,verify I'm several thousand miles away, however it isn't a fact than can't be verified , though possibly not now as it's to latI. as the window for verification has now past it is not a fact, you have nothing to rely on but a hazy memory. memories and facts are not at all the same thing. and truth and fact are not the same thing, truth is just your memory of an event, a fact as hopefully we have now establish is something that can be verified by something else other than your memory