TheEEStory.com

I originally labeled my suggested belief scale the "EEStor Belief Scale", but it seems to have acquired the label of the "Lensman Scale", and that's fine by me.

Since some people are using a 0-10 scale to rate their belief in EEStor's claims, while others are using my Lensman Scale, which was from 1-9, this has resulted in some confusion. Therefore it seems best if I revise the scale, in an attempt to put everyone "on the same page", or at least make an attempt to do so-- I know from experience that no matter what, not everyone is going to go along with any suggestion!

0 -- Certain that EEStor's claims are false
1
2
2.5 -- Think that EEStor's claims are likely false
3
4
5 -- Neutral position; 50/50
6
7
7.5 -- Think that EEStor's claims are likely true
8
9
10 -- Certain that EEStor's claims are true

[Edit: The above descriptions were edited for clarification. Originally they read "Certain EEStor's claims..." and "Think EEStor's claims..." Apologies for any confusion!]

Last edited Sun, 03 May 2009, 7:56pm by Lensman

---

I suggest revising so that it isn't possible to hold 0 and 10 simultaneously.

Robert

Well done Lensman. This is a mathematically sound suggestion. If you divide by ten it is recognisable as the conventional measure of probability. Zero = 'it won't ever happen' and 1 = it is certain to happen.

1 to 9 was a very uncomfortable scale.

May I suggest the 'Revised Lensman' scale or RL? For he record I am 0.0001 RL.

---

Robert wrote:

I suggest revising so that it isn't possible to hold 0 and 10 simultaneously.

Robert

Good point, Robert. Unfortunately, cognitive dissonance is beyond the power of my posts to banish. You might try a head-shrinker...
.
But seriously, we were talking in the chat room just now about how the apparent likelihood of the technical and economic issues are largely independent, and one single "belief scale" rating can't capture that dichotomy. Someone else might propose three separate belief scale ratings for:
.
(1) The possibility EEStor has/will develop(ed) a working prototype EESU which functions according to their claims
.
(2) A production line which can reliably produce EESUs
.
(3) The ability to make EESUs cheaply enuff to sell them profitably.
.
However, I think proposing a triple rating would just induce confusion. But if someone *else* wants to propose a system, more power to them!

Last edited Sun, 03 May 2009, 8:03pm by Lensman

---

lensman

thx for this thread.

-B

---

Well Lensman, it is quite possible for certain other claims to be true and certain claims to be false simultaneously, so the dissonance is built into the scale rather than my reaction to it :). It's that I was referring to. Take out certain and you no longer have that built in contradiction.

As for the multiple aspects, since they are serially dependent (i.e. if (1) is 0, the rest are irrelevant etc...) on one another I suggest multiplying them together to get a single number.

Robert

Robert, me thinks you mistake a verb for a noun

---

my bad, a verb for an adjective

---

larry wrote:

my bad, a verb for an adjective

Where?

Robert

certain is verb on lens scale

---

certain as in I am certain this is true = i am sure
OR

certain as in certain of his claims are true = some of

Robert- just sub in "entire set of" after "EEstor's."

Ah, then I suggest a different wording that leaves this less open to confusion.

Robert

Think and Certain are verbs. so says my English teacher wife

---

Robert wrote:

the dissonance is built into the scale rather than my reaction to it :). It's that I was referring to. Take out certain and you no longer have that built in contradiction.

But putting "certainty" into the descriptions was entirely deliberate, because some here *have* expressed certainty; for example Y_Po on the bottom end of the scale, and a very few of the most fanatic "true believers" at the top. I've made the analogy with faith before, in describing EEStor "True Believers" versus EEStor "Athiests". I think it's a valid analogy. Much as you and I may find it disconcerting, Robert, some here *do* approach the question of EEStor's claims with near-religious fervor, which has caused a few to refer to this forum as a "cult". A belief scale which doesn't include these extremes would be incomplete.

Robert wrote:

As for the multiple aspects, since they are serially dependent (i.e. if (1) is 0, the rest are irrelevant etc...)

Or at least, the rest would have to be 0 also. Good point.

Robert wrote:

I suggest multiplying them together to get a single number.

Yes, that would be the mathematically or statistically correct way to do it. But for many or most of us, rating our belief is more of a subjective, emotional reaction than a rational, objective one. *I* certainly don't claim to be entirely objective on the subject.

---

Larry I see your English teacher and raise you a Merriam-Webster ;)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/certain

<a certain percentage of the profit>

Robert

Lensman, Sully pointed out I read in a different definition of certain than you intended.

Also number of post=3, did you wrap around their counter?

Robert

sully wrote:

certain as in I am certain this is true = i am sure
OR

certain as in certain of his claims are true = some of

Ack! I didn't realize I was being ambiguous there. I edited it to read "Certain that EEStor's claims..." and "Think that EEStor's claims..." to clarify.

---

Might I suggest changing to

0 - I am Certain that EEStor's claims are false

That clears up which definition is being used. I don't have an issue with the use of certain in that case. I was just reading it as "a number of".

Robert

That reads better.

That's why we have colleagues for proof-reading :)

Robert

Sorry we were not communicating, Robert! I thought you were making a joke about holding positions 0 and 10 simultaneously.

---

Strangely enough it never occurred to me that certain was related to certainty. The mind can get stuck on its initial perceptions sometimes. That, and English can be prone to ambiguity.

Robert

Lensman wrote:

Robert wrote:

I suggest multiplying them together to get a single number.

Yes, that would be the mathematically or statistically correct way to do it. But for many or most of us, rating our belief is more of a subjective, emotional reaction than a rational, objective one. *I* certainly don't claim to be entirely objective on the subject.

Four scales?

Lenscale Sample (Ls) 0-10
Lenscale Production (Lp) 0-10
Lenscale Cost (Lc) 0-10
Lenscale Overview (Lo=Ls*Lp*Lc) 0-1000

There's no reason the individual ratings (Ls,Lp,Lc) MUST be objective. Multiplying them to get the overview can be instructive though. For instance if you assign a 5 to each rating and find 125/1000 to be low you've just run into a flaw in your intuition of probabilities. Momentarily jarring, perhaps, but instructive. I recommend the exercise to people.

For instance to get an over rating of 900 you need on the order of better than 9.5 on each scale (a 9 on each gets less than 750).

Robert

I'm at 1, and that's assuming a logarithmic scale.

---

Robert wrote:

There's no reason the individual ratings (Ls,Lp,Lc) MUST be objective. Multiplying them to get the overview can be instructive though. For instance if you assign a 5 to each rating and find 125/1000 to be low you've just run into a flaw in your intuition of probabilities. Momentarily jarring, perhaps, but instructive. I recommend the exercise to people.

Well said, Robert. I suspect many won't be happy at the mathematically correct result, which is why I suggested the RLS (Revised Lensman Scale) rating was likely to be subjective for many or most, rather than objective.

---

WalksOnDirt wrote:

I'm at 1, and that's assuming a logarithmic scale.

To what base?

---

Tec wrote:

WalksOnDirt wrote:

I'm at 1, and that's assuming a logarithmic scale.

To what base?

e, naturally.

---

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Tec wrote:

WalksOnDirt wrote:

I'm at 1, and that's assuming a logarithmic scale.

To what base?

e, naturally.

Not entirely convinced then.

---

I'm at 1. A year or so back I was at 7.......

Tec wrote:

Not entirely convinced then.

Well, to have the scale stop at zero and ten it has to be a variable base. Log isn't the right term, but I don't know what is, and I wanted to make clear I didn't consider the scale linear.
.
My best guess at the odds, not that I think anyone cares (nor should they):
.
Roughly meet all promises: 1 in 500,000 (I might have chosen a million, but Terry Pratchett has established that million to one shots come through far too often)
.
Reach energy storage goals, but fail badly on the others: 1 in 1,000
.
Fail on promises, but produce a breakthrough capacitor: 1 in 20

---