Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 4:55 AM
448 online now:
frako, PaulK, ThinAirDesigns (3 members, 445 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,213 Year: 6,819/21,208 Month: 2,580/2,634 Week: 243/525 Day: 2/74 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Bible Codes and Bible Numerics for Stephen ben Yeshua
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 76 (83675)
02-05-2004 9:03 PM


Hello all,

This thread has been established to address the ideas of Bible Codes and Bible Numerics as claims that the Bible is of supernatural origin. I sure this topic has been done to death in this past, but nevertheless there is at least one vocal proponent of Bible codes in this forum.

I invite those posters who are significantly more eloquent than I to contribute their opinions and explainations.

I attached below some previous posts from the History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology thread brough across to get the ball rolling.

Post 166 by Gilgamesh:


Hello Stephen,
I sent you a link in another thread explaining the fallacy of Bible Numerics, but merely told you to do your own homework on Bible Codes (do a Google search). I see that you are still referring to Bible Codes as proof of Demons/God etc, so here is your homework completed for you:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html

This is one of the links I told you to find because it has some amusing examples of how you can find any sort of equi-distance letter nonsense in any text of significant length, like the "prediction" of Princess Di's death in the text of.... Moby Dick:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/diana.html

or a reference to the existence of Bible Codes appearing in Moby Dick in Genesis:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/mobygen.html

There are heaps of other links on that site to answer all of your questions.

A couple of reviews of Drosnin's Bible Code books:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html

A follow-up:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9803/bible-code.html

You'd do real well to read a lot more material from http://www.csicop.org.

Cheers.

Edit: I ommitted some interesting info: in the previous link I provided you in the other thread debunking Bible Numerics
http://www.rci.org.au/faq/biblenumerics.pdf by Geoff Beggs refer to a program called Panin's Panic designed by Brendan McKay (who authored the Bible code refutation page above) from ANU here in Australia


Reply post 170 by Stephen:


Gilgamesh,
I've probably spent 30 hours reading the critical treatments of the Bible Codes, and the answers to these. Most, about 90%, deal with the simply fallacious argument that because you can find "codes" in other books, the ones found in Genesis mean nothing. This sort of finding actually means nothing. You can find what they call "codes" (actually, ELS's) in a long random list of letters; why bother with Moby Dick? But the original code paper looked at the distribution of ELS's of various lengths, and found short ELS's of concurrent meaning improbably close to one another. These were compared to similar distributions found in other works and in random lists in a Monte Carlo test, and found statistically significant. This finding was confirmed by McKay, who then had to resort to another argument to refute the true codes.

But he buried this argument in his paper and it is buried elsewhere in critical reports. Moreover, in attacking the codes, almost all text is based on a critique of Drosnin, a newpaper reporter. The 1994 study is dragged down mostly by association. Finally, in attacking Witztum et. al.'s paper, the attack admits a statistically significant finding, which McKay confirms in a replication. But he attributes it to "wiggle room" which Witztum had devoted several years of work to eliminate. McKay ultimately has to accuse Witztum of lying, and comes up with false documents, according to Gans, to make his case. McKay brings the hypothesis of dishonesty into the discussion, so we have to ask, who, if anyone, is being dishonest, McKay or Witztum. The evidence points to McKay.

So, McKay commits several key errors.

First, he attacks a straw man, the fact that ELS's can be found anywhere. Of course they can, but they aren't codes unless they are statistically improbable, and to date, no statistically improbable codes have been found in any other string of letters, book or random. But they have, all admit, been found it Genesis.

Second, he shows that statistically improbable codes can be found by lying, and basically accuses the original authors of subconsciously or maliciously lying. Rips, I think, went to the press when McKay's article was published, threatening a law-suit. But this is not a debate normally considered valid in a scientific discussion. Gans handles it in any case, showing that, if anyone is lying, using "wiggle room" it is Mckay.

Third, McKay's studies have not been subjected to a proper peer review process. The original authors of a critiqued paper are always, in my experience, included amoung the reviewers of a critique, and allowed to publish a rebuttal alongside the critique. Both these standards of good scientific publication were bypassed to get the McKay paper published. This validates Gans contention that McKay and the other "scientists" trying to discredit the codes are all liars. Their accusation of dishonest reporting by Witztum et. al. is thus seen as psychological projection.

Fourth, their concentration on Drosnin is also a straw man argument.

Fifth, there have been many, many replications of the statistically improbable codes, basically refuting the hypothesis that Witztum and others were lying. Scientifically refuting, I should add, since in true science, it is replication that carries the day, not ad hoc reasoning. Note that in real science, when there are many successful replications, effort to replicate that fail are normally considered to be bad methodology. That's why my grades in chemistry lab were low. When I tried to reproduce some commonly found reaction, and failed, my teachers did not rewrite their textbooks.

Sixth, there is actually good reason to expect improbable codes in inspired writings of all sorts. I will not be very surprised if, when scientists look for these properly, they will find them. Any writing where the author invites and responds obediently to a "muse" is a candidate for true codes. Stephen King books will probably have codes in them, based on his description of his way of writing.

Seventh, the whole Moby Dick codes business was coded in the book of Job, according to one code researcher, along with McKay's name, coded there and nowhere else in the bible. This wos in the only chapter in the bible dealing with harpooning whales. The surface text of the scriptures wherein McKay's name was coded calls him a liar.

In short, there is a controversy, as there always is when science discovers something outside the pale. Those looking for an excuse to remain ignorant of these discoveries, like yourself, can attend to the critics, and ignore the answers to their criticism. Those wanting to know the truth can carefully consider both sides. As things now stand, there is substantial data, historical records and methods of debate, that confirm the idea that the Codes critics are dishonorable liars, unworthy of anyone's attention. Far and above the most plausible hypothesis concerning the debate. The Codes themselves have been extensively validated, for anyone wanting to know the truth, and live.

We only have to read many posts in this forum to see that there are many intelligent people who hate God so violently that they will lie to discredit Him.

Stephen



Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 9:17 PM Gilgamesh has responded
 Message 17 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 10:25 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 76 (83691)
02-05-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
02-05-2004 9:03 PM


Stephen thank you for investing so much time looking at this info by McKay.


Most, about 90%, deal with the simply fallacious argument that because you can find "codes" in other books, the ones found in Genesis mean nothing. This sort of finding actually means nothing. You can find what they call "codes" (actually, ELS's) in a long random list of letters; why bother with Moby Dick? But the original code paper looked at the distribution of ELS's of various lengths, and found short ELS's of concurrent meaning improbably close to one another.

The argument is that, given a large enough text, like the Bible or say for instance, Moby Dick, you can find whatever you are looking for (particularly if you are a little flexible in your search terms).

The argument is sound. Mckay demonstrates this by finding "intriguing" codes in the Bible and other random texts. You are right: you do not need a particular text- a long list of random letters will do- but it is more poignant if the fallacy of Bible codes is demonstrated in the text of the Bible itself.

You seem to be missing this fundamental point and I invite someone else to try and explain it better for you.

What is denied is the statistical implausibility of the findings. Even though McKay did have trouble replicating Witztum's claims due to textual "contaminations" (failing to find the exact Bible version translation used), many less ambitious Bible code claims can be replicated.

However, the resultant codes only can be seen as improbable if you were anticipating in advance the likelihood of those exact codes appearing in the exact text that they are found. Apply this same logic to the Princess Di references in Moby Dick and you'll find that they are similarly improbable. These sort of probability mistakes are the same as those made by Intelligent Designers to argue that life evolving by chance is statistically close to impossible and they are flawed for the same reason.

The actual chance of some sort of simple arbitrary code appearing in a long text is a dead cert.

Stephen, by the faulty process of deducing probabilities used to support Bible codes, I challenge you to demonstrate why any Bible code is more statistically improbable than finding something about Princess Di's death in Moby Dick.

Drosnin is attacked because he has published two widely distributed texts based on this Bible code nonsense (and is therefore making a living off the stuff).

Errors?


First, he attacks a straw man, the fact that ELS's can be found anywhere. Of course they can, but they aren't codes unless they are statistically improbable, and to date, no statistically improbable codes have been found in any other string of letters, book or random. But they have, all admit, been found it Genesis.

See my point above. The Princess Di statements are statistically improbable if you were anticipating those exact words were going to be found exactly where they were. The rabinical names were shuffled, the outcomes were within statistical probability (in that they could be found in any text if you were able to shuffle the names as Witztum did.


Second, he shows that statistically improbable codes can be found by lying, and basically accuses the original authors of subconsciously or maliciously lying.

Drosnin is either lying in regard to:
- The actual existence of these codes (McKay was not able to replicate the claim)
- That the text has been unnecessarily shuffled. McKay does suggest this and demonstrates the effect that shuffling or rigging the deck can have on the outcome. The list of rabbi names seems to be arbitrary in the same way Panin chose just those names and patterns that agreed with his intended outcome. McKay provides an in-depth analysis of the nature in which the names are determined. He calls it "tuning".
- The statistical improbability. It is claimed that the codes are a statistical improbability. McKay demonstrates otherwise.


Third, McKay's studies have not been subjected to a proper peer review process. The original authors of a critiqued paper are always, in my experience, included amoung the reviewers of a critique, and allowed to publish a rebuttal alongside the critique. Both these standards of good scientific publication were bypassed to get the McKay paper published. This validates Gans contention that McKay and the other "scientists" trying to discredit the codes are all liars.

EDITED: see post 5 below.


Fourth, their concentration on Drosnin is also a straw man argument.

McKay concentrates on Drosnin because he is at present a most vocal proponent of Bible codes.


Fifth, there have been many, many replications of the statistically improbable codes, basically refuting the hypothesis that Witztum and others were lying. Scientifically refuting, I should add, since in true science, it is replication that carries the day, not ad hoc reasoning. Note that in real science, when there are many successful replications, effort to replicate that fail are normally considered to be bad methodology. That's why my grades in chemistry lab were low. When I tried to reproduce some commonly found reaction, and failed, my teachers did not rewrite their textbooks.

McKay did have trouble replicating the claims. Nevertheless in most occasions such claims are replicatable (like Panin's work). What is then stated and demonstrated is that they are not statistically improbable, and hence not miraculous.


Sixth, there is actually good reason to expect improbable codes in inspired writings of all sorts. I will not be very surprised if, when scientists look for these properly, they will find them. Any writing where the author invites and responds obediently to a "muse" is a candidate for true codes. Stephen King books will probably have codes in them, based on his description of his way of writing

There will be "codes" of all sorts in texts. McKay demonstrates this. They will not be improbable. There is quite simply no need to conjure up supernatural explanations for this stuff. You know there are now people about who think Moby Dick is "inspired" because of McKay's Princess Di discoveries.


Seventh, the whole Moby Dick codes business was coded in the book of Job, according to one code researcher, along with McKay's name, coded there and nowhere else in the bible. This wos in the only chapter in the bible dealing with harpooning whales. The surface text of the scriptures wherein McKay's name was coded calls him a liar.

Given how easy it is to find "codes", I wouldn't be surprised if McKay's name is in Job, or Mathew or Luke. Or Moby Dick. I challenge your statement that his name is only found in Job. Why don't you write to McKay and ask him to search for "Gil is right about codes" in the Bible?

Show me where the surface text in Job, where McKay's name appears in code, the text unambiguously calls him a liar.

You see patterns and supernatural all around you. Have you seen Beautiful Mind with Russel Crowe?

If these claims were legit there would be a significant acknowledgement of it in all communities scientific and Christian. You will note that I pointed out that many fundie Christian groups acknowledge the deceptive fallacy of Bible codes and Bible numerics. As far as the scientific community is concerned it is nothing more than another blip in this list of unsubstantiated claims.

Stephen, I do not remain ignorant of discoveries: on the contrary seeking truth I cautiously read all I can. Stephen you need to develop a healthy degree of scepticism to distinguish the right from wrong.

With Bible Codes you are mistaken. I encourage members of this forum to contribute.

[This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 02-06-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 9:03 PM Gilgamesh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Lizard Breath, posted 02-05-2004 9:50 PM Gilgamesh has responded
 Message 5 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 11:58 PM Gilgamesh has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 9:14 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 4050 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 3 of 76 (83705)
02-05-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Gilgamesh
02-05-2004 9:17 PM


Handling Snakes
I have to agree that searching for knowledge or the ability to forcast the future and all the other interesting things that are being done using the Bible code methodology is misguided. If the Bible is the true inspired word of God, it appears to be designed to be read by humans because it is for humans. Humans don't read by combining and recombining the words to make other interesting words and then try to infer more out of a story, letter or article than what was ever intended to be included as text.

I know there are still some fundamental churches who believe that their faith will protect them from the venom in snakes and they bring them out during church services and handle them. I don't think the author who penned the letter that mentioned this intended it to become a right of passage act to spiritual maturity. The author was using a graphic example to convey the power of a spirit filled believer without employing a bunch of nebulous terminology.

In like fashion, people aren't satisfied with what the Bible has to say so deeper and more bizzare searches of the text are conducted to find hidden codes. It takes the Bible out of the position of a collection of God inspired scripture, gathered together for convienence and benefit, and places it as some type of magic oracle from which secret knowledge can be drawn.

The same thing has been done in rock music by playing the albums backwards. I guess if you play a country music album backwards, you get your wife to move back in with you, your truck comes back from the bank, and you get sober.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 9:17 PM Gilgamesh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 10:25 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 76 (83720)
02-05-2004 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Lizard Breath
02-05-2004 9:50 PM


Re: Handling Snakes
Thanks for your input Lizard Breath.

Many miraculous claims are made about the Bible (fulfilled prophecies, scientific insight) and if these are correct it makes one wonder why it is necessary to seek subliminal miraculous insights from shuffling the text.

I liked your country music joke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Lizard Breath, posted 02-05-2004 9:50 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 76 (83753)
02-05-2004 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Gilgamesh
02-05-2004 9:17 PM


McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
I was mistaken by suggesting that Bible code claims have not been published in a peer reviewed journal. They have: "Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis", by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg (WRR), Statistical Science, Vol. 9 (1994) 429-438.

Like wise Stephen was mistaken about whether McKay's rebuttals were published in a peer reviewed journal. They appear in a lter edition of the same journal: "Solving the Bible Code Puzzle", by Brendan McKay, Dror Bar-Natan, Maya Bar-Hillel, and Gil Kalai, Statistical Science, Vol. 14 (1999) 150-173.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 9:17 PM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2004 2:54 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 9:43 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 12452
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 6 of 76 (83802)
02-06-2004 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gilgamesh
02-05-2004 11:58 PM


Re: McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
In fact it is worth making the distinction between Drosnin's Bible Codes and the claims by Witzum, Rips, Gans et al.
The latter have at least some semblance of rigour and statistical analysis.

Stephen seems to make the distinction only when he wishes to reject crticisms - he seems quite happy to claim Drosnin's "Codes" as evidence at times yet at other times considers Drosnin's work to be a "strawman" - indicating that even he feels that they are worthless and easily dup;icated in other texts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 11:58 PM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 9:45 AM PaulK has responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 76 (83864)
02-06-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Gilgamesh
02-05-2004 9:17 PM


Gilgamesh,

You say,

(in that they could be found in any text if you were able to shuffle the names as Witztum did.

Witztum specifically described the way he got the names without any wiggle room or shuffling. Do you believe that he lied about this? That the rabbi he asked to give him the names lied?

Gil, I can tell that you are quite sincere about this, which is refreshing. But have you read Gans' rebuttal to McKay? Have you looked at the Moby Dick Codes at www.biblecodedigest.com?

Now, perhaps you would like me to go over in detail Witztum's findings, and those of other code researchers, who have done statistical tests. I can do so, and might find it interesting, if that's what you want. As long as we agree that what is claimed is not what McKay is refuting re Moby Dick. McKay is quite clear that he does not regard the Moby Dick codes as statistically improbable, and he is quite clear that the Rabbi's experiment of Witztum is statistically improbable. Only the latter are real codes. McKay claims that Witztum lied about how he got the names, using wiggle room to generate statistical improbability. I don't think that is a plausible explanation, given that it involves another Rabbi, and that Gans independent replication was successful. As well as other replications.

As I say, I will walk you through the sites and papers if you want me too. But, try to read them yourself.

And forget Drosnin. Nobody is trying to defend him. He's a straw man. Arguments against his work mean nothing.

If these claims were legit there would be a significant acknowledgement of it in all communities scientific and Christian. You will note that I pointed out that many fundie Christian groups acknowledge the deceptive fallacy of Bible codes and Bible numerics. As far as the scientific community is concerned it is nothing more than another blip in this list of unsubstantiated claims.

Surely you are aware from the history of science that this is only occasionally the case. I would like to see a study done of major discoveries and how they were received, over the course of time. I predict that discoveries that weaken the power of evil in the land will always be vigorously repressed, because demons fight their acceptance. While discoveries that produce more chaos and destruction are readily received.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 9:17 PM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 02-06-2004 1:14 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 13 by The Revenge of Reason, posted 02-06-2004 3:26 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 76 (83876)
02-06-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Gilgamesh
02-05-2004 11:58 PM


Re: McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
Gil,

I believe that you will find in here Gans report on the publishing history of BMckay's critique of the codes.

http://www.aish.com/seminars/discovery/Codes/Primer/primer1.htm

Because McKay's paper was not reviewed by those that he was criticizing, it was not peer reviewed.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 11:58 PM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 02-06-2004 3:09 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 02-06-2004 4:13 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 76 (83878)
02-06-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
02-06-2004 2:54 AM


Re: McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
Paulk,

You assert,

he seems quite happy to claim Drosnin's "Codes" as evidence at times

Really! It could be possible, but I am unaware of when I have done so. Drosnin is an interesting popularizer, but evidence? Show me where I said that.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2004 2:54 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2004 9:52 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 12452
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 10 of 76 (83881)
02-06-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 9:45 AM


Re: McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
Your continued references to Bible Code Digest - a pro-Drosnin site - are sufficient.

Indeed the Bible Code Digest response to Dave Thomas' "Moby Dick" codes attempts to defend Drosnin by implying that his work used the same methods as Witzum et al.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 9:45 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 9:16 AM PaulK has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 11 of 76 (83945)
02-06-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 9:14 AM


Stephen Needs to be Scientific
Hi Stephen,

First I'd like to address the post from message 1 of this thread where it quotes you saying:

Stephen ben Yeshua as quoted in message 1 of this thread writes:

Fifth, there have been many, many replications of the statistically improbable codes, basically refuting the hypothesis that Witztum and others were lying. Scientifically refuting, I should add, since in true science, it is replication that carries the day, not ad hoc reasoning. Note that in real science, when there are many successful replications, effort to replicate that fail are normally considered to be bad methodology.

This is a good point, except that it contains a fatal error: Witztum has *not* been replicated. Other researchers have played with different codes than the ones Witztum played with, but no one has replicated Witztum's results.

For this reason, Witztum's results cannot be considered confirmed, and McKay's inability to reproduce Witztum's results must be considered a serious challenge.

Even worse for you and Witztum, it has been copiously established that you can find intriguing words and phrases by these methods in any very long sequence of letters, whether from actual books or randomly generated.

More bad news: even if it were established that the codes were statistically unique and could never occur in any text or random letter sequence outside the Bible, there is still no established connection between the presence of the codes and any other qualities of the Bible, such as that it's inerrant, that it's the Word of God, or that it is evidence for the existence of Jehovah or demons.

And even more bad news: Reasoning by finding a contradiction in the original assumption, let us assume that the existence of codes in the Bible are evidence that it is the actual Word of God. Since codes can be found in any long letter sequence, that means that any long letter sequence must also be evidence that it is the Word of God. But the letter sequence was generated by computer, and the computer is not God. Therefore, through contradiction of the original assumption, the existence of codes is not evidence that the Bible is the Word of God.

Moving on to your more recent post:

Stephen ben Yehsua writes:

Witztum specifically described the way he got the names without any wiggle room or shuffling. Do you believe that he lied about this? That the rabbi he asked to give him the names lied?

Whether anyone believes Witztum is lying, or whether he actually is lying, is irrelevant to the scientific process. Witztum has some research results that haven't yet been replicated. If no one is ever able to replicate them, it only means Witztum was wrong, not lying. That no one has been able to replicate Witztum's results may mean he neglected to mention a relevant detail or two, or that McKay is not following Witztum's directions properly. Whichever it is, as far as science is concerned, this is simply an issue of whether or not the results can be replicated and shown statistically significant. If so, the results become an established part of science. If not, they become forgotten.

Now, perhaps you would like me to go over in detail Witztum's findings, and those of other code researchers, who have done statistical tests. I can do so, and might find it interesting, if that's what you want.

I don't know about Gil, but as far as I'm concerned, sure, go ahead.

McKay is quite clear that he does not regard the Moby Dick codes as statistically improbable, and he is quite clear that the Rabbi's experiment of Witztum is statistically improbable.

You're stating the opposite of what McKay actually believes concerning Witztum's results.

--Percy

[Fix spelling. --Percy]

[This message has been edited by Percy, 02-06-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 9:14 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 11:06 AM Percy has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 12 of 76 (83954)
02-06-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 9:43 AM


Re: McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
Because McKay's paper was not reviewed by those that he was criticizing, it was not peer reviewed.

Er, not so. Peer review is a review by people qualified to judge the merits and completeness of the arguments and the validity of the conclusions. It is not necessarily review by those whose work is criticized. In fact, it seldom is review by those whose work is criticized because there is a prima facie case for conflict of interest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 9:43 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 12:09 PM JonF has not yet responded

The Revenge of Reason
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 76 (83955)
02-06-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 9:14 AM


Stephen did you read McKay's (and companies) rebuttel? You can check the link in message #5. Or did you just entirely make up the assertion that "(McKay) is quite clear that the Rabbi's experiment of Witztum is statistically improbable." This seems, dare I say, a bold face lie. Could you provide the source of this information?

You also state "McKay claims that Witztum lied about how he got the names, using wiggle room to generate statistical improbability. I don't think that is a plausible explanation"

However all McKay does is point out that Witztum "claims" to use all the Rabbi's who appeared in Margaliot's "Encyclopedia of Great Men of Isreal" and who's entry had at least 3 columns of information (for list 1) or 1.5 to 3 columns of information (for list 2). But in "reality" each list has Rabbi's that are missing or are present but should not be.

McKay also goes on to point out that the dates used for these ELS were taken from a variety of sources, with no rhyme or reason...just which ever would work best for his results. They did not even stick to the dates provided by Maragaliot's EoGMoI. McKay also advises that there were at least 8 different date formats used (eg in English...May 5th, the 5th of May, on May 5th, etc.)!

But the real killer appears to be that Witztum uses any form or appellation for the Rabbi's names that will fit his required results! And where did these names come from? Well Rips claimed that "There may be various ways of writting a name. We took every possible variation we could think of. If any additional variation comes to mind, we must include it." However, in actuallity, the names used came from a computer search of the Responsa database at the Bar-Ilan University. Yet many of the appellations that appear in the Responsa do not appear in the List of Rabbi's used and vise versa!

So, as while McKay does seem to doubt Witztum's results (and with good reason it appears) he never claims that Witztum lied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 9:14 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 10:18 AM The Revenge of Reason has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15499
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 14 of 76 (83958)
02-06-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-06-2004 9:43 AM


Re: McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

Because McKay's paper was not reviewed by those that he was criticizing, it was not peer reviewed.

Geesh, Stephen, how do you come up with this stuff? If you're really Stephen Fretwell then you *know* that's not the definition of peer review.

Could you please start to give some indication that you're really not just an articulate, irrational, incompetent, overzealous Christian.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-06-2004 9:43 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 11:03 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 76 (84177)
02-07-2004 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
02-06-2004 9:52 AM


Re: McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
PaulK,

You say,

[qs]Your continued references to Bible Code Digest - a pro-Drosnin site - are sufficient.[/q/]

Your kidding, right? Lord, I hope so.

Then you add,

Indeed the Bible Code Digest response to Dave Thomas' "Moby Dick" codes attempts to defend Drosnin by implying that his work used the same methods as Witzum et al.

And from this you conclude that I present Drosnin's work as evidence that Witztum's codes are statistically improbable?

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2004 9:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2004 6:20 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 02-08-2004 9:24 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017