|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discontinuing research about ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: There's nothing to see here. I am out. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then you don't have to.
NoNukes writes: Romulans are counted as P.BW instead of P.Wo when the definition of P.BW is "colour black/white, silver, ice, cold, invisible" and the definition of P.Wo includes "hostile aliens" .... The person P.BW appears wherever a 6 is mentioned or the colour black/white or silver appears. Sigh... I assume to keep discussing with you would not a be good idea too. Your comment reveals that you haven't read the paper just as Cat Sci: [Msg=219]. If you don't read the paper, then you can't understand the context. I could post all parts of the paper here, but this would probably comprise about 60 pages. Everyone who became insulting here or stopped discussing didn't read the paper. Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sigh... Oh it just gets worse ... I went back to the "pattern" event descriptions in Message 235 and listed all the options for the elements in each event ... That's 67 E1 options, 34 E2 options, 58 E3 options, 35 E4 options, 44 E5 options, 26 E6 options, 60 E7 options, 59 E8 options, 83 E9 options, 15 E10 options, 24 E11 options, 62 E12 options, 34 E13 options, 84 E14 options and 83 E15 options ... If I do that for all the different events and then run those through all the 24 possible variations of combining events into sequences it becomes rather obvious that the number of variations of elements and their combination into sequences would result in an astronomical number of fits. And I'll bet his "probability calculation" treats them as single entities. Looks like CatsEye was onto something with replacing the elements with their descriptions. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : corrected, added up all the event options for each eventby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
And I'll bet his "probability calculation" treats them as single entities. Hi RAZD - I've been trying to follow this from the perspective of a non-mathematician. Have I got this right - are you saying that Dubreuil is defining as a qualifying event a wide range of possible scenarios (ie you hit the side of the barn somewhere), but then calculates the probability of the specific scenario that does occur (ie the probability that you would hit the specific bullet hole you actually hit) ? In other words, a very convoluted version of the sharpshooter fallacy ?Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
I have a good idea. I will herewith end discussing here, but I will keep discussing in personal conversations. My e-mail is available in an older version of the paper on page 1: http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0980v1.pdf. Everyone who is still interested in it can write me. The reasons for this decision are easy to understand. I never liked the Internet or Religion, both are full of hatred. I gave this discussion a second chance in [Msg=231], but impolite people as Cat Sci are still commenting here. The quality of discussion here is low. I approximated the probability of the pattern in [Msg=190] but no one ever referred to this. Seemingly no one read the paper, even RAZD still becomes surprised about what he reads in the paper. If I limit the discussion to an e-mail discussion, then I can block every insulting person I want. No one is blocking here anything.
I'm really a peaceful human. I don't like offending. I come from an academic environment in Germany, no one offends me there. To limit this discussion to personal discussions will be a good idea to lock out all the insulting persons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Have I got this right - are you saying that Dubreuil is defining as a qualifying event a wide range of possible scenarios (ie you hit the side of the barn somewhere), but then calculates the probability of the specific scenario that does occur (ie the probability that you would hit the specific bullet hole you actually hit) ? In other words, a very convoluted version of the sharpshooter fallacy ? Well he also paints bulls-eyes on the house, the car, the tractor and the cat to make sure he doesn't miss one. And some of those elements are just colors ... something you never see on color tv shows, right? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I have a good idea. I will ... ... declare victory and run away from the comments that raise serious questions about basic honest and rigorous approaches to doing such "studies" ...
... even RAZD still becomes surprised about what he reads in the paper. ... Curiously, I would say I am amazed at the deception you have created -- apparently it fooled you.
... then I can block every insulting person I want. No one is blocking here anything. And that's the difference between having an open discussion on the merits of the paper and having a closed discussion where you only admit those who don't criticize your fantasy document. Calling you paper bogus is not insulting, it is accurate. Frankly I care more about all the ant frass in antarctica than I do about your responses, especially when you cling to clear fallacies than admit to error. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1531 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
I was about to read that mess.
I held off when I saw Omnivorous state it smacked of numerology.I guess when all you have is a hammer every problem begins to look like a nail. Edited by 1.61803, : added {off}"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I held off when I saw Omnivorous state it smacked of numerology. What if a triune God communicated us via Star Trek episodes? Let's do some notating and calculating and see. or What if God talked to us via Bible Codes?Let's do some notating and calculating and see. Is there really any thing hugely different in these two endeavors?Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
I didn't "declare" victory. Why should I want to "win" this? There is nothing to win here. Even if someone would agree here, then it wouldn't help to find a peer-review for it. I don't know why everyone is talking here about bulls. Everywhere I can find bullspit, bullshit or bulleyes. The pattern was created already one year ago in the old version of the paper. Afterwards it was tested for a references about a triune God in the new version of the paper. To claim I travelled back in time to make the old paper fit with the data is nonsense. I don't claim a "win", but no one here read the paper or was really concerned with it. For example it took RAZD until [Msg=228] until he noticed the sentence "At the events 1, 3, 4 and 5 the pattern is allowed to start" on page 6. He stated in [Msg=235]:
RAZD writes: I assume you mean that it would always fit with every data source? The probability was tested to 0.625 to fit with random data and calculated to <0.711 in Message 190. If you are agreeing with this calculation and the test, then you would expect only a 14 out of 23 fit.
Curiously I think your calculations are flawed by not properly accounting for the multiple (32) patterns within your overall pattern, any one of which can be fit by the new season episodes. If he had read [Msg=190], then he would have known that the approximation was calculated for multiple patterns. I don't know why he didn't read the paper. I don't know why he didn't read this messages and never referred to them. I only know no one can estimate a paper without having read the paper or this messages. An other example is Cat Sci. He answered the four questions in [Msg=196] with:
quote: Cat Ski writes: You can put me down for 4 yes's. But then in [Msg=280] he changed his opinion:
Cat Ski writes: and always pointing back to that same old nonsense: "The involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7." The comments here are not elaborated and the questions which are asked show me that the most parts of the paper are still unknown to the most persons here. I don't claim "victory". I merely state that no one here has participated in a worthwhile discussion until now. And nearly everyone is insulting here or loves excrements or bulls. One year ago the paper had only 29 pages. Then it was sent to person with the necessary background during the last year. Now the paper has 58 pages. Unfortunately the most criticism here resulted out of a lack of knowledge about the paper. I could maybe declare myself ready to keep explaining here for further months, but this place is to insulting. I don't want to read offensive comments or comments about excrements anymore. Again, I don't claim victory, this place is just not suited to maintain a non-offensive discussion in which I could explain or post more parts of the paper. I will limit explanations to personal discussions therefore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Dumbreuil writes: I have a good idea. Given what I've seen in this thread, I find that claim highly unlikely.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Is there really any thing hugely different in these two endeavors? At least with one you get to watch some entertaining television.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Please discuss the topic and not each other. Declaring someone wrong is only justified once they've been shown wrong. One doesn't have to explore every cranny of a hall of mirrors to know that that's what it is. Things that make sense and are supported by evidence can be explained and made clear to others. Someone with a sound sense of science would recognize that valid criticisms exist on more levels than just the mathematical: absence of mathematical mistakes is just a prerequisite and by itself demonstrates nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You misunderstood this. All 24 possible variation can be observed, but only 4 can be observed for one row of appearances. There are 4 possible variations for one quantisation. If there are 24 quantisations, then all 24 variations can be possibly observed. This doesn't make any sense to me -- can anyone explain what he means?
For season 3, 4, 5 and 6 there are only appearances and affected persons noted that trigger the next event. *P.Al and *P.Tr were not mentioned therefore. In other words the data presented is incomplete, and only the data that supports the presumed "pattern" is provided, the rest is ignored.
RAZD writes: Does *P.Wo as Lt Worf shooting a *P.Wo as a "hostile alien" count as P.Wo-? If there are more than 13 persons, then a 14th person can appear as an already present person. For example P.Wo. This demonstrates the primary problem with the way the elements are defined with so much ambiguity: you can have P.Wo (Worf) in a battle with P.Wo(Klingons) and one wins (P.Wo+) and the other loses (P.Wo-), then P.Wo(hostile aliens) come to the aid of the losing side (P.Wo+). And again we see that the data in the appendix is not a record of what was observed (Lt Worf, hostile aliens or Klingons) but the category that arbitrarily combines them (P.Wo)
RAZD writes: one that is so flexible that it covers thousands of different sequences of diverse things Yes, and it also doesn't fit with thousands of different sequences of diverse things. For two sequences that fit, there is about one sequence that doesn't fit. Curiously I don't think you realize the problem inherent in having 24 to 84 different items that make up your events causing such an open ended system that matches to your events is almost a foregone conclusion -- and that even when that fails to fit the pattern you adjust the pattern so that events can be skipped ... and you have no list of elements that would invalidate the "pattern" and no record of anything that isn't part of one of your element. Things like the color blue are not recorded in the data (as you haven't tagged that to an element) so we don't know from your record of the data whether blue occurred or not, even though it would be an element that is not part of the sequence and would therefore invalidate it. You have "cherry-picked" what you record as data so that it supports your "pattern" ... this is neither an honest nor a rigorous table of data. When you look at the number of options for each element and compare that to them being recorded from 76 episodes it is easy to see why you always get E9 (83 options), E14 (84 options) and E15 (83 options) because of the way they are packed and stacked.
Message 287: That's 67 E1 options, 34 E2 options, 58 E3 options, 35 E4 options, 44 E5 options, 26 E6 options, 60 E7 options, 59 E8 options, 83 E9 options, 15 E10 options, 24 E11 options, 62 E12 options, 34 E13 options, 84 E14 options and 83 E15 options ... Message 281: ... when I do the same counting of your pattern variations for the first season I find 8 variations observed (16 possibilities not observe). And I have now expanded this analysis for the third season (the second season is skipped) data you provided in appendix A: and now I have added season 4, the third one used to make\create\manufacture the "pattern" Event variation #1 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15)Event variation #2 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #3 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #4 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #5 observed 2 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #6 observed 0 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #7 observed 6 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #8 observed 3 times (E1,E2,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #9 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #10 observed 0 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #11 observed 3 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #12 observed 1 times (,,E3,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #13 observed 0 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #14 observed 2 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #15 observed 23 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #16 observed 5 times (,,E3,,,,,,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #17 observed 0 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #18 observed 1 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #19 observed 12 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #20 observed 2 times (,,,E4,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #21 observed 0 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #22 observed 2 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,E10,,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #23 observed 12 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,E11,E12,E13,E14,E15) Event variation #24 observed 2 times (,,,,E5,E6,E7,E8,E9,,,E12,E13,E14,E15) out of 76 total episodes (episode 1x02 is a continuation of 1x01 and episode 4x01 is a continuation of 3x26) → 10 of the 24 possible cases were not observed → 14 of the 24 possible cases were observed in two seasons of data Note that this is two more cases observed than before (and I predicted there would be an increase ... in order to force a pattern onto the data) ... and that the base pattern (#1) has the most overall options for being found (67!*34!*58!*35!*44!*26!*60!*59!*83!*15!*24!*62!*34!*84!*83! = 1.2610^1030 optional "fit" variations ..), and yet it wasn't found once in the 76 episodes ... this should be your first clue that there is no real pattern. What makes it seem like a pattern is the incorporation of skips between events when an element, el(x) does not fit the current event, E(n) or the next chronological event, E(n+1) ... because the way the data is recorded and the way items are incorporated into elements and the way the elements are grouped in the events is guaranteed to find a following Event, E(q) that "fits", so the only way you get a failure is if that skip has not been built into the 24 variations. The second clue should be that the most common variation found (#15 occurs 23 out of 76 episodes, or 30%) uses one of the shortest variations: only 7 of the 15 events (47%) of the event series . Finally, that only 14 of the possible 24 variations (58%) are actually observed should be your third clue that the "pattern" is an artifact of the construction of the pattern and not an actual pattern in the tv series. Logically , if the variations are necessary, then there should be at least one of every case found in 76 episodes. Put another way, 42% of the "pattern" is unnecessary. GIGO imho.
Message 1: I spent a few years The paper does not test any predictions of, or provide and support to, intelligent design as the paper fails to demonstrate what it claims. The data documented is not usable because it is incomplete, skipping over many items, and it is preprocessed into element groups rather that the raw data; any data that does not fit is not reported. The grouping of optional items into elements, and of optional elements into events, and of optional events into pattern variations, is haphazard and arbitrary, with no rhyme or reason. No rationale is provided for these choices, nor is their opportunity to judge whether they are subjective or objective classifications. If the authors learn anything from this paper, it should be how not to do one. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Unfortunately your comments are still full with mistakes. For example you will find a record of elements that would invalidate the pattern in [Msg=190] for E1. For all the other E's there is a summation. For example: "fit with the pattern: *:12; +/-:6; M's:7" and "doesn't fit with the pattern: *:1; +/-:20: M's:5". Your other comments also reveal that you haven't read the paper completely. It would still take a long time to explain all this to you what you haven't understood by now. But as stated before, this place is too offensive to take part again in an extensive discussion. You also became somehow offensive. GIGO means "garbage in, garbage out". I would not call your comments garbage. I would only show you your mistakes. This paper was revised multiple times during the last year through comments from people who really was concerned with the paper. If there wouldn't have been that much comments about it from April 2014 to March 2015, then it could not have been extended and revised that often. Therefore I'm really sure that the content of the paper is correct. I know all the real weaknesses in the old versions of the paper which were corrected during the last year. The comments here are offensive and rarely well elaborated. I don't blame anyone for this comments. It takes a long time to read the paper completely and to understand it. Without the background it takes even longer. I could maybe declare myself ready to keep explaining here for further months, but this place is too insulting. I will limit explanations to personal discussions therefore. I won't promise I will never post here again. For example if there is one day a journal which accepts a mathematical paper about ID and it is published, then I will post here the journal reference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dubreuil writes: But as stated before, this place is too offensive to take part again in an extensive discussion. You also became somehow offensive. Please discuss the topic and not other people.
GIGO means "garbage in, garbage out". I would not call your comments garbage. I think you're having a language problem. GIGO does stand for "garbage in, garbage out", but that's a common catchphrase that means, "If the data's no good then the even the best math produces wrong answers." It isn't equating you or your comments to garbage.
This paper was revised multiple times during the last year through comments from people who really was concerned with the paper. If there wouldn't have been that much comments about it from April 2014 to March 2015, then it could not have been extended and revised that often. Therefore I'm really sure that the content of the paper is correct. That your paper has been through any review process by qualified people is not apparent to anyone here. It's hard to believe that any qualified person would have failed to point out the fatal flaw in assuming randomness in TV episode introductions, or to call to your attention the lack of any connection between your "research" on the one hand and ID and a triune God on the other. That you're for the most part ignoring such criticisms is causing people to become more strident. Putting one's hands over one's ears is why people begin shouting. You've even been ignoring this moderator, making it very difficult for me to help discussion along. You complained about Dr Adequate who felt you were ignoring his criticisms, but you were ignoring me at the same time. I posted that I would allow Dr Adequate's posts until I obtained a response from you. But did you respond to me, or to anyone else about the fundamental criticisms? No. You're the primary cause of your own difficulties.
It takes a long time to read the paper completely and to understand it. Without the background it takes even longer. There's nothing particularly difficult to understand about your paper, and it requires no special background. The errors it makes are simple and fundamental. If you're serious about improving your paper then you'll stay and work through the problems.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024