If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)
Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)
Since the poll regarding global warming seems to stagnate, it might be interesting to look at some data in the most balanced way. The most balanced article I have seen so far is **A Cherry-Picker's Guide to Temperature Trends** :
One should see enough data and trends and sources to be able to understand the reasoning behind the claims one could encounter around the blogosphere. So the readers could ask themselves : why is such-and-such saying so-and-so?
The pursuit of truth continues. Climate change is a topic that should interest chess players.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Monday, 26th October, 2009, 10:10 AM.
Inspired by our Canadian GMI blogger, I'd say it would illustrate well what goes on at www.climateaudit.org, without the uniforms, of course, and with most of them with cowls.
Re: Am I Try to Get One of Those? (Related to everything)
The accusation of "cherry picking" seems to fall to some form of the genetic ad hominem fallacy. (Just like the accusation of hypocrisy almost always falls to this same fallacy as well.)
So a person makes a case for something (and that case is always in some way going to be biased) but instead of addressing that case or their data you talk about phrasing, wording, context etc. (Telling me Einstein is biased in favor of relativity doesn't refute his case on any level.) To look at things logically you literally have to put the fact they have an opinion to one side for the moment. (To understand this idea you have to think about the fact that statements are evaluated logically based on their validity not their soundness. I'll explain this in detail if there are requests to do so but for now I don't want to make things even more boring than I have already...)
The fact that many statements in the chess talk global warming threads fall to this fallacy (by people both pro and con action on global warming) just goes to show that not many chess players have training in logic and reasoning...(and their logical game doesn't seem to pass that skill onto politics..)
It would be interesting to know how cherry picking is always an ad hominem, and why it is relevant here. It would also be interesting to know how an ad hominem argument is a fallacy, and if it is always so. If you have the formation you claim we all should have and seem to lack from your standpoint, it sure will be easy for you to educate Chesstalkers.
The Cherry Picker's Guide responds quite well to the idea that data speaks all by itself. One must always interpret it, and it is there that matters get way more complicated than we would like. Coincidentally, interpretation relies on wording. In philosophy, where one can study, among other specialties, informal logic, argumentation theory, and epistemology, wording is quite important indeed. Making an argument relies on wording, at least if you want to have your quantifiers and your modalities right. When made clear enough, the arguments we are dealing with are more inductive or abductive than deductive anyway, which argues against the idea that logic suffices for science to tell us what to do.
Citing an objectivist author when I am not one myself (well, not that kind) contradicts the idea that I am arguing against the Biyiasas of people. Even an objectivist can be right from time to time. (Not always, since he believes that a corporation is intrinsically better than a state, when corporations are behind most oligarchies and dictatures.) A more fallacious intention trial would be more like saying that you don't take NASA's data because they have a political agenda.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Sunday, 18th October, 2009, 10:08 AM.
Since the poll regarding global warming seems to stagnate, it might be interesting to look at some data in the most balanced way. The most balanced article I have seen so far is **A Cherry-Picker's Guide to Temperature Trends** :
One should see enough data and trends and sources to be able to understand the reasoning behind the claims one could encounter around the blogosphere. So the readers could ask themselves : why is such-and-such saying so-and-so?
My list of links (www.delicious.com/benoitstpierre/climate-change) has changed a bit since the last time. The search continues. Climate change is a topic that should interest chess players.
In this article he says that there is two main sides. Two main sides only? I don't call it Cherry picking! I call it two schools of thought.
One school of thought takes their conclusions only from data from the UAH and RSS which covers the whole earth (see on the extrack I present below). The other school of thought is base on the GISS data from the NASA which relys on ground stations which is distributed not evenly and has thousands of differents sensors and algorithms.
Here is the extract from your article:
And here are a few more specific examples that the seasoned cherry-picker could tease out:
• There has been no (statistically significant) warming for the past 13 years. [Using the satellite records of the lower atmosphere].
• The globe has been cooling rapidly for the past 8 years. [Using the CRU and satellite records]
Or on the other side of the coin:
• Global warming did not ‘stop’ 10 years ago, in fact, it was pretty close to model projections. [Using the GISS and NCDC records beginning in 1998 and 1999]
• Global warming is proceeding faster than expected. [Using the GISS record staring in 1991 or 1992—the cool years just after the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo]
I don't see it as cherry picking.The news satellite global systems should be the only data we should rely on to make predictions with a error level lower than .2 degree in my opinion. The GISS data collection of NASA and the NCDC (the largets world's archive of weather data) should not be use to study global warming. This data should be used by scientists only to have an idea for the weather of a particular year in the past for a part of the world knowing that it is based on few ground stations not evenly distributed on the territory and with a lot of algorithms to estimate the missings days or uncover areas.
If we have had the UAH and RSS Satellite systems for the period 1900 to 2009 nobody would make any conclusions based on the data from the ground stations.
Did you know that most of the ground stations now use the data from the RSS and UAH satellite systems to caliber their sensors when they see a difference. They know the satellite has only one sensor always well calibered.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Sunday, 18th October, 2009, 10:55 AM.
Tweet
Comment