Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 393 (755170)
04-05-2015 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by frako
04-05-2015 1:34 PM


Yea but it is possible that people are wired to tell stories in a similar way. You may have just found the pattern we use to tell stories.
It's not like the episodes were not selected and edited to meet the production parameters for the show. IIRC there is a list of do's and don'ts for writers ...
And when you have several options to make a pattern work (female OR drive core?) it looks more like making a pattern and then selecting the elements to "observe" in order to make the pattern work.
Typical creationist\idologist arguments from incredulity.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by frako, posted 04-05-2015 1:34 PM frako has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 47 of 393 (755171)
04-05-2015 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 12:58 PM


Even if a few writers had decided to consciously write all episodes in a similar way, this series heavily relied on fan scripts, who were certainly not informed about any secret guideline
But that is not how TV screen plays are created. Yes, fan scripts could very well be submitted and even used, but only after having been rewritten by the writing staff. If you doubt that, try sitting through an interview with Harlan Ellison some time. He wrote and received credit for the script for the award-winning episode (also voted best episode of the original series), The City on the Edge of Forever (1967). He goes on and on about how his beloved baby had been evisserated and stitched back together like some kind of hideous monster that he could not even begin to recognize. The staff writers had reworked it and rewritten it. Though according to the article, Ellison apparently finally found some degree of satisfaction in the outcome of a 2009 lawsuit he filed.
Nor was that an isolated incident. The producers of the original series were constantly struggling to meet deadlines. One problem was how time-consuming the special effects were -- believe it or not, they were pushing the state-of-the-art at that time; Star Wars with its new special effects tech was a full decade in the future. The other problem was that Roddenberry was having to rewrite virtually every script.
Nor would there be any TV series where this wouldn't be expected to happen. Every script would have to be edited by a writing staff or a "show runner" (as I've seen that job mentioned in Doctor Who), such that a particular style in the ordering of scenes would become apparent. Similarly, any book that is published has an editor who will critique the authors' submissions and suggest -- nay, impose -- stylistic changes. And if that editor works on several different books, then that editor's editorial style should be apparent in all those books.
But what do the show runner and the book editor base their particular style on? Among other factors, they would base it on the predominant style of that genre. There are particular ways in which stories and information are presented and which create the style of a genre. In the old 50's monster movies and sci-fi films (of which I watched many on TV as a kid), they all followed the same basic style: trace evidence of the monster is hinted at, followed by more tangible evidence (eg, footsteps, dead bodies), followed by a shadow or the like moving in the dark, then a poorly seen clawed hand, etc, etc, until finally at the end of the movie you get to see the entire "man in a rubber suit" monster. You can find similar stylistic patterns in other genre, like westerns, film noir, war movies, etc, such that whenever a parody of a genre is produced they're able to recreate that genre's style perfectly and the audience is able to recognize every single element of that style. What are the odds?
But there should still be outliers, episodes and films that break out of the pattern, such as a Star Trek:Voyager episode which concentrated on low-ranking crew members and only showed any of the main characters incidentally. That was also done in a TNG episode whose name I cannot recall and in which a Bajoran junior officer ended up volunteering for a secret mission in which she was killed. Did you include that one in your analysis? Similarly, you mentioned the style of a character appearing on the screen before speaking his first line. That would be normal procedural style for TV, kind of like always opening a door before going through it, which would only be violated for the purpose of special dramatic effect, such as somebody's identity being revealed.
Handling outliers is important so as to avoid cherry-picking. One benefit of observing creationists is learning to appreciate the personalities of some professions, especially of engineers (who form the majority of "scientists" who are creationists). Engineers are pragmatic empiricists who hate theory and so look down on scientists who are trying to figure out how things work. My math department's newsletter used to carry engineer jokes. In one upper-division computer science class instructed by a mathematician, to illustrate inductive reasoning he told an engineer joke in which the engineer proved by induction that all odd numbers are prime (spoiler alert: they're obviously not). Here is how his proof ran: Start with 1, which is odd and a prime, then test each successive odd number for being prime. He got to 13 (odd and prime) at which point he took the inductive step that all the rest of the odd numbers would also be prime. QED. OK, yes, there was one exception, 9, but we would expect to have one data point being off in a statistical sampling this size, so he could safely throw that one out.
Here's an idea. Set up a table at Star Trek conventions and you might be able to sell a couple copies of your paper. Or at least give it away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 12:58 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 48 of 393 (755174)
04-05-2015 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
04-05-2015 2:55 PM


You have no prediction, no test, no science.
I already presented this points. From Message 14: "The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source.".
I predicted that the quantised appearances are arranged in a single pattern, not randomly. A testable pattern was created from season 1, 3 and 4. This hypothesis would predict that other season would be virtually identical to the first, a prediction that would be invalidated by observing an other arrangement of appearances. For season 5 and 6 with the actual starting times (00:00) the pattern did fit for 45 episodes and didn't fit for 2 episodes (Appendices A). The arrangements of season 1, 3, 4 and season 5, 6 were virtually identical. How the fit was tested is explained in Message 28.
dwise1 writes:
But that is not how TV screen plays are created. Yes, fan scripts could very well be submitted and even used, but only after having been rewritten by the writing staff. If you doubt that, try sitting through an interview with Harlan Ellison some time. He wrote and received credit for the script for the award-winning episode (also voted best episode of the original series), The City on the Edge of Forever (1967). He goes on and on about how his beloved baby had been evisserated and stitched back together like some kind of hideous monster that he could not even begin to recognize. The staff writers had reworked it and rewritten it. Though according to the article, Ellison apparently finally found some degree of satisfaction in the outcome of a 2009 lawsuit he filed.
There were 3 other series (England, Japan, India) with the same pattern that were examined, created from 1980 to 2015. Writers wouldn't try to create all of them in a similar way.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2015 2:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 04-05-2015 3:54 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2015 5:05 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 52 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2015 6:26 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 49 of 393 (755175)
04-05-2015 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 3:48 PM


As a test, I'm going to define criteria based on the characteristics of oranges.
Once I get those, I'm going to test a whole bunch of fruit.
My hypothesis is that I will be able to match oranges to a high degree of accuracy.
Hmmm. Seems to work every time!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 3:48 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 393 (755176)
04-05-2015 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 3:48 PM


failure avoidance doesn't make failure go away.
I already presented this points. From Message 14: "The pattern was created to fit with season 1, 3 and 4 at the actual start of the episode (00:00). Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 and a random data source.".
Curiously I notice that you ignored the majority of my post ... including the parts that show your probability calculation to be irrelevant to science (and hence the reason your "paper" is not up to the standard needed for peer review in a scientific journal)
You have failed to eliminate possible causes for your pet probability, and the fact that it is thousands of orders of magnitude more probable than the observed tree ring pattern -- which IS natural -- shows that your incredulity at the size of improbability is misplaced: that something is improbable does not mean it HAD to be designed.
And you still have not replied to the inappropriate extrapolation of star trek to the origin of life in Message 26:
quote:
It appears that you make the common (creationist) mistake of thinking that ALL the elements of a protocell need to be present in order for the protocell to form in one fell swoop. This has been demonstrated to be a false assumption.
Thus your argument of 12 tedious pages reduces down to a spurious calculation of an improbability akin to the assembly of an airplane in a junkyard by a tornado.
In other words you created an intricate overly complex mathematical structure, and then argue that it applies to a straw man argument in order to show Intelligent Design.
It matters less than the amount of ant frass in Antarctica what your calculations and pattern observations show, when your irrelevant extrapolation to the formation of life is patently just wishful thinking.
You have provided no basis for thinking there was a correlation from one to the other ... other that personal incredulity ...
Science proceeds by demonstrating cause and effect, by extrapolating an explanation from data and then making a testable prediction ... and testing it.
You
Have
Not
Done
That
You have shown no link between origin of life and star trek tv episodes.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 3:48 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 5:56 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 51 of 393 (755178)
04-05-2015 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
04-05-2015 5:05 PM


Re: failure avoidance doesn't make failure go away.
You have failed to eliminate possible causes for your pet probability, and the fact that it is thousands of orders of magnitude more probable than the observed tree ring pattern -- which IS natural -- shows that your incredulity at the size of improbability is misplaced: that something is improbable does not mean it HAD to be designed.
The improbability is not a prove of design, it's a prove of existence. For the Higgs boson the level of certainty was only 4.9 sigma and it was accepted as discovery: Higgs boson: scientists 99.999% sure 'God Particle' has been found . A certainty of 1:10^5136 is a high level of certainty, but 1:10^7 is also a good level of certainty and not irrelevant to science. Would you also name the causes I have failed to eliminate in your opinion?
It appears that you make the common (creationist) mistake of thinking that ALL the elements of a protocell need to be present in order for the protocell to form in one fell swoop. This has been demonstrated to be a false assumption.
I referred to [3]. "The question of how simple organic molecules formed a protocell is largely unanswered." is a quotation: Page not found - Boundless. An other quotation: "Several problems exist with current abiogenesis models, including a primordial earth with conditions not inductive to abiogenesis, the lack of a method for simple organic molecules to polymerize, and the mono-chirality of molecules seen in life.". A bias or an agent in chance itself would make abiogenesis models more credible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2015 5:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2015 6:40 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2015 2:54 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 52 of 393 (755180)
04-05-2015 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 3:48 PM


There were 3 other series (England, Japan, India) with the same pattern that were examined, created from 1980 to 2015. Writers wouldn't try to create all of them in a similar way.
We're not saying that the writers would try to create their shows in a similar way, but rather that they would create their screenplays in the manner in which they had been trained to. Different people with the same training tend to approach similar situations in the same manner. When you observe dancers out on the dance floor (I mean partner dancing, not free-style "shake whatever you have"), you can usually see who their teachers were, or at least see that a number of the dancers had the same teacher. They certainly are not trying to dance like each other, but rather are dancing in the manner they had been trained to.
Where did the writers get their training from? From school, including film school and other creative writing courses. And from actual experience, which involves being able to sell their scripts and having to work with editors. So where did the editors get their training from? From the same sources, since most screenplay editors should have previously worked as writers themselves (and still do).
Are you starting to see the pattern yet? So if they're from different schools, then why should their training be virtually the same? For one thing, their teachers and their teachers' teachers and their teachers' teachers' teachers descend back to a small number of schools of thought on writing scripts and screenplays.
Certainly, the centuries of playwrights played a role, but that had to be adapted to a new medium, film, and then episodic TV. Out of stage arose a small set of formats and overall structure for plays, formats and structures that were then adapted to film and ultimately to TV. True, individual cultures produced different theatrical traditions and techniques, but then the cultures started learning and borrow from each other, even though the true effect was small ... for a time.
One thing that should be noted is that those theatrical traditions were not arbitrarily and deliberately created, but rather they developed in a manner analogous to evolution. What is the single best explanation for why a particular theatrical format and structure would prevail in a given culture? Because it is successful, because it works! The formats and structures that the audience is able to follow and understand and that evokes the desired emotions are the ones that playwrights are going to use over and over again, and that new playwrights will know to use themselves. A playwright could invent an entirely new and innovative format and structure, but if it doesn't work then it will not survive and it will not be used again (though it could inspire a later more successful format). Survival of the most popular.
Then with the advent of film, we see another analogy to evolution in which a new form develops in one locale and then radiates out to other locales. The original adaptation of stage structures to film happened in a small number of countries starting in France with the Lumire brothers. Then film production spread to other countries, each one trying to adapt it to their own culture, but still based primarily on the work of the first pioneers. Plus they would watch each other's films drawing ideas from each other. And again which new ideas and formats and structures were kept was based on whether they worked! Survival of the most popular.
Suggestion: Watch The Story of Film: An Odyssey. It's on NetFlix in the USA.
Then came TV, which based itself on what had developed in film. Again, it first developed in the few countries with the technology, which were mainly Western European (including Nazi Germany) and the USA, then was exported around the world along with commercial TV which developed after the war. Thus, every country with commercial TV learned from and borrowed from those few countries that had laid the groundwork. And they continue to watch each other to borrow from each other. Again testing and keeping that which works and discarding that which does not.
Survival of the most popular, especially considering that they are always watching the ratings by which they live or die. You can try to be innovative in commercial TV, but you still do not dare risk losing any of your audience. If you try something that confuses your audience, then you can lose that audience. So you continue to use the tried-and-true formats and techniques. And the show runners will have learned to sense what will appeal to the audience and what won't. They're not trying to fit their show to a set pattern, but rather they know what works and that is what they're fitting their shows to.
On top of all that, there's the simple need to crank out script after script after script. As a result, shows become formulaic, creating a basic pattern for presenting the scenes and characters and reusing it in order to save time. I encountered the same thing when I was Admin Officer and then later XO and CO. We had reports to produce in short amounts of time, so we created a format that we would use over and over again, updating it with that reporting cycle's information. There was simply no time available to create an entirely new format for each report. Plus, sticking to the same format made it easier for our command to interpret our reports -- again with not wanting to confuse or lose your audience.
Writers get paid for writing and they get paid the same amount regardless of how long it takes them to write. So as a writer you want to be able to do a lot of writing in a very short amount of time. In the Golden Age of Science Fiction (1930's to late 1940's), most writers of fiction were writing for the pulp magazines (eg, Amazing Stories), for which they were paid by the word -- popular Western author, Zane Grey, used to have his characters fire every single bullet in their guns, because he got paid for every single bullet. Comic book writers were paid by the page, so they would throw in a lot of big explosions to get paid more.
TV writers (and film screenwriters as well) do something similar. One technique is to have a basic format for an entire episode (or movie) into which he simply inserts different characters and locales and a different MacGuffin (the precious item or person which is the motivation for the action) and, voil!, he has an entirely new script in a matter of days. Of course, the basic format that he used had to be one that he could sell, which is determined by the show runner and editors, so it's also going to be very similar in structure to what the other writers are cranking out. Not a coincidence, not footprints in the sand being left by the Hand of God. Rather, survival of the most popular.
The second TV writer's trick is to take a script that he had sold to a show and sell it to another show by just changing the names to the other show's characters. One late night, my ex-wife had been watching old reruns on TV. There was an episode of Charlie's Angels followed by one of The Mod Squad. They were the exact same script, except for a few cosmetic changes.
So then, who is more powerful? An editor or God? In the beginning of one of his novels, Edgar Rice Burroughs recounted the remarkable circumstances by which he received a personal account of the hero of the story, thus attesting that the story he was about to tell was true and not fiction (a frequent fiction of Burroughs' stories). Burroughs concluded the introduction by saying that he had submitted for publication every single word as it was given to him. However, before it could come to his readers it must first pass through the hands of an editor and everybody knows that an editor would even change the Word of God Himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 3:48 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 393 (755181)
04-05-2015 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 5:56 PM


Re: failure avoidance doesn't make failure go away.
... For the Higgs boson the level of certainty was only 4.9 sigma and it was accepted as discovery: 404. ...
The difference is that this was validation of a prediction of what should be observed if the Higgs boson existed.
... A certainty of 1:10^5136 is a high level of certainty, but 1:10^7 is also a good level of certainty and not irrelevant to science. ...
And the first is due to purely natural causes, the second is due to human interactions.
... Would you also name the causes I have failed to eliminate in your opinion?
That tv episodes are necessarily non-random by-products of humans developing the episodes within certain fixed parameters.
I referred to [3]. "The question of how simple organic molecules formed a protocell is largely unanswered." is a quotation: Page not found - Boundless. An other quotation: "Several problems exist with current abiogenesis models, including a primordial earth with conditions not inductive to abiogenesis, the lack of a method for simple organic molecules to polymerize, and the mono-chirality of molecules seen in life." ...
And you still fail to make any kind of rational reason to claim that patterns in a tv show mean that ID is involved in the origin of life.
(See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for a different take.)
... A bias or an agent in chance itself would make abiogenesis models more credible.
Nope. What makes them credible (or not) is whether or not they work.
There are natural biases in the way chemicals form and interact, and once you have self-replicating molecules you have the beginning of evolution, which means selection causing an additional bias.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 5:56 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 54 of 393 (755184)
04-05-2015 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Admin
04-05-2015 9:29 AM


Re: Present the Argument here
Have you changed it in the last few years? IIRC it was all whitespace. But, whatever, if by "vertical whitespace" you mean newlines, Notepad++ makes it pretty easy. But anything that handles a decent regex will do it. Maybe even in Dreamweaver; I haven't tried that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Admin, posted 04-05-2015 9:29 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Admin, posted 04-05-2015 8:37 PM JonF has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 55 of 393 (755185)
04-05-2015 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by JonF
04-05-2015 8:01 PM


Re: Present the Argument here
JonF writes:
Have you changed it in the last few years? IIRC it was all whitespace.
I'm not sure if you're asking about changes to the way I handle [table] or <table>, but I can't think of any changes to either one.
The impetus for [table] was to eliminate the need for removing vertical white space, making tables easier for everyone, and especially for those who usually just type directly into the message box, or who might use simple editors like Notepad or Wordpad.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by JonF, posted 04-05-2015 8:01 PM JonF has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 393 (755186)
04-06-2015 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 9:34 AM


Re: Present the Argument here
Okay, I think I get it. You've outlines Star Trek episodes with notations, and tested them for a pattern and found one that couldn't have come about by chance. Is that right?
How have you eliminated that you have just found a naturally ocurring unintelligent pattern that did not come about by chance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 9:34 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 393 (755187)
04-06-2015 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dubreuil
04-05-2015 5:56 PM


Re: failure avoidance doesn't make failure go away.
The improbability is not a prove of design, it's a prove of existence.
I think we would all be prepared to consider the existence of an agency other than chance that produces Star Trek scripts. Have you considered the possibility that it might be the scriptwriters?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dubreuil, posted 04-05-2015 5:56 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 58 of 393 (755189)
04-06-2015 5:26 AM


dwise writes:
We're not saying that the writers would try to create their shows in a similar way, but rather that they would create their screenplays in the manner in which they had been trained to.
The arrangement of the quantised appearances is to unimportant to affect the survival of the most popular script. An example from Appendix B 1x21:
Quantisation that doesn't fit:
*P.Al, *P.Pi, M14, P.Al-, P.Al+
E1: *P.Al, *P.Pi, M14??
E3: *P.Al, *P.Pi /E9: M14 /E12: P.Al-, P.Al+??
E4: *P.Al /E5: *P.Pi, M14, P.Al-??
E5: *P.Al??
M14: smoke, gas
First P.Al appears visually, then P.Pi starts to speak offscreen, then M14 appears visually, then P.Al is affected negatively and then positively offscreen.
Quantisations that would fit:
*P.Pi, *P.Al, M14, P.Al-, P.Al+
E5: *P.Pi /E6: *P.Al /E7: M14 /E8: P.Al- /E9: P.Al+
M14, *P.Al, *P.Pi, P.Al-, P.Al+
E5: M14 /E6: *P.Al /E7: *P.Pi /E8: P.Al- /E9: P.Al+
In the first quantisation that would fit, *P.Pi and *P.Al were interchanged. In the second quantisation that would fit, M14 appeared first. Both changes doesn't change the plot. The first five seconds determine whether the pattern fit or not. Such changes are unimportant for the survival of the most popular script.
In this case an offscreen voice also add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearance. You have to assume that the writers defined the talking speed of the offscreen voice to make an intentional origin credible. A faster or slower talking speed results in an other arrangement of appearances that can change whether the appearances fit or not.
The high matching rate of one to ten million also contradicts the theory that the pattern could be a result of a creative process by writers.
RAZD writes:
That tv episodes are necessarily non-random by-products of humans developing the episodes within certain fixed parameters.
Car traffic is regulated through traffic lights. You hold before a red traffic light and drive if it turns green. The car traffic is defined to be non-random about this rules. But humans don't always observe the rules. There are emergency ambulances and traffic offenders. Therefore this rules are only non-random with a residual uncertainty of maybe 1:10^4. Statistically important is not whether something is non-random, it is important how certain this non-randomness is. The lower the residual uncertainty, the higher the certainty about the non-randomness. 5 sigma was defined to be certain enough for a discovery.
It was mentioned that the probability for the pattern was only obscurely determined. I have now extended Message 14. It contains now the absent equations and an explanation how the probability mass function is generally used.
Cat Sci writes:
Okay, I think I get it. You've outlines Star Trek episodes with notations, and tested them for a pattern and found one that couldn't have come about by chance. Is that right?
Yes, mostly.
Cat Sci writes:
How have you eliminated that you have just found a naturally ocurring unintelligent pattern that did not come about by chance?
From Message 31: "The probability, that the pattern is a result of chance was calculated to 1.063*10^-7. Therefore the chance that the pattern occurred naturally is only one to ten million."
Dr Adequate writes:
I think we would all be prepared to consider the existence of an agency other than chance that produces Star Trek scripts. Have you considered the possibility that it might be the scriptwriters?
The quantisations rarely comprised more than the first two minutes. They are often different and unique: 5 persons appear at the same moment (3x09), an offscreen voice add appearances and affected person to the usual onscreen appearance (1x01, 1x05), three different persons appear repeatedly at the same moment (1x07), and so on. The writers tended to create diverse scripts that are not equal to each other.
Also it wouldn't explain the patterns within the pattern. The reference about the trinity or E11 and E13 are virtually identical and E12 is triggered by a temporary interruption. It would take more time to create and incorporate a pattern that contains patterns by its own, than to create a plot.
RAZD writes:
And you still fail to make any kind of rational reason to claim that patterns in a tv show mean that ID is involved in the origin of life.
The papers topic is about testing ID at the present time, not in the past. It was not the main topic to show that ID is involved in the origin of life in this paper.

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2015 8:10 AM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2015 9:36 AM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 9:14 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 59 of 393 (755191)
04-06-2015 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:26 AM


Dubreull writes:
The papers topic is about testing ID at the present time.
Yes, it sure is. Lets devise experiments where it can be shown that modern living organisms can get poofed into existence by non-natural Forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:26 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 60 of 393 (755194)
04-06-2015 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dubreuil
04-06-2015 5:26 AM


Cat Sci writes:
Okay, I think I get it. You've outlines Star Trek episodes with notations, and tested them for a pattern and found one that couldn't have come about by chance. Is that right?
Yes, mostly.
Cat Sci writes:
How have you eliminated that you have just found a naturally ocurring unintelligent pattern that did not come about by chance?
From Message 31: "The probability, that the pattern is a result of chance was calculated to 1.063*10^-7. Therefore the chance that the pattern occurred naturally is only one to ten million."
Oh, well that's a problem. That's a non sequitur. Just because something is not a result of chance does not mean that it did not occur naturally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 5:26 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dubreuil, posted 04-06-2015 10:09 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024