Talk:Stopped clock
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, and for once I'm inclined to believe Withnail is right.
- Where is the quote from?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 09:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- Withnail & I, presumably. --Kels 09:59, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- Yes it is. Sorry, I was feeling silly. Totnesmartin 15:46, 25 November 2007 (EST)
- Withnail & I, presumably. --Kels 09:59, 25 November 2007 (EST)
Not only does the clock tell the right time twice a day, it even clearly tells you when those two points are! — Unsigned, by: 69.156.8.55 / talk / contribs 19:22, 24 January 2009
- No, it doesn't, that's the point of the joke... ħuman
21:39, 24 January 2009 (EST)
Of course, if the clock is running really fast, the clock will be right far more often. This also applies if the clock is so slow as to be stopped running in reverse.Imarcuson (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Strikethrough and end of sentence added at this time: Imarcuson (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- My clock is right twice every nanosecond. Trouble is, of course, when? A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually a stopped clock can tell the right time up to 40 times a day - just not necessarily for the current timezone! 58.175.113.40 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I was never a big fan of this analogy mainly because, without something a frame of reference, there is no way of knowing when the stopped clock is right or not, so you'd need another clock and if you have another clock, why bother with the stopped one? Plus, if you cannot tell when the stopped clock is right then it is worse than a clock displaying the wrong time which, so long as the timing mechanisms work, can at least inform you of the passage of time. Plus, plus, the concept of the 'right time' is subject to uncertainty. A stopped clock with a second hand is right twice a day to an uncertainty of one second, but technically is it only right for one planck time, a measurement so small as to be pointless.
Contents |
[edit] In which Abd needs to get a life
- Above header added by Rennie McGreet, altering the original header below.[1] --Abd (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- aww, isn't abd cute! bless his pedantic little braincell. Rennie McGreet (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Get a life
Analog clock displays are still so common that it's unlikely anyone needs this explanation. As to addressing it literally, it's pedantic and useless. Most clocks are *never* right, unless they are accurately set and we allow roundoff error.
The analogy is used colloquially whenever one wishes to admit that someone is correct about something, while not implying more than that. I've seen it used on RW, however, to justify unconsidered reversion of edits, on the basis that occasional correct edits are so rare that they are only a result of the "stopped clock" syndrome. Of course, if one never actually looks at the edits, but only at the supposed or assumed "crank" status of the editor, it's pure ad-hominem argument and circular.
The core of "stopped clock" as an editorial accusation is that the work of an editor is so ignorant or so totally motivated by bias that correctness is purely coincidental. If that's actually true of an editor, the editor should be fully promoted, one might think.
However, this is the flaw in that thinking: suppose an editor actually is a random edit generator. Life is the result of a random edit generator. Take a lesson from life: filter the random edits for value. Eliminating them would eliminate the possibility of growth and change. What turns random edits into evolution is the filtering. Turning off the filtering, the examination for value, is pseudoskeptical. --Abd (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- So, that's "I'm butthurt over something" in 4 paragraphs. A new record in brevity.
postate 15:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you filter a message for what you expect, of course it's too long. You just lost 90% of the content. Typical RW snarkbot, referring everything to the anus. I'm surprised when I see anything else here. -Abd (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I bet you're fun at parties. Rennie McGreet (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Depends. Go to any good parties lately, Rennie? I was at one today, nice affair in a park, bright people, people actually up to something, kids, sunshine, BBQ. Do RationalWikians go to such? Or does "party" mean some booze in a basement and sitting around agreeing about how stupid those people are? That seems to be the standard idea of "fun" here. --Abd (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Basement? Did somebody say...basement? Rennie McGreet (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't even have basements where I live. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry to hear that. Bedroom? --Abd (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- ? ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- That looked like an invitation. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Does Tyrannis access the internet from his bedroom? Or from a public library? Some nerds brave the outdoors to go to a library.
- Look, I have no clue about Tyrannis. This is pure waste-of-time banter, with no substance. I.e., standard RW "discussion." What's on the article pages isn't much better. This started with "butt-hurt" from a moderator. It's what I love about RW. Where else? Meanwhile, I have kids to take care of. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I have it on the outside bench but it is too dark and I am sick so I am in my kitchen cooking. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 03:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- That looked like an invitation. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- ? ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry to hear that. Bedroom? --Abd (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Basement? Did somebody say...basement? Rennie McGreet (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Depends. Go to any good parties lately, Rennie? I was at one today, nice affair in a park, bright people, people actually up to something, kids, sunshine, BBQ. Do RationalWikians go to such? Or does "party" mean some booze in a basement and sitting around agreeing about how stupid those people are? That seems to be the standard idea of "fun" here. --Abd (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I bet you're fun at parties. Rennie McGreet (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you filter a message for what you expect, of course it's too long. You just lost 90% of the content. Typical RW snarkbot, referring everything to the anus. I'm surprised when I see anything else here. -Abd (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsense
"A stopped clock is right twice a day."
That is the proverb. Not sure how famous but I am guessing that it did came before this "stopped clock argument." I also find the writing under "Objections to the Analogy" complete rhetoric, as it babbles about the usefulness of a broken clock, not the analogy. — Unsigned, by: 24.141.68.129 / talk / contribs
[edit] A reverse?
Is there a version of this phrase for the opposite effect?; i.e. people who are often right occassionally get things wrong due to probability. If not, somebody should think of one.TheSocktor (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
[edit] William Lane Craig
WLC, a man who says gays should go back in the closet and are disease ridden freaks, who thinks genocide is A.OK providing God does it, considers YEC to be "an embarrassment" Classic stopped-clock example, IMHO.
theist 13:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Probably, but it's not out of left field. A lot of the academic, tweed-jacket set of theologians reject YEC, even if they endorse theistic evolution. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)