True Fact

[sonicninja]

Saw a statement at work today that said:-


THERE ARE MORE HELICOPTERS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA
THAN THERE ARE SUBMARINES IN THE AIR!

Just thought it was worth sharing :lol:

[Biggles]

That sounds quite correct yes.....but you never know what the Scousers are up to.....

http://members.aol.com/beatlefreak87/images/beatles%20-%20yellow%20submarine%20(characters).jpg

heh...

Note 1! Sorry 'bout the big pic....

Note 2! For those who don't know, that submarine had a tendency to fly in the movie it appeard in....

[Letum]

Where are your sources for this "Fact"?

[GSpector]

Very true. I still have the movie on VHS.

if interested, for those that don't know, It's none other then the Beatles Yellow Submarine:up:

[Sailor Steve]

It was said of airplanes a long time ago.

Where are your sources for this "Fact"?
Who needs a source? It's obviously true.:rotfl:

[Iron Budokan]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need proof other than cold hard logic and the physics of everyday reality before I believe something goofy like this. :)

[AVGWarhawk]

Are they talking submarine sandwiches or actual submarines? :hmm: I throw my submarine sandwich in the air if it tastes like crap;)

[GSpector]

Well, concidering that only The Yellow Submarine is the only Sub that flys (in some off the wall reality) and a few helo's have crashed into the sea, I think it's a safe bet that the Comment is a statement of fact :know:

[danurve]

The yellow submarine..

One word; Drugs :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Does anyone have any numbers on this to compare???? How are we counting submarines in the air. Some say "we blew it out of the water". Is this counted as a submarine in the air?

[Biggles]

Very true. I still have the movie on VHS.

if interested, for those that don't know, It's none other then the Beatles Yellow Submarine:up:

VHS! HA! I have it on DVD!!!:rotfl:

and who doesn't know it's the Beatles? I mean come on!:roll:

BTW, it's not about drugs.....the song is made for young children, and made in a way so that the kids could sing along easily (and it worked didn't it?)

[GSpector]

Wow, It's on DVD now?:up:

Time to go shopping at my favorite Video store:lol:

[SilverGhost]

Definition of a helicopter:

20,000 spare aviation parts flying around an oil leak.

[Biggles]

Wow, It's on DVD now?:up:

Time to go shopping at my favorite Video store:lol:


It'll be hard to find in the store. Try Amazon.com (that's where I found it)

[Von Hinten]

Note 2! For those who don't know, that submarine had a tendency to fly in the movie it appeard in....
Well that's not that strange, now is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0CZNMtrhoM

:rotfl: :rotfl:

[Letum]

Where are your sources for this "Fact"? Who needs a source? It's obviously true.
Ok, this kind of think really pisses me off.

Sonicninja "Saw a statement".

Currently that's all the background we have about his statement. For all we know, who ever wrote the statement Sonicninja saw could be locked away in a asylum for compulsive liars. Yet people like you, Steve, just accept it as fact and truth.
What is worse, is that you say it is "obviously true". "Obvious" is a dangerous word that has killed millions. Hitler thought that it was "obvious" that the Jews where evil. Many Germans thought it was "obvious" that they should follow Hitler.
Now I know you are no Nazi Steve, but taking thinks as being "obvious" and not to question weather they are true and moral is a very dangerous way of thinking (or NOT thinking!)
Granted that, strictly speaking, no fact is 100% verifiable as pointed out by Descartes et al, but this does not mean that we should accept or act upon things with out investigating them until we reach a point where we have reasonable assurance of their truth (or otherwise!).

I know when you asked "Who needs a source?" you where being rhetorical, but I'm going to give you an answer anyway. A source is a good way to get a idea about how valid a source is and more importantly: what bias the source may be under the influence of.
If, in our example, the source was from a person who built submarines and was in competition with a company that built helicopters then we would have to question his motives.
Everyone has a motive; when you know the source, you are half way to knowing the motive.

with Sonicninja's statement:

No source has been provided
No theoretical evidence has been provided
No practical evidence has been provided
No secondary sources have been provided
No real context has been provided
However obvious you think it is;
We have no way of knowing if the statement is true with out either:


Finding a trustworthy primary source for the statement
Developing our own helicopter/sub theories
Conducting practical tests
Finding independent, trusted secondary sources

[bigboywooly]

:o :o

[Biggles]

Wow....:o



He's got a point you know....even if some could argue that you take this a bit too serious....but I agree.....the word obvious should be used with care.

[Letum]

Wow....:o



He's got a point you know....even if some could argue that you take this a bit too serious....but I agree.....the word obvious should be used with care.

hehe, Nah!

I've just lost it, that all!;)

[Biggles]

Wow....:o



He's got a point you know....even if some could argue that you take this a bit too serious....but I agree.....the word obvious should be used with care.

hehe, Nah!

I've just lost it, that all!;)


Yes we all noticed that.:rotfl: :rotfl:

So did I when I posted that pic....

[Paajtor]

This thread is hilarious. :()1:

[AVGWarhawk]

Judging by Letrum's logical deduction on what he can consider "fact" and the outward abuse of the word "obvious" by Steve we ALL can determine on thing:

We have lost our minds!!! But that is not so "obvious" and certainly not a "fact" until we have professionally licensed doctors examine our inner workings, but we can not, without a shadow of a doubt, rely on this doctors findings in the matter. The reasoning as this doctor might have lost his mind as well, thus producing another doctor to analyse the first doctor and this doctors finding backed up with positive proof that somehow we are all sane to some degree to logically understand that submarines do not infact fly with exception of some deranged individual who drempt up the Yellow Submarine that apparently flys in the dark recesses of his mind. This brings in the doctor again who must acertain the stability of this individual who might argue the fact that submarines do fly and that there just might be more helicopters in the sea and even more submarines in the air. Color of said submarine is not a factor in this decision to come to a "factual" understanding of the question posed on submarines and helicopters, nor does it help with the relationship if one exists at all. COME ON GUYS IT IS SO OBVIOUS. LISTEN TO THE FACTS:know:

[GSpector]

Yeah, what he said and Red Bull gives you wings.:lol:

I vote for Dr. Sigmund Freud to look into this topic. I'm sure he'd find the logic in flying Subs (which I can only guess would be full of Seamen):oops: and Helo's where they don't belong.

Of course, if you show him the Yellow Submarine (which is full of Beatles), all bets are off.


Funny side note: According to my Father, he actually worked on the music for The Yellow Submarine but refused to put his name on it due to the British Taxes involved.:hmm: I never did find out if this was true.

[mookiemookie]

Very well played, Professor Letum, but allow me to present my "differential diagnosis" as it were... :know:

Currently that's all the background we have about his statement. For all we know, who ever wrote the statement Sonicninja saw could be locked away in a asylum for compulsive liars.
According to Regier et al., 1993; Kessler et al., 1996, 6% of the U.S. adult population use specialty mental health facilities (U.S. used for simplicity's sake, as a representative subset of the world community as a whole due to the relatively informal nature of an internet message board). That being said, 94% of the population can be assumed to NOT be locked away in an asylum for compulsive liars. We can therefore assume that there's a 94% chance that sonicininja does NOT reside in an asylum for compulsive liars. Thus his judgement on the matter of determining the veracity of statements falls within a 94% confidence interval for statistical regression, which is perfectly acceptable for an informal analysis as the Subsim forums.


"Obvious" is a dangerous word that has killed millions. Hitler thought that it was "obvious" that the Jews where evil. Many Germans thought it was "obvious" that they should follow Hitler. Yet the word "obvious" has the meaning of "self-evident, apparent, readily observed, and numerous other synomyms. They all refer in one way or another to a "surface" or "facade"...something in need of no further investigation or explanation" Which as we established, with a 94% confidence interval, is indeed true in the case of sonicninja's observations.


Now I know you are no Nazi Steve, but taking thinks as being "obvious" and not to question weather they are true and moral is a very dangerous way of thinking (or NOT thinking!)

A classic strawman argument (according to the rules of logical fallacies), as there exists no synonymous relationship between the concepts of "obvious" and "true and moral."


Granted that, strictly speaking, no fact is 100% verifiable as pointed out by Descartes et al, but this does not mean that we should accept or act upon things with out investigating them until we reach a point where we have reasonable assurance of their truth (or otherwise!).
A "reasonable assurance of truth" depends solely upon "reasonable verification," and therein lies the problem: the subjectiveness of "reasonability" differs from person to person. In issues of tort and criminal law standards, a "reasonable person" (i.e. a person who would be in a position to make a reasonable judgement of the truth of a statement) is defined as "a fictional person with an ordinary degree of reason, prudence, care, foresight, or intelligence whose conduct, conclusion, or expectation in relation to a particular circumstance or fact is used as an objective standard by which to measure or determine something." Certainly, with a 94% confidence interval backing us up, sonicninja can be described as a "reasonable person" and thus capable of making a "reasonable assurance of truth."



(phew....I was going to consider rebutting your argument further, but then I realized I had better things to do than researching forensics arguments solely for the purpose of a joke! :rotfl:)

[soma]

IIRC, The Soviets had plans for a flying submarine in WWII. Cant find any sources/websites as Im at school. Maybe someone else has? And also, Im SURE somebody did an all yellow skin for SHIII. If not, would somebody make me one?

[Cap.Palla]

lol guys,you're all mad :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Anyway,the space ship of Cpt.Harlok was a submarine .... i think it was a VIIC :rotfl:

[Iron Budokan]

I think it's obvious this thread has gone off the rails in a serious way.:lol:

[johnno74]

Completely off the current topic... but back to the original topic, whatever that was...

I was once told that its a complete myth that helecopters fly.

In actual fact they are simply so ugly the earth repels them.

:up:

[GSpector]

Odd, I was always told Helicopter just beat the air into submission:hmm:

[soma]

Reminds me of what a wise man once said; there's no such thing as gravity. the earth sucks!

[Rhodes]

lol guys,you're all mad :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Anyway,the space ship of Cpt.Harlok was a submarine .... i think it was a VIIC :rotfl:

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: Since when????? Never saw a submarine that have a skull and to bones in front, and aft section of a galleon....And if you consider the giant blade on the bow...

If I saw the Yellow Submarine on patrol, I surrender immediately...eehehhe

[RawRecruit]

The statement that sonicninja quoted doesn't define accurately enough 'in the air'. There's no mention of flying at all. I would consider that 'in the' could mean at least partially surrounded by something, so a surfaced submarine could thus be described as both 'in the sea' and 'in the air'. Therefore I can prove that there are, in fact, more submarines in the air than helicopters in the sea...!

[Biggles]

I can only say that I for one know that helicopters can fly. I flew in one over the Grand Canyon:D

[AVGWarhawk]

The statement that sonicninja quoted doesn't define accurately enough 'in the air'. There's no mention of flying at all. I would consider that 'in the' could mean at least partially surrounded by something, so a surfaced submarine could thus be described as both 'in the sea' and 'in the air'. Therefore I can prove that there are, in fact, more submarines in the air than helicopters in the sea...!


"After all, what is 'is'?" .....Bill Clinton :doh:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

On the topic of random;


CORNISH PASTIES.



:up:

[AVGWarhawk]

On the topic of random;


CORNISH PASTIES.



:up:

Is that pastries or pasties? If it is pasties do you have a picture of cornish pasties?

[bigboywooly]

Ah Cornish Patsie
Shes hot stuff

:rotfl:

[mookiemookie]

I can only say that I for one know that helicopters can fly. I flew in one over the Grand Canyon:D

Hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample or secundum quid, is the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence. Just because you were in a helicopter that flew, doesn't mean all helicopters can fly.

:sunny:

[RawRecruit]

Aristotle once mistakenly wrote that a fly has eight legs and for centuries everyone believed this to be true. Noone bothered to check the accuracy of the statement. I have never flown in a helicopter and so shouldn't take anyone's word that they do fly!

[Sailor Steve]

I can only say that I for one know that helicopters can fly. I flew in one over the Grand Canyon:D

Hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample or secundum quid, is the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence. Just because you were in a helicopter that flew, doesn't mean all helicopters can fly.

:sunny:
And how do you know you flew in one? Could have been drugs.

[mookiemookie]

:rotfl: I think this thread has turned into the "Subsim.com Debate Team Tryouts"

[AVGWarhawk]

Ah Cornish Patsie
Shes hot stuff

:rotfl:


Pictures???????

[Sailor Steve]

OH! And now you've made me dredge up my "flying submarine" story again. I haven't told this one since the old boards.

When my destroyer got back from six months in Vietnamese waters my girlfriend came to greet me, brought by a girlfriend of hers. There was much hugging and kissing, just like in the movies, and then I gave them a quick tour of the ship. At one point the friend asked me what the big box was in the middle of the ship. I told her "Asroc".

"What's 'Asroc'", she asked.

"Anti-submarine Rocket".

"What's that"?

I was about to tell here the truth when I remembered a story I had read as a kid, involving green paint and anti-aircraft guns, so I improvised on the spot.

"Well, destroyers have what we call the 'Green Paint Division'. We carry ten thousand gallons of green paint on board, with a specially-trained crew. If we have a submarine on our sonar, but can't find him for sure, we drop one thousand gallons of green paint in the water and then slowly sail away, reducing speed as we go. When we're about a mile away we stop altogether. Normally the submarine thinks we've left and comes up for a look around. With any luck when he puts his periscope up it gets covered with green paint, and he thinks he's made a mistake and he's still under water, so he keeps coming up. We wait until he's about a thousand feet up, and then we shoot him down with the anti-submarine rocket."

The best part was that my girlfriend saw right through it and was biting her lips trying not to laugh, because her friend looked at me wide-eyed and said "REALLY?"

[Biggles]

I can only say that I for one know that helicopters can fly. I flew in one over the Grand Canyon:D

Hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample or secundum quid, is the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence. Just because you were in a helicopter that flew, doesn't mean all helicopters can fly.

:sunny:
And how do you know you flew in one? Could have been drugs.


And how do YOU know that I didn't make that up? I didn't, but how do you know that.....?:smug:

[Sailor Steve]

If I knew anything I'd be rich. Since I'm broke I think it becomes ovbious I don't know anything.

If it's ovbious I don't know anything, don't you think it's a little rude to ask what I know or don't know?

[Biggles]

If I knew anything I'd be rich. Since I'm broke I think it becomes ovbious I don't know anything.

If it's ovbious I don't know anything, don't you think it's a little rude to ask what I know or don't know?


If it was obvious that you didn't know anything then I'd apologize to you. Since it's not obvious (or is it, lol, I'm confused) that you don't know anything, then I can't really say it's rude.