|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,783 Year: 1,105/6,935 Month: 386/719 Week: 28/146 Day: 1/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discontinuing research about ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm going to allow posts like this until Dubreuil responds to my request in Message 186 that he be very clear about what portions of his paper we should be ignoring. I don't think he knows which portions of his paper we should be ignoring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I'm going to allow posts like this until Dubreuil responds to my request in Message 186 that he be very clear about what portions of his paper we should be ignoring. I don't think he knows which portions of his paper we should be ignoring. I have an idea! Let's ignore all portions of his paper. And let's follow the recommendation in his thread title, and "discontinue research about ID" as well.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dubreuil Member (Idle past 3368 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Well, I'm quiet sure I don't want to comment this anymore. The tone of the conversation becomes increasingly hateful, and I don't want to read such hate messages. The knowledge about the paper is still minimal. I have corrected Cat Scis posts often enough to know he didn't read the paper and RAZD just found out 12 hours later that he had to rethink his fit vs fail and that his 26/∞ argument was just wrong. There is also obviously on one familiar with information science. Nearly all questions didn't had to be answered if there would be some knowledge about these sciences or the paper. I probably could continue writing here for months, and the knowledge about the respective sciences and the paper would still be insufficient to write a substantiated comment about it. I really don't need this comments. The paper was already looked at by people with enough knowledge about the respective sciences. It doesn't matter to me if this paper will never be published too, I don't even like the most of the ID proponents. I really don't want to read all this hateful comments anymore. If anyone knows the proceedings in science, then he knows that it is not usual to be offensive and hateful until a different opinion was exterminated. This thread can be closed. You hate me? I hate you too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, I'm quiet sure I don't want to comment this anymore. The tone of the conversation becomes increasingly hateful, and I don't want to read such hate messages. The knowledge about the paper is still minimal. I have corrected Cat Scis posts often enough to know he didn't read the paper and RAZD just found out 12 hours later that he had to rethink his fit vs fail and that his 26/∞ argument was just wrong. There is also obviously on one familiar with information science. Nearly all questions didn't had to be answered if there would be some knowledge about these sciences or the paper. I probably could continue writing here for months, and the knowledge about the respective sciences and the paper would still be insufficient to write a substantiated comment about it. I really don't need this comments. The paper was already looked at by people with enough knowledge about the respective sciences. It doesn't matter to me if this paper will never be published too, I don't even like the most of the ID proponents. I really don't want to read all this hateful comments anymore. If anyone knows the proceedings in science, then he knows that it is not usual to be offensive and hateful until a different opinion was exterminated. This thread can be closed. You hate me? I hate you too. Exactly as I predicted:
quote: You got owned. I'm happy to have won this one. Have a nice day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13143 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dubreuil writes: The tone of the conversation becomes increasingly hateful, and I don't want to read such hate messages. I've been carefully monitoring this thread and I see nothing hateful from those debating with you. If anything they've been mocking, and deservedly so. I'm still waiting for an answer for how you could start a thread about a paper with "Triune God" in the title and then in discussion completely disavow any discussion of God. You give no indication of comprehending that you've assumed rather than demonstrated what you're calling residual uncertainty, or that your events are inherently arbitrary and full of your own personal biases and inclinations, or that your "patterns" are so ill defined as to match almost anything.
There is also obviously on one familiar with information science. Please refrain from making other participants the subject of your discussion. There is nothing particularly complicated about your math. There are few people here who couldn't understand it. The only thing complicated in your paper is your arcane system for classifying events.
You hate me? I hate you too. No one hates you. Stop behaving immaturely. People are telling you you're making no sense, and because you're showing no sign of understanding this feedback and are ignoring it people have turned to mocking you. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dubreuil writes:
I think you've mistaken snickering for hate.
The tone of the conversation becomes increasingly hateful....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Dubreuil writes:
I think you've mistaken snickering for hate. The tone of the conversation becomes increasingly hateful.... Mistaken? Self-martyrdom is always the last ditch effort of a charlatan. Its no mistake, its all part of the plan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So, here's your M#s:
quote: Curiously something is missing that would de facto cause an event change: a scene change. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Curiously something is missing that would de facto cause an event change: a scene change. Did he ever end up explaining how you get from one even to another?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... and RAZD just found out 12 hours later that he had to rethink his fit vs fail and that his 26/∞ argument was just wrong. ... It wasn't a matter of finding out -- seeing as nobody corrected me -- but of rethinking it. Obviously there are problems with being able to calculate accurate probabilities because of the way some elements interconnect and affect whether other can actually occur, something you failed to notice when compiling your list of deal breakers ... ... and I was honest enough to leave the old argument so you could see it and the changes I made: that should make you happy that I respect your argument enough to do that.
... There is also obviously on one familiar with information science. ... Where is the science?
... The paper was already looked at by people with enough knowledge about the respective sciences. It doesn't matter to me if this paper will never be published too, ... If you think you are getting rough treatment, I can guarantee you that it is kinder that a full peer review would be. We could compare what you have done to curve fitting ... If I have three data points there are several curves that can be fit to the data (circle, parabola, exponential) that will have different predictive power for testing with the next data point. For the sake of argument we will use the polynomial, as it has advantages for simplicity of solutions:
y = A + Bx + Cx^2 And we use the three known points to solve for A, B and C. With four data points we can still generate a polynomial curve
y = A + Bx + Cx^2 + Dx^3 And we use the four known points to solve for A, B, C and D. The more data points the more variables you can solve for, and you will always get 100% fit to the known data. In addition we can be fairly sure that any new data point near an existing point will be relatively near the curves. Less likely are new data points further from any existing points (especially when outside the data set). However, we would want to find the simplest solution with the best fit within an acceptable margin of error, and for that you would need to use error function modeling. To generate this you can recursively drop one data point, solving the polynomial for the remaining points, and then finding the root mean square error of each of the dropped points:
Erms = (sum(actual - predicted)^2/N)^(1/2) Which you may recognize as σ ... but the calculation is simplified by only having one dropped data point, so Erms = |(actual - predicted)| ... and the curve with the lowest Erms would be the best fit of the possible solutions. Then you can recursively drop a second data point and simplify the formula again and repeat the Erms calculations to find the best fit. The simplist curve with the smallest Erms within the allowable limits would be the more practical (easy to use) solution. (There is an online discussion of this type of curve fitting starting at pdf page 22 (book page 4) in Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning by Christopher M. Bishop where he discusses fitting the polynomial to a sine curve.) My overall impression is that you have not tried to simplify the pattern (equation), preferring to add elements to get a 100% fit, and as a result it is unwieldy and clunky. You might find that a system with half of your elements would be accurate 95% of the time ... which would still be a strong signal of pattern. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I probably could continue writing here for months, and the knowledge about the respective sciences and the paper would still be insufficient to write a substantiated comment about it. I really don't need this comments. The paper was already looked at by people with enough knowledge about the respective sciences. Respective sciences... Your paper does not demonstrate any particular expertise in anything except watching television and taking notes in this language you have invented. Other than that, what you seem to be doing is misapplying one of mankind's greatest gifts; the ability to find complex patterns in a set of observations. Surely that ability marks great intelligence and is a great survival aid. Unfortunately, as Dr. Tyson described during the Cosmos series, when this great gift is pushed too hard, we get things like a belief that comets are harbingers of evil events, astrology, etc. And of course papers like yours. And to what end? We know that biological life as a whole contains patterns. But the theory is that naturally occurring processes identified as a part of evolution are perfectly capable of generating patterns. Similarly, an analysis one of the most formulaic inventions of mankind, namely the episodic tv show, that finds patterns is not exactly an eye-popping piece of news either. It is only your claims that the pattern means something makes your paper worth talking about. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously something is missing that would de facto cause an event change: a scene change. Did he ever end up explaining how you get from one even to another? He said his transitions were caused\triggered by the appearance of an element of Event(n+1) that is not in Event(n). And that it doesn't matter if elements in Event(n) stay around into Event(n+1) even if they are not listed as elements for that n+1 event. I have a major problem with this as it changes the definition of Event(n+1) and stops the pattern from being broken from these stragglers\hangers-on\laggards. Then we have the ongoing problem of arbitrariness, both in how the elements are grouped and in how many events are involved in an episode (15? 14? (minus 10 or 11) 13? (minus 10&11) 10? (minus 4,5,6,7 and 8) or 9 or 8 ... ). Ask as much as one likes for the rationale behind the choices and there is no answer, just that it IS the pattern. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
I spent a few years to actually test the predictions of intelligent design at the present time. No, because intelligent design doesn't exactly predict the supposed earth-shattering discovery in your paper.
A paper with about 60 pages and 9 appendices resulted (About Testing Intelligent Design at the Present Time and References About a Triune God, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1504.0033) that supports the theory of ID. Aside from the methodological flaws that others here have highlighted, the paper doesn't support ID because it doesn't support an actual prediction of ID. And note that intelligent design isn't a theory -- it's a hypothesis. The divide between hypothesis in theory is discussed in basic freshmen college courses.
We asked other conventional research journals whether they accept papers about ID, but they only replied they will neither review nor publish a paper about intelligent design. Well, you asked the wrong question. Instead of asking research journals whether they accept papers about ID, just go ahead and submit the paper. If it's rejected, editors usually provide a reason why -- beyond just that "it's about intelligent design."
Therefore we have now given up to search for a journal that would accept our paper. Umm, you're not supposed to be hunting for a journal that would accept your paper. You should be looking for a journal that would review your paper.
I also want to warn every scientist who considers to write a research paper about intelligent design to not do so. I'd be more than willing to write up a paper on some aspect of intelligent design. If it's rejected after peer review, then there was something wrong with the paper and so shouldn't be in a journal anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Dubreuil (back in the OP) writes: I also want to warn every scientist who considers to write a research paper about intelligent design to not do so. Real scientists do not write about things based only on dogma, scripture, and the like. Real scientists rely on evidence. It is well known that ID is the illegitimate stepchild of dogma, scripture, and belief, with the serial numbers filed off in the vain hope that ID "scientists" will be able to fool people. Don't believe this? Google "cdesign proponentsists" to see just how dishonest IDers are. And that's only one example. IDers and creation "scientists" are the exact opposite of real scientists, as they begin with the desired conclusion and use every dishonest method available to "support" that conclusion. They have to ignore or deny huge amounts of contrary data, and make up data to support their claims. They have to do this as the real data contradicts their claims. And creationists are very often totally ignorant of real science. We see a lot of that on this website. On another website I was firmly assured by a creationist that evolution was impossible because the odds against it were 1720. (This did not impress very many readers, but the poster never figured out why.) So, in answer to your title in the OP, "Discontinuing research about ID." I can only say, "Thank you! I agree."Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Respective sciences... Startrekology. Kirkanomics. You've got to realize that Mr. Dubreuil is an expert in these fields and as such is disinclined to listen to the chatter of uninformed rabble such as we, who only know about real science. {Non-topic sniping material hidden. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-topic sniping material hidden. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025