• HitoKichi's Avatar
    Today, 03:52 PM
    Well that makes sense I suppose. I'd respond in French but its kind of rusty at this point.
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    Today, 03:18 PM
    Why hello there. I assume you are from Quebec.
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    8 replies | 225 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    4 replies | 65 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    4 replies | 65 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    Today, 12:58 PM
    @Ibn.AL.Muqafaa Victims were tortured and only left house for abortions and treatment for venereal diseases in case that has shocked country
    0 replies | 43 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    Today, 11:43 AM
    I'm gonna remember that for when I'm a dad.
    27 replies | 245 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:34 PM
    4238 replies | 198490 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:51 AM
    http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php Mark Humphrys (amongst others) asks whether we can estimate the number of descendants of King Edward III. A slightly different but related question is the probability that a present-day English person descends from Edward III (1312-1377). This is my attempt to calculate this probability. First we can consider the number of ancestors that we have. Wachter (1978), in considering the number of ancestors at the time of the Norman conquest for a child born in England in 1947, suggested that in 1587 (13 generations at 30 years) the child would have 7938 ancestors, a figure that allows for some cousin-cousin marriages, based on the observation that Wachter himself had 63 rather than 64 ancestors six generations back. Smith (2001) has examined 626 birth-briefs at the Society of Genealogists, and reviewed other literature on cousin-cousin marriages, showing that although the rate is difficult to estimate, the estimates which can be considered reliable range from 0.28% to 0.86% of marriages. Over many generations, this would mean that on average the number of ancestors increased not twofold per generation, but between 1.9828 and 1.9944 per generation, leading to slightly lower estimates than Wachter's, of 7322 to 7899 ancestors at the 13th generation (and 14518 to 15753 at the 14th generation). Marriages between more distant cousins, also have an impact, but these are ignored here, following the original argument of Wachter. Wachter (1978) asserts, and Smith (2001) provides some limited evidence, that second cousin marriages are much less common than first cousin marriages, and third or more distant cousin marriages occur no more frequently than would be expected from the number of third, etc., cousins in the population. Third, etc., cousin marriages are therefore very rare. Sturges and Haggett (1987) estimated the average growth rate of the English population c.1350-c.1994 was 1.14 times per generation, implying 2.28 surviving children per couple. With an average 2.28 children per couple then on average each individual has 28 third-cousins, and less than 9000 tenth-cousins in a population of millions. Thus marriages between very distant cousins are more common, but not as common as first cousin marriages until one reaches about 12th cousins, which is more distant than is possible in the 13 generations considered here. Second, etc., cousin marriages also have less impact on the number of ancestors than first cousin marriages. The child of first cousins has 24 rather than 32 distinct 3x-great grandparents, but the child of second cousins has 28, and the child of third cousins has 30. It is therefore safe to follow Wachter in ignoring marriages between cousins other than first cousins, as including them is a lot of calculation which will only reduce the average number of ancestors in 1587 by a fraction of a percent, and this is probably within the margin of error derived from the uncertainty in the rate of first-cousin marriages. In line with Wachter we can assume "wide diffusion of ancestors throughout society and the country by 1600." Taking those numbers as a starting point, then if we knew the number of descendants of Edward III born in England in the 30-year generation centred on 1587, we could estimate the probability of at least one of them being one of those ancestors. Leo van de Pas in his website "Genealogics" gives as comprehensive a list of the descendants of Edward III as can probably be compiled at present. In the fifth generation he lists 321 descendants, of whom I count about 245 as 'English' (though distinguishing English from Welsh and Irish nobles in this list is difficult). This gives a rate of increase of 3.00 times in each generation within 'English' descendants or 3.17 per generation for all descendants. This is high in comparison to Sturges and Haggett's (1987) estimate of 2.28 surviving children per couple on average over...
    2 replies | 109 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    16 replies | 325 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    40 replies | 788 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 10:06 PM
    I assume catfish tastes like chicken?
    41 replies | 1477 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 10:05 PM
    4238 replies | 198490 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 02:17 PM
    3 replies | 142 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 01:09 PM
    Neil deGrasse Tyson has released a new video aimed at a what he sees as a growing anti-intellectualism problem in the United States. It was released at the same time as the March for Science and many Earth Day demonstrations. He reflects on what he thinks made America great and what’s stalling progress today. Science used to be respected, but today, there is a growing crowd of science-deniers who threaten our “informed democracy.” The real anti-intellectual move, however, is conflating science, the scientific method, and truth to be one and the same. Fundamentally, science is any human attempt at discovering truth. What is true exists independently from what humans believe to be true or how humans arrive at truth claims. The scientific method, the process of using repeated experiments in an attempt to validate or falsify the conclusions of previous experiments, is but one way humans attempt to discover truth. The purpose of the video was to call out the obstinate, ignorant voters who deny what many regard as certain truths handed to them by a body of elite, trustworthy scientists. Yet Tyson and the marchers border on an equally dangerous view: scientism. Scientism isn’t scientificScientism is the over-reliance on or over-application of the scientific method. Scientism has many forms, one of which is the use of empirical methods to do economic science, or the dismissal of claims not based on experiment results that question other claims that are based on experiment results. Mises dealt with scientism repeatedly, and closely guarded the boundary between economics and other sciences. The scientific method is not universally appropriate. Consider an extreme case: if you measured a few right triangles and observed that the sides did not correspond to what the Pythagorean theorem says, would you toss the Pythagorean theorem, or would you reexamine your measurement method? Would you dismiss the logical geometric relation in favor of the scientific method? The scientific method is particularly suited for the natural sciences. It’s hard to recommend a different method than experimentation and observation to answer questions about chemical reactions, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and biology. The scientific method is unnecessary or even ill-suited in other areas, however. Consider these questions, and what sort of approach is appropriate to answer them: What is 17 divided by 3? All else held equal, what are the effects of an increase in demand for blue jeans? Who should I invite to my party? What are the effects of expansionary monetary policy on employment, prices, incomes, production, consumption, and borrowing? How should I treat people? Of course, Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t recommend using the scientific method to answer all of these questions (hopefully), but the point is that empiricism and experimentation are limited in their appropriate applications. The scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth. Always open to falsificationThe scientific method has another large limitation: conclusions derived solely by experimentation are always susceptible to falsification by just one aberrant observation. For this reason and others, even wide consensus among scientists should be met with at least some skepticism before the heavy hand of the government gets involved. In 1992, the government, backed by the scientific community, told you that you needed 6-11 daily servings of bread, cereal, rice, and/or pasta to maintain good nutrition (and that saturated and animal fats are to be avoided). Many government policies and public school food offerings were based on this recommendation, including, suspiciously, agricultural subsidies and import tariffs. But then, years later, new information revealed this to be terrible advice, after a big jump in diabetes diagnoses and obesity rates.
    3 replies | 142 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 12:38 PM
    4238 replies | 198490 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 12:26 PM
    Maybe if we run for the hills and the pine forests and live like hitchhikers the situation will resolve itself
    61 replies | 1122 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 11:27 AM
    4238 replies | 198490 view(s)
More Activity
About amagimetals

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
16
Posts Per Day
0.01
General Information
Last Activity
03-27-2017 09:07 AM
Join Date
03-03-2014
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. HitoKichi HitoKichi is online now

    Member

    HitoKichi
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
No results to display...
No results to display...

02-09-2017