So I divided my answer the first part is more direct, the second is all philosophy. But at the end of it, it gets all haughty and directs back to the conversation, so if you are REALLY interested in responding to either of the two I would ask that you read both. Then consult your pineal gland.
Unless you have a few pages of notes and references to back up your second paragraph, I am going to guess that it's mostly guesswork. considering you had 35 minutes to come up with it, I am impressed at your research. Or your guesswork.
I am really not trying to pick on you, but since you are trying to pick apart my comedy routine based on a report I have no reason to disbelieve, allow me to point out something I find faulty in your logic. And in Logic in general.
You come to the conclusion in your third paragraph that the amount of Gold Japan produces in this way would be such in such a year, which is more than has ever been mined, which must make the entire claim impossible. If The findings had been taking over a year, which the article and the TV report did not say.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you just disproved that something ever happened, in which people report happening in some distant country because the markings you have made on paper, digits you have pushed on a computer, or buttons you have pressed on a calculator or whatever tell you it can't happen. I am glad you have confidence, but looking back on your figures, can you say each comes from painstakingly accurate research? Is the model you have created on paper truly more real than the world it intends to model, to the point in that I should trust it over people who say they have first or second hand experience of the phenomena? Is what you have science...or statistics?
Uhm. Jarys. The Reuters piece does not say what you say it says.
You said: an average ton of Japanese sewage contains $38400 in gold. But the story says that atone particular treatment plant, downstream from a whole gaggle of factories, their sewage can be concentrated to around 4 lb of gold per ton, if you burn away all the water and all the organics.
This is not the same claim: Almost any material contains four pounds of gold per ton, once you remove huge quantities of stuff that isn't gold. :)
That's true. Of course the title of the article, the ambiguity of the contributors to the plants sewage (outside the guess of a particular plant), and the inparticular requirements of my joke may have all lead to this, truly, noteworthy lapse of judgement on my part. But I am not disinhearted, because I just learned that four pounds pf gold can be found in almost any ton of material, which let's my joke off the hook of specifics, and makes me wonder if four pounds of gold couldn't be found a bit closer to home. In any event, burning away the excess gold, and that a industrial center was in the area doesn't prove to me that the phnemomenea isn't caused by Japanese auravores. So *rhasberry* -> :P
I found the combination of spilling so many pixels on how math and logic fail as guides to the universe to be amazingly ironic when paired with your later acknowledgment of a "noteworthy lapse of judgement [sic] on my part."
This irony was particularly striking in that if you hadn't embraced the disdain for logical thinking, you wouldn't have made that lapse. The entire argument exists as a refutation of the points you tried to make, in other words.
Good, you should find it funny. The term "noteworthy lapse of judgment" was meant entirely in sarcasm. To the effect, of course, that to believe this was a lapse of judgement on my part, especially one worth noting in a comment in the blog went smoothly With the line of thinking of the person of the person I was reacting to. And unbelievably so, as I find both the initial comment and the one I was commenting to unbelievably worthy of sarcasm. I'll try and remember to use the emoticon Stephen made me, it's just so few people know it.
Then consult your pineal gland.
Even when Television is quoting Reuters?
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUST8310320090130?rpc=64
Unless you have a few pages of notes and references to back up your second paragraph, I am going to guess that it's mostly guesswork. considering you had 35 minutes to come up with it, I am impressed at your research. Or your guesswork.
I am really not trying to pick on you, but since you are trying to pick apart my comedy routine based on a report I have no reason to disbelieve, allow me to point out something I find faulty in your logic. And in Logic in general.
You come to the conclusion in your third paragraph that the amount of Gold Japan produces in this way would be such in such a year, which is more than has ever been mined, which must make the entire claim impossible.
If The findings had been taking over a year, which the article and the TV report did not say.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you just disproved that something ever happened, in which people report happening in some distant country because the markings you have made on paper, digits you have pushed on a computer, or buttons you have pressed on a calculator or whatever tell you it can't happen. I am glad you have confidence, but looking back on your figures, can you say each comes from painstakingly accurate research? Is the model you have created on paper truly more real than the world it intends to model, to the point in that I should trust it over people who say they have first or second hand experience of the phenomena? Is what you have science...or statistics?
Reply
You said: an average ton of Japanese sewage contains $38400 in gold. But the story says that atone particular treatment plant, downstream from a whole gaggle of factories, their sewage can be concentrated to around 4 lb of gold per ton, if you burn away all the water and all the organics.
This is not the same claim: Almost any material contains four pounds of gold per ton, once you remove huge quantities of stuff that isn't gold. :)
Reply
Of course the title of the article, the ambiguity of the contributors to the plants sewage (outside the guess of a particular plant), and the inparticular requirements of my joke may have all lead to this, truly, noteworthy lapse of judgement on my part.
But I am not disinhearted, because I just learned that four pounds pf gold can be found in almost any ton of material, which let's my joke off the hook of specifics, and makes me wonder if four pounds of gold couldn't be found a bit closer to home.
In any event, burning away the excess gold, and that a industrial center was in the area doesn't prove to me that the phnemomenea isn't caused by Japanese auravores.
So *rhasberry* -> :P
Reply
Also, that's not how 'raspberry' is spelled.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
This irony was particularly striking in that if you hadn't embraced the disdain for logical thinking, you wouldn't have made that lapse. The entire argument exists as a refutation of the points you tried to make, in other words.
I found this funny.
Thus, I snark.
Reply
To the effect, of course, that to believe this was a lapse of judgement on my part, especially one worth noting in a comment in the blog went smoothly With the line of thinking of the person of the person I was reacting to.
And unbelievably so, as I find both the initial comment and the one I was commenting to unbelievably worthy of sarcasm.
I'll try and remember to use the emoticon Stephen made me, it's just so few people know it.
Reply
Leave a comment