Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
365 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, marc9000 (4 members, 361 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,896 Year: 21,932/19,786 Month: 495/1,834 Week: 495/315 Day: 91/82 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Divine signature in the Torah
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 47 of 139 (721438)
03-07-2014 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
03-07-2014 2:33 AM


Normally in science, a chance of 1 in 20 is taken as not te be coincidence anymore, for instance in testing medication.

The odds of winning the Powerball lottery is 1 in 150 million, yet people win it all of the time.

Bs'd

Your point being?

So after six years of brooding on the codes, and after calling in the worlds foremost expert on statistics who delved into it, and who couldn't find a flaw, it was published.

The flaw is that it commits the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. These combinations of letters were not predicted before hand.

Isn't that weird, that something with a so obvious fallacy, passes through six years of peer review, by the worlds best statisticians?

Those combinations were of course predicted in advance.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 03-07-2014 2:33 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2014 10:03 AM Eliyahu has responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 48 of 139 (721439)
03-07-2014 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
03-07-2014 2:33 AM


.

Edited by Eliyahu, : Dubbel



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 03-07-2014 2:33 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 50 of 139 (721441)
03-07-2014 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Taq
03-07-2014 2:33 AM


Normally in science, a chance of 1 in 20 is taken as not te be coincidence anymore, for instance in testing medication.

The odds of winning the Powerball lottery is 1 in 150 million, yet people win it all of the time.

Bs'd

Your point being?

So after six years of brooding on the codes, and after calling in the worlds foremost expert on statistics who delved into it, and who couldn't find a flaw, it was published.

The flaw is that it commits the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. These combinations of letters were not predicted before hand.

Isn't that weird, that something with a so obvious fallacy, passes through six years of peer review, by the worlds best statisticians?

Those combinations were of course predicted in advance.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 03-07-2014 2:33 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Taq, posted 03-07-2014 11:39 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 51 of 139 (721442)
03-07-2014 9:25 AM


Bs'd

Dr Rips, professor at the Hebrew University Jerusalem, one of the best mathematicians in the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfvkIm9oa8I



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2014 9:47 AM Eliyahu has responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 52 of 139 (721443)
03-07-2014 9:30 AM


Bs'd

Harold Gans, senior code breaker at the NSA for 28 years:

http://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/harold-gans



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 53 of 139 (721444)
03-07-2014 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AZPaul3
03-07-2014 9:16 AM


Re: This is real
There are three major problems with you great rabbis code fiasco.

- Any text of similar size yields similar word clusters as the torah.

Bs'd

But not with any statistical significance.

- The probabilities you quote are based on methods not accepted by the mathematical community and are bogus.

Then explain why something with a so obvious fallacy passes through six years of peer review by the worlds best statisticians and was then published in Statistical Science.

- The very nature of Hebrew left lots of wiggle room in designing the word searches. If you don't find enough clusters of one spelling then add in the clusters for another, and yet a third.

The data was fixed in advance by a third party expert before the experiment began.

That's just in data and methods. Now, let's talk real science. In trying to repeat this great rabbis fabrication using actual accepted mathematical standards the p values (significance) fall well below 1 in 5 let alone 1 in 1000 or your bogus 1 in 50,000.

Now THAT is bogus.

quote:Because minor variations in data definitions and the procedures used by Witztum et al. produce much less striking results, there is good reason to think that the particular forms of words those authors chose effectively "tuned" their method to their data, thus invalidating their statistical test.

This is refuted in a peer reviewed publication presented at the 18th International Congres for Pattern Recognition in 2006

And here is something else for you to consider. For these codes to be the true ciphers of your god they would only work if the masoretic text of today were infallible, letter by letter, to the original.

A very big mistake. If the text is corrupted, letter by letter, then some codes will disappear, others will not.

Just look at the codes spelling "Torah", or the Esther codes which are in Genesis, corruption of all four books following Genesis will not affect those codes.

When the text degenerates, slowly slowly the codes will start to disappear, but not all at once when a single letter is left out of the Torah.

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Edited by Eliyahu, : 2005 was 2006



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2014 9:16 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2014 10:39 AM Eliyahu has responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 56 of 139 (721449)
03-07-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2014 10:03 AM


Those combinations were of course predicted in advance.

That would either be a huge retarded lie, or something for which you have evidence.

And so far I've not seen any evidence.

Bs'd

Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2014 10:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 03-07-2014 1:11 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2014 2:14 PM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2014 8:44 PM Eliyahu has responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 57 of 139 (721453)
03-07-2014 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2014 10:03 AM


.

Edited by Eliyahu, : Double



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2014 10:03 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 67 of 139 (721537)
03-09-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by AZPaul3
03-07-2014 9:47 AM


Dr. Fred Hoyle, one of the most outstanding, brilliant, prolific scientists in his time, went off the deep end late in his life, too.

Bs'd

You think he went of the deep end, because he didn't agree with your view points.

But not everybody who doesn't agree with you went of the deep end.

Being best does not make all your pronouncements truth, especially when the rest of your colleagues have shown you where you erred.

Having your colleagues showing you were you, according to them, erred, does not necessarily mean you erred.

New information in general is not awarded a warm welcome. We all want new information, we read newspapers, check out the news channels, everything for new information.

And when something really new pops up, then... then all hell breaks loose.

Why would that be? Excellent question. When you find out, please let me know.

About 300 years ago, Galileo by means of one of the first telescopes discovered that the earth is revolving around the sun, and not the other way around. New information. Did that bring him fame and admiration? Not really. He was put in jail until he retracted his statement about the earth revolving around the sun.

About 150 years ago women were dying by the scores because of the feared puerperal fever. A certain doctor, Semmelweis, discovered after long study that it was caused because doctors, after they did an autopsy, went on doing internal examinations in pregnant women, without first washing their hands. He discovered that washing hands after cutting up dead body's and before internal examinations in women, would save very many lives.

Did that discovery bring him fame and recognition?

Not really. His colleagues refused to believe that they were the cause if the high mortality on the maternity wards. Dr Semmelweis pushed the subject. He called doctors who refused to wash their hands “murderers', which they were of course, and strongly condemned the unhygienic practices of his colleagues. In stead of thanks for his discovery which only in his own clinic saved thousands of womens lives, what happened was that he was beaten with clubs, locked up in a mental assylum, where he died a few weeks later.

Also this new information didn't get a warm reception.

The person who discovered that Jacob-Kreutzfeld syndrome, “mad cow disease” was caused by “killer proteins”, was made fun of and ridiculed.

Fortunately he could quickly come up with empiric proof for his discovery.

In 1982 the Israeli scientist Shechtman discovered “quasi-cristals”, which appeared to be going against the laws of nature. People didn't take that too well. Publications by him about the subject were refused by publishers, he lost his job, was kicked out of his research team, and was wandering in the scientific waste lands for almost 10 years.

In 2011 he got the Nobel price for his discovery.

Also this bringer of new information had a rough time.

Dr Velikovsky, a jack of all trades, or more accurately worded: a master of all trades, had studied medicine and psychology, and worked for some time as a psychiatrist. Besides that he also studied physics, biology, history, and law. He delved into archeology and cosmology, and came up with a lot of new theories.

He didn't exactly reap fame and admiration thanks to his new ideas.

In 1950 most historians and astronomers saw Velikovsky's predictions and conclusions as nonsense. But while most aspiring scientists are accorded the right to propose theories even when the scientific community is not convinced of their veracity, this is not what happened to Velikovsky. His book; "Worlds in Collision", became the target of a fierce attack, even before it rolled of the printing presses. The attack was led by Dr. Harlow Shapley, a famous astronomer who then served as director of the Harvard University Observatory. Velikovsky met with Shapley in the spring of 1946 and described the ramifications of his extended, exhaustive study of the ancient writings. He asked whether Shapley would agree to read his manuscript, which had been in the preparatory stages for six years, and carry out certain experiments to verify the theory. Shapley, who was highly pressured at the time, turned down Velikovsky. However, he stipulated that if the manuscript would be read and approved by a well known scholar he knew, then he would find the time to read it, and he or a colleague would carry out the experiments in question.

Dr. Horace Kallen, a well-known scholar and co-founder of the New School for Social Research in New York, read Velikovsky's work. Deeply impressed, he wrote to Shapley and urged him to carry out the experiments, saying that if the theory should prove valid, "not only astronomy but history and a good many of the anthropological and social sciences would need to be reconsidered both for their content and explanation."

Shapley, when he heard that the work cast doubt on the stability of the solar system, sufficed with the following reply: "If Velikovsky is right, the rest of us are crazy."

Not only that, a short time after the book appeared in print, a university student asked Shapley whether she could base her research paper on the book. He answered her in the negative, saying Velikovsky was a liar and a forger. As for her question whether he read the book, Shapley provided the following scientific answer: "I didn't read it and I don't plan on reading it, because he is a liar and a forger." It was as simple as that. When it came to Velikovsky, the famous American "benefit of the doubt" had for some reason disappeared. At the onset of 1950, when the Macmillan publication company announced its intentions to publish Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision", Shapley tried to prevent the book from going to press. He threatened to "sever his ties" with the company, which relied on textbook sales for a substantial part of its profits. In what seemed to be an organized boycott, a long line of letters arrive in the Macmillan offices, all written by scientists, authors, and professors who used Macmillan textbooks for their courses. The letters warned the company to abandon its plan of publishing Velikovsky's books. At that point Macmillan had already begun the printing process. Faced with a though dilemma, the company announced that it would agree to a last minute critique of the book by three well known scientists. When two out of the three approved publication, Macmillan went ahead with the printing and the book appeared on the shelves in April of that year.

Thats when the storm broke.

Many saw the logic in Velikovsky's ideas and supported his right to express them. Gordon A. Atwater, curator or the Hayden Planetarium in New York's Museum of Natural History, is quoted at the beginning of Hulton Urstler's column in Readers Digest as saying that "the theories presented by Dr. Velikovsky are unique and should be presented to the world of science in order that the underpinnings of modern science be re-examined.

Atwater was so taken by Velikovsky's ideas that he planned an exhibit in the planetarium depicting the theory of Worlds in Collision. In addition, he prepared a cover article for the weekly "This Week", enjoining readers to approach the book without prior suspicions or preconceptions.

The night before the weekly went to print, Atwater was asked to resign from his position at the museum.

A short time later, Macmillan fired James Putnam, the editor who had arranged the book contract. Pressure mounted on Macmillan to stop marketing "Worlds in Collision". Eight weeks after the book first appeared, Macmillan transferred rights to Doubleday, a company that specialized in non-academic publications. That was an unprecedented step in the history of book publishing, especially considering that at the time, "Worlds in Collision" was at the top of the New York Times bestseller list for works of non-fiction.

The initial opposition to Velikovsky's ideas was so violent that several commentators were reminded of Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition.

He was called every possible derisive name: charlatan, trickster, forger, ignoramus, money hungry, manipulative, stupid, and who knows what else.

Several books have been written about only one subject, the treatment that Velikovsky got from the scientific establishment.

Science burning books.

All this tells us that the way that science reacts on a certain idea or discovery, is in no way an indicator for the veracity or importance of it.

You can very well be ridiculed and ignored by science, and still be right.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2014 9:47 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2014 8:53 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2014 10:03 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 69 of 139 (721539)
03-09-2014 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AZPaul3
03-07-2014 10:39 AM


Re: This is real
Then explain why something with a so obvious fallacy passes through six years of peer review by the worlds best statisticians and was then published in Statistical Science.

Here's a hint.

quote:Mr. Witztum concedes my point that because referees don’t always give papers extremely careful consideration, the acceptance in a scientific journal is only a weak indication of the paper’s correctness. But he says that his paper was different. First he claims that it passed scrutiny by Persi Diaconis, who all agree is one of the world’s leading statisticians. In fact, while Diaconis did think the paper worthy of publication as a discussion piece accompanied by a rebuttal, he was doubtful enough about the result that he offered to write that rebuttal himself. Moreover, at the time he was under the incorrect impression that the experimenters had used a statistical test he had proposed, when in fact they had used a completely different test which improved their result (see footnote 39). Recently, Diaconis has become convinced that the paper is totally invalid.

Bs'd

Nonsens. See here what happened: http://www.torahcode.co.il/english/persi2.htm



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2014 10:39 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 70 of 139 (721540)
03-09-2014 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
03-08-2014 8:44 PM


Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

An actual discussion of this matter would be about Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg's [WRR] paper and the many papers refuting his paper. I asked you for a pointer to the paper and the attempts to refute it that you labeled ineffective. You answered my post but provided no citation.

You have since admitted that you cannot follow the statistics in WRR's paper. So what is there worth discussing with you on this topic? You have no way of knowing which of WRR or their detractors are correct because you are incapable of evaluating the arguments of either.

Bs'd

I'm not a mathematician, just like I'm not a paleontologist, and not a biologist, and not a physicist, and a lot more not.

That's why I rely on authorities in those fields, and that's why I don't make up stories myself, but show what big experts in those fields say.

Those combinations were of course predicted in advance.
Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

No, they were not predicted in advance. WRR alleges that the codes tell of events that happened after the text was written, but his analysis, conducted in 1994, is of events occurring well in the past.

What he predicted, was that that data would be found in the Torah.

The data was fixed in advance, according to guidelines set up by Statistical Science, who demanded a whole new experiment for publication.

A prediction would occur if a living rabbi learned his death date by reading a Bible code. Never happened. Instead there are supposedly a bunch of dates and a 'proximity' to something suggesting a famous rabbi's name.

And all thoroughly debunked shortly after the 1994 paper was published.

There was nothing "thoroughly debunked". All there was was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. A "refutation" which itself is refuted in a peer reviewed artikel presented at the 18th International Congres for Pattern Recognition in 2006 in Hong Kong.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2014 8:44 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2014 12:00 PM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 03-09-2014 12:27 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 11:29 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 71 of 139 (721541)
03-09-2014 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ramoss
03-08-2014 7:45 PM


Ah yes, the old 'Torah Codes'.

Sorry, but that has been debunked. With a big enough book, you can find patterns for just about anything. It is not very impressive, and the need to clutch at trying to 'prove' shows a lack of faith.

Here is an analysis about many of the 'Torah code' proponent claims.

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

Bs'd

Thank you for your brain fart on the subject.

And now the opinion of somebody who does know what he is talking about, Harold Gans:

Mr. Harold Gans

Harold Gans is a graduate of Yeshiva Gur Aryeh and received a Bachelor of Science degree Cum Laude with honors in mathematics from Brooklyn College. He received a Master of Arts degree in mathematics from the Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow.

For 28 years, Mr. Gans was a Senior Cryptologic Mathematician with the National Security Agency, United States Department of Defense until his retirement in 1996. While there, he received the prestigious Meritorious Civilian Service Award for research, and was certified as a professional cryptanalyst.

Mr. Gans was elected a distinguished member of the Crypto-Mathematics Institute for his many contributions and publications in that field, and has taught mathematics, crypto-mathematics and computer science at the college level.

More info about him HERE

In THIS interview he says the following:

Question: But weren't the Torah codes disproven in the scientific world?

Answer: The controversy began shortly after Mr. Witztum and Dr. Rips published a paper on their “Great Rabbis Experiment” in the journal Statistical Science in 1994. It reached a point where the same journal published a paper written by an Australian computer scientist who purportedly refuted the Torah codes and claimed the 1994 paper was a hoax.

Statistical Science refused to allow Rips and Witztum to print a defense of their paper – something which is unheard of in professional science literature, where the standard rule is that if a refutation of a scientific paper is admitted for publication, the author of the original paper is always given a chance to respond first.

In fact, Witztum and Rips were told that they would be given a chance to respond, and then the journal backed down and would not allow it.

In 2006, at the 18th International Pattern Recognition Conference, which took place in Hong Kong, there were six papers published in support of the Torah codes. All of these papers were subject to peer review, which means that fellow scientists reviewed the papers and could note any flaw in the research or logic that they might find. Were they to find an uncorrectable flaw, the paper would be rejected.

One of the papers that I co-authored proved that the original paper describing the “Great Rabbis Experiment” was not a hoax, and that the experiment with the rabbis and the cities of their birth and death was valid. That paper referenced the critic's 1999 Statistical Science paper, so that the reviewers could easily refer to it.
According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.

Unfortunately, most people don't know the critics have been disproven. When scientists come up to me and try to dispute the validity of the codes, I ask: “Can you find a fatal flaw?” They pause, and say: “No.”

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2014 7:45 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 4:33 PM Eliyahu has responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 72 of 139 (721542)
03-09-2014 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2014 2:19 PM


Thank you for that admission. So since the same journal tore this imaginary Bible code into shreds and jumped up and down on the pieces, you will now admit that it's stupid, yes?

Bs'd

No, because more peer reviewed articles have been released on the subject, ripping the supposed "refutation" to shreds, and jumping up and down on the pieces, while at the same time thoroughly establishing the Bible codes.

For the finer details see message 71.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2014 2:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 4:10 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 73 of 139 (721543)
03-09-2014 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2014 2:14 PM


Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

So you're not going to show us any evidence?

Gee, how did I guess?

Bs'd

Here is the whole paper, that's all the evidence you need:

http://www.realbiblecodes.com/experiments/WRR.pdf



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2014 2:14 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2014 12:07 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 597 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 85 of 139 (721585)
03-10-2014 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by NoNukes
03-09-2014 12:00 PM


That's why I rely on authorities in those fields, and that's why I don't make up stories myself, but show what big experts in those fields say.

Well the authorities say that WRR's paper is bullocks and my point is that you have no ability to critique that. So talking with you is pointless.

Bs'd

Wrong. Only SOME authorities say it is bullocks. Others say it is authenic.

There was nothing "thoroughly debunked". All there was was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result..

As has been discussed several times, a refutation was published in 1999 in the same journal in which the original article appeared.

Right, and they refused a refutation of the refutation, which is now presented at the 18th International Congres for Pattern Recognition in 2006, together with 5 other peer reviewed papers on the Bible codes.

And that "refutation" in Statistical Science did not give a refutation, but it only was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. That the result was meaningfull was something they couldn't deny.

And calling the debunking 'ridiculous' is not an answer. It is your mere assertion, and we know you are not capable of carrying on a discussion about it.

The answer has been given in a peer reviewed refutation.

Further, your characterization of the nature of the rebuttal is completely inaccurate. The flaws in WRR's work are well documented.

You have no idea what you are talking about. If there were any flaws in it, it would never have been published in a peer reviewed journal to begin with. Certainly not after six years of studying it and calling in the worlds biggest experts, because of the obvious very controversial content.
The paper is flawless.

In essence, what we have here is a disagreement among experts with you unable to take any meaningful part in a discussion about who is right.

Let me tell you again how science works:

In 2006, at the 18th International Pattern Recognition Conference, which took place in Hong Kong, there were six papers published in support of the Torah codes. All of these papers were subject to peer review, which means that fellow scientists reviewed the papers and could note any flaw in the research or logic that they might find. Were they to find an uncorrectable flaw, the paper would be rejected.

One of the papers that I co-authored proved that the original paper describing the “Great Rabbis Experiment” was not a hoax, and that the experiment with the rabbis and the cities of their birth and death was valid. That paper referenced the critic's 1999 Statistical Science paper, so that the reviewers could easily refer to it.
According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.

So, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.

.
.
.

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2014 12:00 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2014 12:22 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 03-10-2014 1:48 PM Eliyahu has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019