Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 2:35 PM
386 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,863 Year: 16,469/21,208 Month: 2,358/3,593 Week: 471/882 Day: 92/97 Hour: 1/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Bible Codes and Bible Numerics for Stephen ben Yeshua
The Revenge of Reason
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 76 (84731)
02-09-2004 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-07-2004 10:18 AM


Stephen, I do agree that McKay does infer that Witztum cooked or tuned the results. I tried your link but it appears dead, could you try posting it again, or another link (may just be my system as i am at work)? But at any rate, it apears that the real question is why would WRR state that they used all Rabbi's listed in the book (considering importance, by size of listing), but when this is looked into by independant sources it is found to be false. Now I do not know alot about Bible Codes but I have done some searching on the net (due to this post) and can find nothing disputing McKay's claim. Can you or anyone else either confirm or dispute what McKay is basiclly accusing WRR of doing?

Also, what of the fact of the dates being used being of (at least) 8 different formats? Wouldn't the "author" have used just one format if he was trying to make some kind of point of authorship? I know, I know...God works in strange and mysterious ways....

Or how about the fact that they used only Rabbi's listed in EoGMoI but when the dates that book provided didn't work in their formula they found more "authoratative" dates elsewhere....

What of the statement Rips makes before conducting the experiment? That if any other versions of names are discovered than these too must be tested and must work. Why did he make this statement before the experiment and then not abide by it while conducting the experiment? There were countless other Appellations in the Respora that they never used and when McKay tried them they did not work. Don't you wonder why?

Maybe it's just me and McKay that smell something fishy. But I look at it like this, if you show me an ELS for Rabbi Robert David Higgins born Dec 3rd 1934 or maybe the 4th and one source even says he was born Nov 4th 1934, and died Sep. 8th 1996. And your ELS is B O B and 4 O F 1 1, then it doesn't prove anything to me. Why should it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-07-2004 10:18 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 1:12 PM The Revenge of Reason has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 12759
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 32 of 76 (84938)
02-10-2004 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-08-2004 11:23 PM


Re: Stephen Inconsistent Again!
THe Bible Code Digest website was down yesterday so I was not in a position to adequately check Sterphen's claims about what it sais.

In fact Stephen is guilty of a misepresentation he quoted the following


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

Now omitting the ellipses to idnicate that this is only part of a sentence is not good, but the real problem is the next paragraph


We see there that McKay ASSUMES that Drosnin did not conform to any rules and therefore does not apply any himself.

[italics in original replaced by all-caps]

All this in a clearly pro-Dronsin article which only mentions Witztum et al to support the existence of Drosnin-style codes.


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 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 12:52 PM PaulK has responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 76 (85038)
02-10-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
02-09-2004 2:40 AM


Re: Stephen Inconsistent Again!
Paulk

To my mind, Scientific Bible Codes is tied to Satinover, not Drosnin. Drosnin is a popularizer, who, actually, as a popularizer, I respect. His work just has no place is any scientific discussion, unless one is trying to attack a straw man. Biblecodesdigest is a digest, a place where one can find all sorts of contributions, some scientific, like Verboom's, some political, some cultural.

But, the fact that you want to discuss Drosnin, instead of the fact that Moby Dick ELS's are mostly found in Job 41, the only book in the bible about harpooning whales, tells me a lot about your agenda here.

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 ?

I find this argument totally ingenuous. The article I refer to is an effort to show that statistically improbable codes exist, by showing how the Moby Dick Controversy is coded in the scriptures. It's a sort of replication of the original study, one of many that you can find from Witztum's site, and Biblecodedigest. That's how science deals with Witztum's study. Did Witztum fudge his data? Did Newton? Did Galileo? Did Mendel? Did Faraday? But what did replication find? That they were right, anyway. Not that I'm agreeing that Witztum did, but so what? It hasn't ever mattered in science, and still doesn't matter. What matters is replication, and the site I point you too, that you refuse to discuss to details of, shows this happening.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2004 2:40 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 76 (85039)
02-10-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
02-10-2004 3:38 AM


Re: Stephen Inconsistent Again!
PaulK,

You cite,

We see there that McKay ASSUMES that Drosnin did not conform to any rules and therefore does not apply any himself.

Now, in normal grammar, this sentence is about McKay, not Drosnin. Verboom is a gentleman, and although Drosnin says he has statistical backup for his codes, we are not given support for this. Nor should we be, since it's a popularization. Drosnin reprints WRR, claiming that all, all scientific support and discussion of the issue needs to be there. He's just showing that, if it's scientifically true, as he believes, look how interesting it is! But, the statement by Verboom simply refuses to accuse Drosnin of lying. But it doesn't say that he was telling the truth. Drosnin doesn't ask that his work be taken that way, and Verboon says, fine. McKay, on the other hand, is coming on as a scientist (as I am here), and wants to show that if Drosnin was lying, all sorts of codes can be found. That's not science, that's subtle defamation of character.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2004 3:38 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2004 1:53 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 76 (85042)
02-10-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by The Revenge of Reason
02-09-2004 1:24 PM


TROR,

Here is the site, again,

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

As I noted in my reply to PaulK, I'm not too worried about the details of how WRR selected the Rabbi's and dates, and I expect them to change their minds about how it ought to be, or ought to have been done, as they continue to work on the ELS's. Even if they fudged, it's not that great a problem. Great men of the past have fudged, and still been right, as shown by replication. The fact that they got an outside person to come up with the final list, did it twice in response to a reviewer, and got similarly significant results, and got contrasting results with control texts, is what got the paper through such an extraordinary review.

Philosophically, I don't trust McKay, to be honest. When I read his articles and posts, and compare them to Gans, the latter have a much steadier, philosophically sound approach. But, I have judged some high school debates, and am trained to look at style. McKay does not appear to be interested in finding codes, which is an unhealthy attitude. His Panin's Panic is a good example. He does all this work showing that a computer can do what Panin did, to discredit Panin. But, he should have used that program to test Panin's hypothesis, that verse 1 of Genesis has more add-ups to seven then you would expect on the basis of chance. That is, Taking seven words at random, how many add-ups to seven (or factors of seven) can you find? Do this with 1000 or so random seven word collections, and see if the number that comes from Genesis 1 is average, or greater.

That's what a scientist, and a truthist, would have done.

When Gans goes back to work for the CIA, I'll be impressed that he discovered fraud or foolishness in WRR. Or Satinover retracts, as he gets his physics degree. Meanwhile, the plausibilities lean towards the codes. But, let's let science do its job.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by The Revenge of Reason, posted 02-09-2004 1:24 PM The Revenge of Reason has not yet responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 76 (85048)
02-10-2004 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
02-09-2004 1:04 PM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
P.

On page 8, I think, of McKay's paper, he says:

"For the sake of argument, we are prepared to join them in rejecting their null hypothesis and conclude something interesting is going on. Where we differ is what that something is."

Hence, my point that they agree that the null hypothesis is rejected, we have statistical significance. WRR attribute this to an inclusion in Genesis of truth about the future, McKay to something interesting and queer about the list of Rabbis and their dates. But, when Gans attempted to test WRR's hypothesis (Genesis has information in it that could only have been put there by God), he got a confirmation, strong enough to motivate him to leave his intelligence job, and research this. There have been other confirmations. WRR is ten years old. Look at the Verboom test.

He calls the findings bunk, Stephen.

Which proves he is not a scientist, and almost certainly wrong. Real scholars who love the truth never say things using words like bunk. Or apologize when they do.

subjective Bayesianism

I thought we established that what you thought I was saying about subjectivity was a mis-understanding. I confine subjectivity to the formation of hypothesis, not to evalutating evidence testing predictions, as you thought I was saying. Hence, my Bayesianism is the simple thing itself.

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.

Read Satinover, where he developes the argument that codes are signatures, to help humans know when a document is inspired by God or not.

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.

You have no right to say that, without support, according to the rules of this forum. As a professional scientist, with an extraordinary record of scientific success, I have more right than you do to make "unsupported" claims. But I have supported with clear references all of my claims to what science truly is, and that it is not what evolutionists want the world to think it is. And never has been. Robbing the culture of a clear view of what is science and what is not, so one can stay in their denial about spiritual reality, using their phoney view of science as their hidey hole, is despicable. I think of the many lost souls who, if they only knew they could, would take the power of science and the scientific method into the hearts of their lives and families, would experiment on their kitchen tables with all sorts of interesting and important personal problems, and would find useful answers. But noooo, the evolutionists controlling education have created a science that only the elite can deal with, thank you very much. Humans! Always some who want to be priests, making everyone dependent on them. Must be Satan.

Cheers,

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 02-09-2004 1:04 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 02-10-2004 2:27 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 39 by truthlover, posted 02-11-2004 12:23 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 12759
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 37 of 76 (85050)
02-10-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 12:52 PM


Re: Stephen Inconsistent Again!
In normal English the implication is that the assumption is unsound - and in considered in context it strognly suggests that the author considers this assumption to be false or probably false.

As I said it was Drosnin's challenge based on one of Drosnin's codes and the challenge was met.

There is no suggestion that Drosnin was lying - only that his "codes" were not significant. If that is what you are objecting to then you re defending Drosnin's "codes" and methodology. If there is any indictmet of Drosnin's character it is that he did not do as he said he would when his challenge was met. And that we know for a fact.

Your attitude is certainly not that of a scientist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 12:52 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 38 of 76 (85062)
02-10-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 1:48 PM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
Stephen ben Yehsua writes:

On page 8, I think, of McKay's paper, he says:

"For the sake of argument, we are prepared to join them in rejecting their null hypothesis and conclude something interesting is going on. Where we differ is what that something is."

Hence, my point that they agree that the null hypothesis is rejected...

I shouldn't need to explain what it means to say, "For the sake of argument...", but since you seem to having trouble understanding English today, it means, "We disagree with them, but even if you accept their argument you find it doesn't support their conclusion."

Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

Percy writes:

He calls the findings bunk, Stephen.

Which proves he is not a scientist, and almost certainly wrong. Real scholars who love the truth never say things using words like bunk. Or apologize when they do.

You have almost too many weird ideas to be able to disabuse you of. Scientists are a lot like the people here, in a number of cases actually *are* the people here, and they not only use the word "bunk", but a lot of other words appropriate for your ideas. McKay calls the stuff "bunk" on a webpage.

Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

Percy writes:

subjective Bayesianism

I thought we established that what you thought I was saying about subjectivity was a mis-understanding. I confine subjectivity to the formation of hypothesis, not to evalutating evidence testing predictions, as you thought I was saying. Hence, my Bayesianism is the simple thing itself.

Why don't you describe for us again how you use this method to confirm the existence of demons using the Bible and bizarre personal stories as evidence? By the way, you're not supposed to be entering your scientific methodology into other threads until you successfully make the case for it in the thread designated for that purpose.

Read Satinover, where he developes the argument that codes are signatures, to help humans know when a document is inspired by God or not.

You're welcome to present Satinover's ideas here.

You have no right to say that, without support, according to the rules of this forum.

I only pointed out your error in giving objective reality to subjective impressions. Why don't you just stick to the topic?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 1:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-11-2004 7:37 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-12-2004 6:30 PM Percy has responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 1498 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 39 of 76 (85271)
02-11-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-10-2004 1:48 PM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
Robbing the culture of a clear view of what is science and what is not, so one can stay in their denial about spiritual reality, using their phoney view of science as their hidey hole, is despicable.

I agree, it is despicable, but I don't think you've established that anyone is doing this.

I think of the many lost souls who, if they only knew they could, would take the power of science and the scientific method into the hearts of their lives and families, would experiment on their kitchen tables with all sorts of interesting and important personal problems, and would find useful answers

I think the scientific method you are describing is done by many souls at their kitchen table. They throw out ideas, and then they compare them to their personal experiences and stories they've heard, and they draw conclusions.

Perhaps you would add to what's already happening at most kitchen tables--at least the ones where people talk to each other--the designing of experiments to test their ideas. You do talk about that and seem open to it, but people are people. Without the rigorous peer review process that journals provide, and without training on what's valid evidence and what is just subjective interpretation, people are going to draw conclusions, all right, but they're not going to be consistent or agree with each other. Baptists will draw Baptist conclusions, Hindus will draw Hindu conclusions, Buddhists will draw Buddhist conclusions, and New Agers will draw New Age conclusions, each according to their own biases, preferences, and leanings.

I've seen others suggest experiments to you, and you seemed to delight in trying those experiments. Good for you, but I think the average person sitting around his kitchen table trying to find solutions to personal problems is not going to change very much based on what you are describing, especially if your premise that demons exist and are trying to deceive people is true.

Mormons design prayer experiments all the time, and most of the time they get the "burning in their heart" that they pray for, and they are convinced--seemingly by following the very methodology you are suggesting--that Mormonism is true and that Jehovah has a wife and sired many spirit children who have come to earth and been born--as us. Many others have designed prayer experiments, gotten no answers, and concluded that God isn't real.

You can suggest alternative interpretations of their experiments (demons produced the burning in the heart of Mormons; the new atheists didn't pray rightly; etc.), but at their kitchen table you won't be there to tell them your correct interpretation, so they will become atheists and Mormons and Buddhists and everything else we already see in this world.

One man whose writings I read as a teenager practiced astral projection repeatedly. He definitely believed in demons, and he believed they mocked him and laughed at the hopelessness of his life. In all his spiritual encounters and explorations, he explained, he had never seen an indication of any great and good God, so he didn't believe in one.

My point is simply this. Applying the methodology you have been describing at the kitchen table of lost souls will result in what it already has resulted in. Nothing will be different.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-10-2004 1:48 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-12-2004 7:18 PM truthlover has not yet responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 76 (85511)
02-11-2004 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
02-10-2004 2:27 PM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
P.

You note,

I shouldn't need to explain what it means to say, "For the sake of argument...", but since you seem to having trouble understanding English today, it means, "We disagree with them, but even if you accept their argument you find it doesn't support their conclusion."

Well, I would have interpreted it to mean, "We aren't sure that the statistics you present are an accurate test, but they might be, and do disappear when random stuff is analyzed. But our main point of disagreement is...."

I'll get to the rest of your post later. Good questions.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 02-10-2004 2:27 PM Percy has not yet responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 76 (85892)
02-12-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
02-10-2004 2:27 PM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
Percy,

Here's your query,

Why don't you describe for us again how you use this method to confirm the existence of demons using the Bible and bizarre personal stories as evidence? By the way, you're not supposed to be entering your scientific methodology into other threads until you successfully make the case for it in the thread designated for that purpose.

H-D Step 1. Note a problem. Here, the problem is evil in the world.

Step 2. Propose an answer. The devil made it happen.

Step 3. Make a prediction given the answer (hypothesis) is true. If the devil made the evil happen, and if orthodox theology pertaining to Jehovah and Yeshua, is true, then we predict that the communication between Jehovah and humans (His army), known as the bible, contains martial orders for overcoming evil with good. As such, it needs proper authorization. The evil of the (hypothetical) devil will, if true, likely include an effort on the devil's part to discredit, distort, confuse any communications between Jehovah and His army. True communications need to have some coded authentification. Early efforts to find these, as in the simple coding through ELS's of TORAH in the first five books of the Torah, were successful. Personal inspiration of early communicators with Jehovah said that there were other codes, as well. So, we predict, if the hypothesis is true, that there IS a spiritual war going on, the bible is our marching orders for defeating the devil and his demons in battle, and this book will be signed and authorized in such a way that we can be sure that it's message is from our commanding Officer. No devil, no demons, no need for such codes. If we find codes, we confirm the hypothesis and make it more plausible.

Now, if I may apply the Bayesian equation to this. The idea that demons exist has a long history, with many anecdotes of people actually seeing them. Early definitions of spirits was of beings that could make themselves visible or invisible at will. Any Google search on demonology and deliverance elaborates on these early ideas. As of March, 2003, according to Gallup, 69% of Americans believe that such demons exist. The percentage is probably much lower in Europe and Australia, but higher is Central and South America, Africa, and southern and eastern Asia. The discovery of dark matter substantiates the existence of physical stuff that has similar properties to "spiritual" matter, of which demons are supposedly constructed. It is usual in nature as we know it for species to co-exist ecologically, with pathogenic, parasitic, or predatory species that they cannot sense, and that are more intelligent than they are. All of these observations suggest that the prior plausibility for demons (derived from an ancient word for "intelligent") ought to be moderately high, say somewhere around .5. The prior plausibility for true Bible Codes is normally considered by commentators as very low, somewhere at the level of .0001, based on the level of statistical significance asked to confirm them. The conditional plausibility for bible codes, given that demons and the rest of orthodox theology is true, is moderate, say .9. Not all wartime communications have such authorizing signatures or codes. This adjusts the prior plausibility of codes by .5x.9=.45, giving us .4501. The product, as noted, of P(H).P(E/H)=.5x.9=.45. .45/.4501=.9999. Thus, the Bible Codes data, to those like myself who think this way, improves the plausibility of demons from .5 to .9999.

But, of course, to skeptics, P(H) would be estimated as very low, let's say, .01. The other values need not change, so we end up with .01x.9=.009, and .009/.0091=.99. Again a dramatic improvement.

Of course, I'm not going to defend these numbers. The above is a simple demonstration of how evidence of this sort influences a bayesian's sense of the plausibility of an idea. I'd love to see you plug in some numbers, to see how your mind is working. Objectively.

Subjectively, some like myself went to work on this because of a hope that an answer could be found to solve some intractable relatoinal problems. This is a common enough anthropological explanation for belief in demons when it is found in a primitive culture. It is easier to forgive a spouse or child of destructive behavior, if you can blame it on someone else. This motivates the study of demons, at whatever epistemological level one is working at. Without H-D methodology, and Bayesian calculations, it could also bias your research. But, if those are done in a disciplined way, the method allows your inspiration to do the work to not bias your interpretation of the results. WRR and Gans knew this quite well, which is why they got outsiders to input what they were looking to be coded.

One intriguing finding, is that prior to 1980, Gallup Polls found only about 30% of Americans believing demons existed. But, since then, there have been many reports of spiritual research in the papers, and Drosnin's Bible Codes, as McKay puts it, made WRR's paper the most widely published scientific paper in history. When Gallup did his poll in 2003, he got the remarkable increase to 68%. As the Bayesian process would have predicted, in the face of all this evidence, many are finding the idea more plausible.

Finally, when I do kitchen table experiments, I know that I do not have the subjective pressure of scientific reputation to bias my results, I only have my own mental and physical health, and that of those I love at stake. I don't normally worry too much about what peer reviewers would be concerned about, only being happy when I find a cure for an otherwise intractable problem. I did these experiments at home, had lots of adventures, solved many long-standing problems that had us beat and ready to give up, etc. Learned a lot. It was all H-D testing, though, but informally done. By the time I got to the Bible Codes, the plausibility in my mind was already very high.

So, I hope that helps you understand how I got, and why I remain convinced that our world is probably haunted, and that the widespread skepticism about demons is demonic. But, perhaps the codes and prayer experiments will rescue us! Science has done so in the past.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 02-10-2004 2:27 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 02-12-2004 8:17 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 76 (85900)
02-12-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by truthlover
02-11-2004 12:23 AM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
truthlover,

You note,

I agree, it is despicable, but I don't think you've established that anyone is doing this.

No, I haven't. Don't really think I could. But, if someone is, and reads the description, perhaps they will inwardly cringe with conviction, and resolve to stop. An awful lot of evil goes on, where "they know not what they do." Maybe suggesting won't help, and maybe nobody is actually doing this. But, see below.

Perhaps you would add to what's already happening at most kitchen tables--at least the ones where people talk to each other--the designing of experiments to test their ideas. You do talk about that and seem open to it, but people are people. Without the rigorous peer review process that journals provide, and without training on what's valid evidence and what is just subjective interpretation, people are going to draw conclusions, all right, but they're not going to be consistent or agree with each other. Baptists will draw Baptist conclusions, Hindus will draw Hindu conclusions, Buddhists will draw Buddhist conclusions, and New Agers will draw New Age conclusions, each according to their own biases, preferences, and leanings.

What I would add is training in how to think according to this methodology, because I am convinced that the drawing of all the conclusions about which there are disagreements is simply a lack of knowledge of good applied epistemology. The method begins with the goals of spotting subjectivity in regard to an idea, using that to inspire and motivate a study, and preventing it from biasing results. The sense of "conclusions" itself gets put away back on a back burner, when you properly understand this method. When I catch myself speaking of conclusions, I know that my heart has wandered off track.

I see the developement of good applied epistemology as an "evolving" process, that is like the "evolution" of our eyes. It makes our minds a sensor of the invisible, heretofore unknowable, world. When we all "see" clearly, we won't disagree.

I think the average person sitting around his kitchen table trying to find solutions to personal problems is not going to change very much based on what you are describing, especially if your premise that demons exist and are trying to deceive people is true.

They will if they are trained to, especially during those parts of their lives when they are forming their rules for knowing what is or isn't true. "My people perish for a lack of knowledge."

Mormons design prayer experiments all the time, and most of the time they get the "burning in their heart" that they pray for, and they are convinced--seemingly by following the very methodology you are suggesting--that Mormonism is true and that Jehovah has a wife and sired many spirit children who have come to earth and been born--as us.

When I was teaching my course on Models, and testing H-D science, I had a beloved Mormon undergrad student. He proposed his test to me, and I stopped to think about the hypothesis we were testing, and what actually we ought to predict. I must admit, however, that I had mis-spent 10 years of my life in a painful marriage, because I had this burning in my heart, that I thought was God's blessing. Anyway, I asked God for wisdom, since the it was written that anyone could do that, and He said that, if you wanted an institutional church, the Mormon one was as good as any and better than most. But, if you wanted the real church, find a "brother" and love him. So, I told my student that it wasn't a wise test, could not be confirmed in Scripture, wasn't the way to know what God wanted. I told him of my experiment, asking for wisdom (after counting it all joy, etc), and what I got. He went on to become active in that religion, but my H-D training and discipline held me to precise tests, not seat of the pants ones.

Many others have designed prayer experiments, gotten no answers, and concluded that God isn't real.

If I had had a chance to train them in scientific methodology, this wouldn't have happened. During the course of my graduate training, I found several students who wanted to do an experiment, and see for themselves. Always with success. You just have to play by the rules. But hardly anyone knows the rules.

Applying the methodology you have been describing at the kitchen table of lost souls will result in what it already has resulted in. Nothing will be different.

But listen to this. Linus Pauling, a great scientist, proposed this kitchen table experiment. Take, daily, one-half gram vitamin C, until you get a cold. Then double the dose, until you again get a cold. Double it again, until you get a cold. Eventually, he predicted, you will get no more colds, and will have found your personal requirements for vitamin C. Trained as I was in H-D methodology, I saw at once that this was an H-D experiment, testing the hypothesis that every person has an individual requirement for vitamin C, and that when that requirement is met, colds are "prevented". I did it, and eventually settled on four grams a day. That was in 1971. I have had about six days with colds since then, while before, I was sick with colds about 30 days a year. When I reported this to others, they reacted and usually rejected. They had heard that Pauling was a crank. They had heard doctors tell them about expensive urine. And, they had never been trained to be disciplined in applying clear and approved methods to deciding questions like this.

Once I learned the method and made it a habit of thinking, I improved so many areas of my life---sex life, prayer life, parenting life, scientific career. I feel sure that others would benefit in the same way. But, what is taught as science is not it. Ask the most educated persons you know to describe the H-D method, strong inference, bayesian reasoning. You'll see the "lack of knowledge" for yourself.

Incidently, I have found very strong scriptural confirmation for all the steps and ways of this method.

More Hope! Let's have more hope!

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by truthlover, posted 02-11-2004 12:23 AM truthlover has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 43 of 76 (85914)
02-12-2004 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Stephen ben Yeshua
02-12-2004 6:30 PM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:

H-D Step 1. Note a problem. Here, the problem is evil in the world.

First, you haven't yet established that what you're doing is H-D. No one here thinks you're doing H-D, and as has been pointed out, Googles of H-D contradict you. Before you can make your case using your version of H-D, you must first make the case that it is valid. You have a thread where you're supposed to be doing that.

Second, evil is subjective. Until you provide an objective, measurable foundation for evil, none of the rest of your post has any validity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-12-2004 6:30 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 02-14-2004 4:42 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 76 (86311)
02-14-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
02-12-2004 8:17 PM


Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
P.

You say,

Re: Stephen Needs to be Scientific
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
H-D Step 1. Note a problem. Here, the problem is evil in the world.

First, you haven't yet established that what you're doing is H-D. No one here thinks you're doing H-D, and as has been pointed out, Googles of H-D contradict you. Before you can make your case using your version of H-D, you must first make the case that it is valid. You have a thread where you're supposed to be doing that.

Second, evil is subjective. Until you provide an objective, measurable foundation for evil, none of the rest of your post has any validity.

This from Scheiderer,

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of some natural phenomenon.

The natural phenomenon is "evil" meaning what seems evil to most people, injustice, murder, torture, child abuse, suicide bombers, etc. Such behavior actually seems barely natural, in that it is rare in "nature." It seems irrational, weird, lacking in many normal human characteristics, such as empathy. We look at man's inhumanity to man, and wonder why? We call it "madness" using the same term we use for a dog with hydrophobia, rabies, that changes the friendly doggie's behavior to a ravening, biting terror. On another post, I provide a minimalist definition of evil as behavior or actions that lower the fitness in the population genetics sense (W) of the most intelligent living beings being influenced. Evil is associated with the death or premanent end of something good.

Now, I read the googles on H-D science, and am glad that they describe so well what I am doing. They support my claim that it is a good technigue, and describe it in words other than my own. Would you like me to e-mail Scheiderer, and ask him? What's it going to take? I get taught H-D science in graduate school, pass all my tests on the subject, read further on it, practise it, thesis approved as a model for the method, teach it for 12 years to graduate students, some of whom who now are eminent scientists, my own research is widely cited, and now a bunch of people with no credibility that I can ascertain have the cheek to tell me that what I am doing is not H-D science, while offering no support or evidence that this is true. (And Popper's subjecivity remarks clearly applied to data interpretation, not hypothesis formation, unlike mine.)

The "none of the rest of your post has any validity" is simply dogmatic opinionation at its worst. Yeshua was right, "they know not what they do." You ought to be ashamed to say such things, but apparently are too naive. The correct statement is, "Give us an example of what you mean by evil, and, if possible, a definition that separates evil from good behavior."

Sorry, Percy, but sometimes the way you say things is so outrageous I feel compelled to say so. Do you really believe that it is in the best interests of debate, or forum discussion, to say such things? When I judge debates, I always mark down debaters who try to bluster their way to victory by claiming their opponents are completely wrong. Nobody is completely wrong, and everybody loves a close contest. Everything about a debate is best when the winner's victory contains the best points that the loser was making. Then, really, everyone wins.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 02-12-2004 8:17 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tamara, posted 02-23-2004 9:18 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 76 (87981)
02-22-2004 1:21 PM


quote:
All of these observations suggest that the prior plausibility for demons (derived from an ancient word for "intelligent") ought to be moderately high, say somewhere around .5. The prior plausibility for true Bible Codes is normally considered by commentators as very low, somewhere at the level of .0001, based on the level of statistical significance asked to confirm them. The conditional plausibility for bible codes, given that demons and the rest of orthodox theology is true, is moderate, say .9. Not all wartime communications have such authorizing signatures or codes. This adjusts the prior plausibility of codes by .5x.9=.45, giving us .4501. The product, as noted, of P(H).P(E/H)=.5x.9=.45. .45/.4501=.9999. Thus, the Bible Codes data, to those like myself who think this way, improves the plausibility of demons from .5 to .9999.

I would like to know how you can draw the conclutions that the 'probability' of demons is as high as 50%, while the established prior expected probability of bible codes were only 0.01%.

Surely, if you draw the similarity between demons and for example virus colonies within hosts, demons would be possible to directly detect in a similar manner?

Using the same frame of reference in regard to demons, if I had to put a number on it, it would be much lower, maybe in the range of 0.001%, because divinely inspired codes in such a socially important document seems more likely.

[This message has been edited by Melchior, 02-22-2004]


Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017