Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 8:40 AM
334 online now:
Aussie, jar, JonF, kjsimons, Pressie, RAZD, Stile (7 members, 327 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,894 Year: 25,500/21,208 Month: 1,127/2,338 Week: 248/450 Day: 13/55 Hour: 4/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Bible Codes and Bible Numerics for Stephen ben Yeshua
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 76 (84193)
02-07-2004 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by The Revenge of Reason
02-06-2004 3:26 PM


TROR,

Lets take this comment of mine,

"(McKay) is quite clear that the Rabbi's experiment of Witztum is statistically improbable."

Now, I am trying here to differentiate basically three events: first, the discovery of random ELS's in any string of words. Second, the apparently extraordinary co-occurance in a small part of a document of two related terms, cooked up by choosing the terms that worked out of many alternatives. And third, the actually extraordinary co-occurance in a small part of a document of two or more related terms, that were picked before the test, and still worked.

Do you deny that McKay accuses Witztum of "tuning?" Of trying out various alternative lists of Rabbi names, and finding some that worked, and then presenting these as if they were chosen prior to any test? That he makes this claim mostly by implication and does not come outright and accuse WRR of lying, I will concede. But, the following quote is one I copied out of their reply to Gans.

"We are not claiming that WRR cooked their experiment in precisely the manner just described."

"Oh, really? And in what way are you claiming that they cooked their experiment?" This in January of this year.

This is not science, at least, not as I was taught it.

Meanwhile, please look at

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/119,

where codes are presented with Brendan's name coded, as well as many features from Moby Dick. I count this as a real scientific test of the validity of WRR's paper, a real "replication." Granted, it has nothing to do with Rabbis and birth dates, but that's not the hypothesis being tested. The hypothesis being tested is that the Author of the Bible placed Codes therein to "sign" the document, so that you could know for sure that it was He who wrote it.

But, tell me what you think of these codes.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by The Revenge of Reason, posted 02-06-2004 3:26 PM The Revenge of Reason has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by The Revenge of Reason, posted 02-09-2004 1:24 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 76 (84197)
02-07-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
02-05-2004 9:03 PM


Gilgamesh,

This comment is enlightening,

I see that you are still referring to Bible Codes as proof of Demons/God etc,

First, H-D science does not prove anything beyond that a given idea is beyond reasonable doubt. Bible Codes cannot prove demons. They can prove that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the God Jehovah, really wrote the Bible, and signed it with "codes" so that we would know that He was it's author. Because He ought to know about demons, and describes their existence in this bible, knowing that He is out there, and that this book is a valid statement from Him, we can have more confidence that efforts to detect and deal with demons will be fruitful. That is, that it is more plausible than before, that demons are ontologically real, not figments of over-heated imaginations.

OK?

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 02-05-2004 9:03 PM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 76 (84207)
02-07-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
02-06-2004 1:14 PM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
P.

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.

Last time I read McKay's paper, he said that he replicated Witztum's statistical analysis, correcting an error, and got even more significant results. With the Rabbi's that Witztum presented, of course. I thought that McKay's main point was actually fairly interesting, that the chosen Rabbi's were a weird set, looked like they hadn't been chosen at random, or independently of the problem. Like the results had been cooked. But, of course, the underlying hypothesis being tested is that everything is cooked, by Jehovah, the author of the Bible. He even says, in the bible, that he controls the "lot that is thrown into the lap."

In other words, if Jehovah is really out there and wrote the torah, and we want to know this, looking for codes to "prove" it, what's He going to do? If the search is sincere, His whole point is for those who want to know to find out. So, He would "cook" the arbitrary choices, so that they would work.

Or am I missing something?

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.

Are you talking about ELS's that are expected from the null hypothesis of purely random chance? Or ELS's, in combination, of terms picked before one looked? "intriquing?" What's that got to do with anything?

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.

There is if you understand H-D science. Oh, you said "established" connection. Then, of course, you are right. Real science establishes nothing, just keeps moving on. But it does increase the plausibility that the Bible's claims are valid.

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.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that codes, statistically improbable codes, have ever been found anywhere but the Torah. I think they will, that Satan will put codes in some books that he inspires, and that God will affirm other works of literary art as inspired by Him.

But, statistically improbable signs have been found throughout the orthodox bible, by Theomatics.

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

Not as I read McKay's writings,, but I do admit that, according to God, as expressed in the codes about Moby Dick and McKay in Job, McKay is out to "darken counsel." Hard to know what he believes. But he certainly works hard to explain away the statistically significant findings of Witztum, saying that these are due to tuning or selection of which Rabbi's Witztum would look at. Why would he do that, if as they stand, they weren't real? The only point I can see to arguing that someone "cooked" up results is that, without the cooking, they are valid.

McKay's ridiculing of the whole matter persuades me that he's up to no good, while Gans especially approaches the whole matter with care and respect. I do want to hear from Gans on what happened when there was an independent effort to replicate his rabbis and cities experiment. At last report, it wasn't confirmed, but then mistakes were found, by those who chose the spellings, etc. It will be interesting to hear his take on that.

To me, the most persuasive information was that in Satinover, where the codes played a key role in minimizing damage done by Scud attacks during the Gulf war. Proof of the pudding is in the eating.

But, of course, most of my confidence comes from personally doing what the Bible says, to see if I will get what it promises. Beginning with hearing Jehovah speak, and finding that what He says is borne out by experience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 02-06-2004 1:14 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 02-08-2004 9:44 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 02-09-2004 1:04 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 19 of 76 (84335)
02-07-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-07-2004 9:16 AM


Re: McKay peer reviewed article on Bible Codes published in Statistical Science.
The fact is that you keep talking about "Bible Codes" and referring people to pro-Drosnin articles. And such behaviour is inconsistent with your dismissals of Drosnin's claims.

Surely that is obvious ? Or can't you even see that Bible Code Digest is full of atricles promoting Drosnin-style "codes"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 9:16 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16029
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 20 of 76 (84438)
02-08-2004 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-07-2004 9:16 AM


Stephen Inconsistent Again!
Hi Stephen,

Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

PaulK writes:

Your continued references to Bible Code Digest - a pro-Drosnin site - are sufficient.

Your kidding, right? Lord, I hope so.

Let's quote more of what Paul actually said in Message 6:

PaulK writes:

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.

One place you brought up the Bible Code Digest is in Message 155 of the The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil thread, and you appear to be doing just what Paul describes. You're contradictory approach to Drosnin is exhibited elsewhere as well.

If there's anything you're consistent at, it's being inconsistent.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 9:16 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2004 9:53 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16029
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 21 of 76 (84439)
02-08-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-07-2004 11:06 AM


Another Direct Miss by Stephen
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

Or am I missing something?

My guess is that you're missing something pretty big, but I can only guess what that is because you provide no references or citations. One guess I have is that you're looking at this paper by McKay:

In it he summarizes Witztum's views, accurately representing Wirztum's viewpoint by saying things like this written from Witztum's perspective:

So, believing all that, we are forced to conclude that seomthing truly unusual is going on in the Book of Genesis.

Is that what led you to claim that McKay believe's Witztum found something statistically improbable? Anyway, nothing could be more ridiculous. I don't know what your problem is. First you say Mammuthus is beginning to see your point, now you say McKay agrees with Witztum. Stephen, we're only having these discussions because these people *don't* agree with you, and stating that they do only makes you look delusional.

I've got to go, if I find time later I'll respond to the rest of your post.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 11:06 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 11:40 PM Percy has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 22 of 76 (84440)
02-08-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
02-08-2004 9:24 AM


Re: Stephen Inconsistent Again!
And in the next message he provided a link to Bible Code Digest defending Drosnin. Written by somebody who assumes that Drosnin used the same methods as Witzum et al.

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/119

If Stephen really beleives that Drosnin's codes are worthless and have no real relation to Witzum's work then why point to a defence of Drosnin written by someone who (wrongly !) assumes otherwise.

Why not just say that the Moby Dick codes are a valid response to Drosnin, whose claims are of no relevance ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 02-08-2004 9:24 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 11:23 PM PaulK has responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 76 (84460)
02-08-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by JonF
02-06-2004 3:09 PM


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

You note,

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.

That's not what I was taught, or ever experienced. Gans cites the protocol for publishing a critique in Econometrics, I think, where one may not even submit a critique that has not been sent to those being criticized. Peer review without letting those criticized have their say is called good ole boy politics and censorship. Read Kuhn, read the history of science, to see where the real problems lie.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 02-06-2004 3:09 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 02-09-2004 9:37 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 76 (84597)
02-08-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
02-06-2004 4:13 PM


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

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.

Well, in this case, I have had several papers critiqued, and was always included in the peer review. Then, Gans cites a journal that has in its protocol the stipulation that one cannot even submit a critique until communication with the authors of the original paper have been consulted, and their rebuttal must be included. Finally, I judge debates, and it is standard to give both sides of a critique equal time. Statistical Science promised to do this to WRR, when McKay's paper was in review, but backed down, without telling them, according to Gans. So, that's the source of my opinion that peer review of a critique hasn't happened if the critiqued authors are not included. Why do you think otherwise?

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 02-06-2004 4:13 PM Percy has not yet responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 76 (84606)
02-08-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
02-08-2004 9:53 AM


Re: Stephen Inconsistent Again!
PaulK,

Well, at least I know how you guys feel, arguing with a madman. I mean, this is incredible to me. Drosnin's book is denounced by every serious code researcher that I know of. The site on Moby Dick, which reviews Drosnin's contribution, is kindest, to be sure. But it even says:

McKay like Drosnin did not demonstrate any use of such rules or guidelines. In fact McKay admits this on his web site.

Granted Drosnin claims to have used rigor, and to be consulting with some statistician in his analyses. But that rigor is not presented in a scientific way, with a materials and methods section.

How you read that article, and concluded that, because I reference it, I find Drosnin worth arguing about, is beyond me. Talk about grasping at straws. How badly do you want to find reasons to ignore the codes?

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 02-08-2004 9:53 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2004 2:40 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2004 3:38 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 76 (84609)
02-08-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
02-08-2004 9:44 AM


Re: Another Direct Miss by Stephen
P.

You know, there's this great movie, Joe versus the Volcano, in which Joe's first boss is on the phone, tediously saying over and over again, "I didn't say that. I didn't say that! If I had said that, I would have been wrong." Now, as we are discussing this, I with my goal to make something understandable, it is clear to me that you keep hearing me say something else. I say that the plausibility of an idea is increased, from, say, .6 to .61, by some evidence, and you hear me say that the evidence proves the idea is true. If I had said that latter statement, I would have been wrong. The evidence only budged the plausibility up a little. This, I think, Mammathus understands, gets my point. Do he and I agree that the plausibility of demons is .6? Of course not. His estimate, if I recall correctly, was 10 to the minus 73. But at least he can come up with some non-zero estimate, and in his work, he runs into other ideas to which he assigns a plausibility of .5 or so. And, I think you can too, if you try real hard. I know, you said that you couldn't, that you didn't even know what a demon was. Duh. Who does? Finding out is part of the point. But, here's a start: "vague, dark-matter-like "spiritual" being with malign intentions towards humans and Jehovah. Much more intelligent and powerful than humans. As far above humans as humans are above earthworms." You'll find it easier if you say "I choose life."

What WRR and McKay disagree on is whether or not the statistically significant results of the 94 paper, and subsequent studies, were due to wiggle room, tuning, or due to divine intervention, in either the writing of Genesis, or the choice of terms supposedly coded. McKay treats the list of Rabbi's names as "special" not Genesis.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 02-08-2004 9:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 02-09-2004 9:53 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 27 of 76 (84630)
02-09-2004 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-08-2004 11:23 PM


Re: Stephen Inconsistent Again!
The problem is that you keep referring to the Bible Codes - that is Drosnin.

You keep referring to Bible Code Digest - a pro-Drosnin site.

You keep referring to an article attacking the Moby Dick "codes" - an answer to Drosnin's challenge, put forward as a refuation of Drosnin.

How can these things not be seen as support for Drosnin ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 11:23 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 12:40 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16029
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 28 of 76 (84671)
02-09-2004 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-08-2004 12:09 PM


Stephen Confused Once Again!
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

That's not what I was taught, or ever experienced. Gans cites the protocol for publishing a critique in Econometrics, I think, where one may not even submit a critique that has not been sent to those being criticized. Peer review without letting those criticized have their say is called good ole boy politics and censorship. Read Kuhn, read the history of science, to see where the real problems lie.

You're confusing letters with technical papers. Critical letters to the editor about technical papers published in previuos issues *are*, just as you described, frequently provided to the paper's authors so that a response may be printed with the letter. That isn't peer review.

Peer review is the process for reviewing technical papers prior to publication. The names of the authors are removed from copies of the paper, and the paper is distributed to anonymous reviewers. Based upon the feedback of reviewers, a journal's editors make a decision about whether to publish the paper or not. Frequently they will forward some of the anonymous feedback to the paper's authors and request changes and improvements. They may also reject the paper, perhaps still providing helpful feedback to assist the authors in future submissions.

Hopefully you now understand what peer review is, but the real question is why a supposed scientist like yourself has such a fundamental misunderstanding.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 12:09 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16029
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 29 of 76 (84674)
02-09-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-08-2004 11:40 PM


Re: Another Direct Miss by Stephen
Hi, Stephen!

The actual problem is that you're completely confused about what *I'm* saying, not that I'm confused about what you're saying. That increasing evidence increases the confidence in a hypothesis is intuitively obvious and need not even be stated. Probably huge numbers of people agree with this, including me. If this is your basis for stating that Mammuthus is beginning to "get it" then you're far too modest: if that's your only point, then we practically all "get it".

The actual problem with your ideas is that you have yet to offer any evidence, and your thinking contains irrational leaps of logic. Witztum's results have *not* been replicated, and the only person attempting it, McKay, disagrees with Witztum's conclusions and makes a strong case that Witztum miscalulates the odds because his calculations fail to account for his manipulation of rabbi names.

Even if Witztum's results were confirmed, you still need to find an evidence-based connection between such results and textual validity. And since you already conceded elsewhere that not everthing in the Bible is accurate, you need a method for using Witztum's statistical approach to identify which parts of the Bible are true and which are false.

You also still have no evidence of demons. You have no evidence for any part of your description involving dark energy and sinister forces.

Until you can muster some evidence for your ideas, you're not going to convince anyone, and assuming confirmation on the basis of no evidence is certainly not science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-08-2004 11:40 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16029
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 30 of 76 (84730)
02-09-2004 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-07-2004 11:06 AM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
Hi Stephen,

I have a little time, so I thought I'd finish replying to your earlier message.

Last time I read McKay's paper, he said that he replicated Witztum's statistical analysis, correcting an error, and got even more significant results.

Quoting from the summary Scientific Refutation of the Bible Codes by Brendan McKay and Friends:

McKay writes:

A brief summary of the result of our very extensive investigation is that all the alleged scientific evidence for the codes is bunk.

He calls the findings bunk, Stephen. To read any of McKay's writings about this, formal or otherwise, and conclude he's saying he got "even more significant results" is simply delusional. Please let us know when you plan to join the rest of us in the real world.

Once again you're inconsistent, though, since later you say McKay thinks the results "had been cooked." Of course, the cooking was done by Witztum, not Jehovah.

There is if you understand H-D science. Oh, you said "established" connection. Then, of course, you are right. Real science establishes nothing, just keeps moving on. But it does increase the plausibility that the Bible's claims are valid.

What you're actually doing is subjective Bayesianism, not H-D science, and there's a thread for this that you began yourself (The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)). Until you successfully make the case for your ideas in that thread, those ideas should be limited to that thread. To repeat the reason, this is because you were turning many threads into debates about subjective Bayesianism, and so to prevent the topic from becoming fragmented among many threads we limit it to a single thread where the issues can be more effectively addressed.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that codes, statistically improbable codes, have ever been found anywhere but the Torah. I think they will, that Satan will put codes in some books that he inspires, and that God will affirm other works of literary art as inspired by Him.

You're engaging in irrational leaps of logic again. You've established no link between statistically improbable codes on the one hand, and God and Biblical validity on the other. You need a deductive chain of reasoning connecting the two.

But, of course, most of my confidence comes from personally doing what the Bible says, to see if I will get what it promises. Beginning with hearing Jehovah speak, and finding that what He says is borne out by experience.

You're only doing what you think the Bible says, and you only think you hear Jehovah speak. You have no objective evidence that your Biblical interpretations are correct, and the voice of Jehoval you think you hear can never be confirmed by anyone else. Your comments have no standing as science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 11:06 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 1:48 PM Percy has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017