Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 393 (756666)
04-24-2015 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dubreuil
04-24-2015 1:59 PM


Cat Sci writes:
Anyways, what about "bullspit", can I say bullspit?
No.
Well that's bullshit
I will give you an other example
Hold on a second, what was wrong with the previous examples:
you writes:
1. If P.Tr and P.Ri appeared simultaneous and if then P.LF appeared and if then P.Da appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.Tr has appeared and then P.Da has appeared and and then P.Tr has appeared again.
Re-written as:
If Troi and Riker are together, and La Forge and Data are shown, then Yar won't be happy before Troi and Data show up again, and then they'll show Troi once more before Yar's actually happy.
you writes:
2. If P.LF appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected and if then P.Da appeared and if then P.Pi was negatively affected again and if then P.BeC appeared and if then P.Wo appeared, then P.Ya can't be positively affected until for example P.LF was negatively affected and then P.Wo appeared and then P.BeC appeared again.
Re-written as:
If LaForge is there and Picard gets mad, then Data shows up and Picard gets mad, and then Crusher and Wolf appear, the Yar won't be happy until Worf is mad and shown and then Crusher is shown..
Is there something wrong with those re-writes? Or are they correct enough?
Because if they are, then we can get in to how the pattern you've identified came about.
Picard is the Captain
LaForge is the Lieutenant Commander
Data is the Chief Operations Officer.
Crusher is the Chief Medical Officer
Worf and Yar are both Lieutenants
So if the Lieutenant Commander and the Chief Operations Officer are giving the Captain a negative experience, and then the Chief Medical Officer and one Lieutenant show up, then the other Lieutenant won't be happy until the first one gets a negative experience.
That sounds like a reasonably expected set of events to me. One Lieutenant won't be happy until the other one that pissed the Captain off gets chastised. That actually makes perfect sense.
That's what I meant by stuff like this:
quote:
For example, the Captain of a ship is going to be talking to a Lt. Commander regardless of the writer of the script.
If they were all just writing a bunch of random stuff then it wouldn't be a TV show, it would be a mess.
The genre and setting and characters and all that stuff is going to constrain the ability of the writers to make huge differences between episodes.
Adding the editors, directors, and producers, on top of all that, that are trying to create a cohesive TV show that people will like is going to make for all kinds of similarities that will be found to make all kinds of patterns.
We should expect that patterns will arise, not be surprised by them.
Further:
quote:
Your pattern could just be a natural result of the TV series making process, you have not eliminated that possibility and that the chance of it happening is very low doesn't either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dubreuil, posted 04-24-2015 1:59 PM Dubreuil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2015 5:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 242 of 393 (756668)
04-24-2015 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by New Cat's Eye
04-24-2015 4:06 PM


Cat Sci writes:
Anyways, what about "bullspit", can I say bullspit?
No.
Well that's bullshit
You could always try ant frass, which can be quite a phenomenal product.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2015 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2015 12:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 243 of 393 (756684)
04-24-2015 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dubreuil
04-24-2015 1:59 PM


another approach ...
Remember when I said I felt you should reduce the number of variables and be happy with a result that was ~95% accurate?
This is usually regarded in science as a good match between model and reality, and certainly good enough to produce predictions in most cases.
The problem with having 24 optional patterns is that it is difficult to use for predictions -- you would have 24 different predictions ... which each would need to be tested.
RAZD writes:
So the pattern has ...
  • four variations,
    • one with E1 (and E2 and E3), and
    • one without E1, which then has three sub-variations,
      • one with E2 (and E3), and
      • one without E2, which then has two sub-sub-variations,
        • one with E3 and
        • one without,
E2 is not a possible start. The pattern has
  • four variations,
    • one with E1 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E3 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E4 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y
      • E10:y; E11:n
      • E10:n; E11:y
      • E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E5 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y
      • E10:y; E11:n
      • E10:n; E11:y
      • E10:n; E11:n
for a total of 24 different pattern variations. Only E1, E3, E4 or E5 can be arbitrary chosen. Which events are omitted is decided by the elements that occur. If at E3 an element of E9 occurs which is not part of E3, then E4-E8 are skipped.
Or we count it as points where the model with 15 events missed predicting the data:
  • four cases,
    • one with E1 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y -- all events from E1 to E15 modeled: 100.0% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n -- one event missed, 14 of 15 events modeled: 93.3% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y -- one event missed, 14 of 15 events modeled: 93.3% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n -- two events missed, 13 of 15 events modeled: 86.7% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y -- five events missed, 10 of 15 events modeled: 66.7% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n -- six events missed, 9 of 15 events modeled: 60.0% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y -- six events missed, 9 of 15 events modeled: 60.0% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n -- seven events missed, 8 of 15 events modeled: 53.3% fit
    • one with E3 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y -- two events missed, 13 of 15 events modeled: 86.7% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n -- three events missed, 12 of 15 events modeled: 80.0% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y -- three events missed, 12 of 15 events modeled: 80.0% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n -- four events missed, 11 of 15 events modeled: 73.3% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y -- seven events missed, 8 of 15 events modeled: 53.3% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n -- eight events missed, 7 of 15 events modeled: 46.7% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y -- eight events missed, 7 of 15 events modeled: 46.7% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n -- nine events missed, 6 of 15 events modeled: 40.0% fit
    • one with E4 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y -- three events missed, 12 of 15 events modeled: 80.0% fit
      • E10:y; E11:n -- four events missed, 11 of 15 events modeled: 73.3% fit
      • E10:n; E11:y -- four events missed, 11 of 15 events modeled: 73.3% fit
      • E10:n; E11:n -- five events missed, 10 of 15 events modeled: 66.7% fit
    • one with E5 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y -- four events missed, 11 of 15 events modeled: 73.3% fit
      • E10:y; E11:n -- five events missed, 10 of 15 events modeled: 66.7% fit
      • E10:n; E11:y -- five events missed, 10 of 15 events modeled: 66.7% fit
      • E10:n; E11:n -- six events missed, 9 of 15 events modeled: 60.0% fit
Now because the model is biased to having 15 events all the errors are to the side of missed events with no inserted events ... except for invalid transitions ...
On the other hand, if you start the pattern at E3 and delete E11 and E12, 11 fit points:
Remember when I said I felt you should reduce the number of variables and be happy with a result that was ~95% accurate?
This is usually regarded in science as a good match between model and reality, and certainly good enough to produce predictions in most cases.
The problem with having 24 optional patterns is that it is difficult to use for predictions -- you would have 24 different predictions ... which each would need to be tested.
RAZD writes:
So the pattern has ...
  • four variations,
    • one with E1 (and E2 and E3), and
    • one without E1, which then has three sub-variations,
      • one with E2 (and E3), and
      • one without E2, which then has two sub-sub-variations,
        • one with E3 and
        • one without,
E2 is not a possible start. The pattern has
  • four variations,
    • one with E1 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E3 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E4 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y
      • E10:y; E11:n
      • E10:n; E11:y
      • E10:n; E11:n
    • one with E5 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y
      • E10:y; E11:n
      • E10:n; E11:y
      • E10:n; E11:n
for a total of 24 different pattern variations. Only E1, E3, E4 or E5 can be arbitrary chosen. Which events are omitted is decided by the elements that occur. If at E3 an element of E9 occurs which is not part of E3, then E4-E8 are skipped.
Or we count it as points where the model with 15 events missed predicting the data:
  • four cases,
    • one with E1 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y -- all events from E1 to E15 modeled: 100.0% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n -- one event missed, 14 of 15 events modeled: 93.3% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y -- one event missed, 14 of 15 events modeled: 93.3% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n -- two events missed, 13 of 15 events modeled: 86.7% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y -- five events missed, 10 of 15 events modeled: 66.7% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n -- six events missed, 9 of 15 events modeled: 60.0% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y -- six events missed, 9 of 15 events modeled: 60.0% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n -- seven events missed, 8 of 15 events modeled: 53.3% fit
    • one with E3 as start, which then has 8 sub-variations,
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:y -- two events missed, 13 of 15 events modeled: 86.7% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:y; E11:n -- three events missed, 12 of 15 events modeled: 80.0% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:y -- three events missed, 12 of 15 events modeled: 80.0% fit
      • E4-E8:y; E10:n; E11:n -- four events missed, 11 of 15 events modeled: 73.3% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:y -- seven events missed, 8 of 15 events modeled: 53.3% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:y; E11:n -- eight events missed, 7 of 15 events modeled: 46.7% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:y -- eight events missed, 7 of 15 events modeled: 46.7% fit
      • E4-E8:n; E10:n; E11:n -- nine events missed, 6 of 15 events modeled: 40.0% fit
    • one with E4 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y -- three events missed, 12 of 15 events modeled: 80.0% fit
      • E10:y; E11:n -- four events missed, 11 of 15 events modeled: 73.3% fit
      • E10:n; E11:y -- four events missed, 11 of 15 events modeled: 73.3% fit
      • E10:n; E11:n -- five events missed, 10 of 15 events modeled: 66.7% fit
    • one with E5 as start, which then has 4 sub-variations,
      • E10:y; E11:y -- four events missed, 11 of 15 events modeled: 73.3% fit
      • E10:y; E11:n -- five events missed, 10 of 15 events modeled: 66.7% fit
      • E10:n; E11:y -- five events missed, 10 of 15 events modeled: 66.7% fit
      • E10:n; E11:n -- six events missed, 9 of 15 events modeled: 60.0% fit
Now because the model is biased to having 15 events all the errors are to the side of missed events with no inserted events ... except for invalid transitions ...
On the other hand, if you start the pattern at E3 and delete E11 and E12, for 11 fit points ... or start at E4 with 10 fit points:
Case # events 15E error 15E error^2 11E error 11E error^2 10E error 10E error^2
1 15 +0 0 +4 16 +5 25
2 14 -1 1 +3 9 +4 16
3 14 -1 1 +3 9 +4 16
4 13 -2 4 +2 4 +3 9
5 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
6 9 -6 36 -2 4 -1 1
7 9 -6 36 -2 4 -1 1
8 8 -7 49 -3 9 -2 4
9 13 -2 4 +2 4 +3 9
10 12 -3 9 +1 1 +2 4
11 12 -3 9 +1 1 +2 4
12 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
13 8 -7 49 -3 9 -2 4
14 7 -8 64 -4 16 -3 9
15 7 -8 64 -4 16 -3 9
16 6 -9 81 -5 25 -4 16
17 12 -3 9 +1 1 +2 4
18 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
19 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
20 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
21 11 -4 16 0 0 +1 1
22 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
23 10 -5 25 -1 1 0 0
24 9 -6 36 -2 4 -1 1
sum -108 616 -12 136 +12 136
average -4.50 -0.50 0.50
Erms +/-5.07 +/-2.38 +/-2.38
So both the 10 event model and the 11 event model have higher predictive value than the 15 event model, and the 10 event model has fewer parts, so it is the better model.
These two single pattern models probably account for a good proportion of your multi-pattern model.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : changed "sigma" to Erms

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dubreuil, posted 04-24-2015 1:59 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 11:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 244 of 393 (756709)
04-25-2015 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by RAZD
04-24-2015 9:17 PM


Re: another approach ...
RAZD writes:
The problem with having 24 optional patterns is that it is difficult to use for predictions -- you would have 24 different predictions ... which each would need to be tested.
There are only 4 real different predictions. The sub-variations can't be chosen arbitrary. Only in this cases are more than one sub-variation possible:
E4-E8:
M4 appears at E3. M4 is part of E4 and E9, but not part of E3. This has never happened.
E10/E11:
Sometimes E10 OR E11 can be triggered. If so, then a next occurrence (for example: *P.Ri, P.Da+ or *P.Tr) will remove the possibility to choose in the most cases. An additional choice exists almost never.
In all other cases there are no optional sub-variations. Every row of appearances has only 4 variations it can fit with. There is almost no arbitrariness beyond this. For example the 9 examples in Appendix B that didn't fit, there were always only one sub-variation possible. There is for example no possibility to not skip E4-E8, if P.LF appears at E3. There are only 4 possible variations for every row of appearances. A fifth possible variation occurs almost never.
RAZD writes:
So both the 10 event model and the 11 event model have higher predictive value than the 15 event model, and the 10 event model has fewer parts, so it is the better model.
Yes, you have accounted 616 errors for your 15 event model and 136 errors for your 10 event model and 11 event model. Therefore your 10 event model and 11 event model have higher predictive value than your 15 event model. For the multi-pattern model there were 3 errors accounted, therefore the multi-pattern model has a higher predictive value then your 10 event model and 11 event model.
RAZD writes:
The problem with having 24 4 optional patterns is that it is difficult to use for predictions -- you would have 24 4 different predictions ... which each would need to be tested.
This was done in appendix B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2015 9:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2015 2:05 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 245 of 393 (756710)
04-25-2015 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by NoNukes
04-24-2015 2:53 PM


NoNukes writes:
The "Proof" shows that the three persons "God", "Jesus" and "Bible" can only appear as P.Ya.
The item you claimed to be testing was the proposition that the Christian God is the intelligent designer of the ID hypothesis. Where did you test that proposition?
From page 14: "If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then a person called "God" could always appear as P.Ya. For this purpose it was looked for series that include "God" at the beginning. If God appears always as P.Ya, then this would strongly indicate the existence of a triune God as the designer of intelligent design."
If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then he could add a reference about the existence of a triune God into this design. The pattern already included the number 3 as part of P.Ya. An easy way to add a reference about the existence of a triune God into this design would be to let all persons like "God", "Jesus" and "Bible" appear as P.Ya. This was tested and verified.
NoNukes writes:
And you did not actually, "Prove" that even the proposition that you claim. What you have showed, at best, is that a particular appearance did not occur in a very few television series episodes. You have not established that such an appearance could not occur.
This was shown.
Appendix G shows that P.Bi can't appear as: P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA. Any of these persons as P.Bi would break the pattern.
Appendix H shows that P.Je can't appear as: P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA. Any of these persons as P.Je would break the pattern.
Appendix I shows that P.Go can't appear as: P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA. Any of these persons as P.Go would break the pattern.
Appendix D shows that P.Bi can appear as P.Ya.
Appendix E shows that P.Je and P.Go can appear as P.Ya.
Appendix E shows that the number 3 is a part of a person at all and that the number 3 can't be part of P.Al, P.BeC, P.BW, P.Da, P.En, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA. Any of these persons would break the pattern.
Appendix A and E shows that the number 3 can be part of P.Ya.
It was not shown that an other appearance than P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya could never ever occur. Because of this there is a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3.
NoNukes writes:
But more importantly, the fact remains that the writers do not insert events randomly, and they are not, in fact attempting and failing to generate random events. They are trying to tell a story that makes some sense.
I already answered this in the last comment. A coincidental contribution would preclude any nontrivial pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7 because of 1.->2.->3.->4.. I suggest you answer first the four questions in [Msg=239] with for example "Yes, No, No, No" or "Yes, Yes, Yes, No" or 4 times Yes. This will simplify the discussion.
NoNukes writes:
In short, you are nowhere near making a convincing argument that you are not simply drawing your bull's eyes around whatever your shooting happens to hit. And every time you force an element or provide rules that allow alternatives, all you are doing is force fitting data because the pattern did not work without the alternatives.
The pattern and the rules were completely outlined before the test with the result P.Go=P.Je=P.Bi=P.Ya was done.
@Cat Sci: Your comment will be ignored. It contains:
1. expletives: bullshit, pissed
2. sarcasm: "that pissed the Captain off gets chastised. That actually makes perfect sense."
You can keep discussing with other persons here, but I will not respond to your comment until all expletives and all sarcasm were removed. If you did so, post an other comment that you have removed the expletives and the sarcasm and that you now want to have an answer to your comment.
This is done as outlined in [Msg=231] about the rules I observe for myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by NoNukes, posted 04-24-2015 2:53 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2015 12:07 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 249 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 3:28 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 393 (756712)
04-25-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dubreuil
04-25-2015 11:31 AM


@Cat Sci: Your comment will be ignored. It contains:
1. expletives: bullshit, pissed
2. sarcasm: "that pissed the Captain off gets chastised. That actually makes perfect sense."
You can keep discussing with other persons here, but I will not respond to your comment until all expletives and all sarcasm were removed.
Awe, don't act like such a scared pussy. It reveals how little confidence you actually have in your paper. If you believed that your paper had merit, you wouldn't be hiding behind all the things that you are.
And I ain't removing shit. But its okay, I'll just keep pointing out all the retarded errors you are making. You don't have to reply. I already defeated your stupid paper, the rest of this is just details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 11:31 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 247 of 393 (756713)
04-25-2015 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by RAZD
04-24-2015 5:02 PM


You could always try ant frass, which can be quite a phenomenal product.
You sure it ain't a pheromonal product?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2015 5:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 248 of 393 (756714)
04-25-2015 12:16 PM


Moderator On Duty
I'm still here. Please keep discussion within reasonable limits.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 249 of 393 (756723)
04-25-2015 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dubreuil
04-25-2015 11:31 AM


NoNukes writes:
The item you claimed to be testing was the proposition that the Christian God is the intelligent designer of the ID hypothesis. Where did you test that proposition?
Dubreuil writes:
From page 14: "If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then a person called "God" could always appear as P.Ya. For this purpose it was looked for series that include "God" at the beginning. If God appears always as P.Ya, then this would strongly indicate the existence of a triune God as the designer of intelligent design.
Do you honestly not see the huge logic error here?
Here is the form of your argument.
If A then B must be true.
B (God always appears as P.Ya) is true, therefore I have proven A.
Your argument which I have reproduced in skeleton from above, is a classic example of 'Affirming the consequent' is a well known example of bad argument.
quote:
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Logical Form:
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Example #1:
If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend.
Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.
Explanation: I could have had more money to spend simply because I gave up crack-cocaine, prostitute solicitation, and baby-seal-clubbing expeditions.
As a second point, you have not even reached the point of proving B because only a very few episodes even provide an opportunity to assess B.
Thirdly, your statement "If A then B" or "If there is a triune God as designer that wants to be known, then a person called "God" could always appear as P.Ya." Is a bunch of wishy washy claptrap. And what if we replace the A portion with just about anything else? The example resulting statement, "If my goldfish were the Queen of England, the a person called 'God' could always appear as P.Ya.," is also "proven" according to your logic.
Now do you see the issue with your 'proof' and your 'testing'. It's totally bogus, and no amount of data can save that.
Finally, your messages would be less confusing if you addressed Cat Sci elsewhere. I am pretty sure that I have not used any profanity in my sarcastic messages.
Edited by NoNukes, : Expansion of argument by providing another counter example.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 11:31 AM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 5:03 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 250 of 393 (756725)
04-25-2015 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dubreuil
04-04-2015 5:51 AM


That sounds like a good plan!
Dubrevil writes:
Discontinuing Research about ID
I have only read about 10 posts in this thread, but my inescapable conclusion is that you indeed should discontinue research about ID.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dubreuil, posted 04-04-2015 5:51 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 251 of 393 (756726)
04-25-2015 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by New Cat's Eye
04-25-2015 12:07 PM


Cat Sci writes:
Awe, don't act like such a scared pussy. It reveals how little confidence you actually have in your paper. If you believed that your paper had merit, you wouldn't be hiding behind all the things that you are.
And I ain't removing shit. But its okay, I'll just keep pointing out all the retarded errors you are making. You don't have to reply. I already defeated your stupid paper, the rest of this is just details.
You are herewith added to the same list with "Coyote" and "Dr Adequate" in [Msg=231]. You have ignored three times in a row what I asked for about a discussion in [Msg=231]:
Your [Msg=236] contained:
1. sarcasm
Your [Msg=241] contained:
1. expletives: bullshit, pissed
2. sarcasm: "that pissed the Captain off gets chastised. That actually makes perfect sense."
Your [Msg=246] contained:
1. expletives: shit
2. insults: scared pussy, stupid paper
You can keep discussing with other persons here, but I will never respond to your comments again.
If one PhD would offend an other PhD with "scared pussy", then both would never talk with each other again. Discussions can't work like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-25-2015 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-26-2015 11:42 AM Dubreuil has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 252 of 393 (756727)
04-25-2015 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by NoNukes
04-25-2015 3:28 PM


NoNukes writes:
If A then B must be true.
B (God always appears as P.Ya) is true, therefore I have proven A.
It is:
If A then B must be true.
If B (God always appears as P.Ya) is true, then A could be true.
If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend, therefore the taxes could have been lowered.
Yes, it would be normally somehow wishy washy. But in this case alternatives are missing. For example, if your goldfish would be the Queen of England, then your goldfish would neither have the inclination nor the possibility to create a pattern that includes a reference about a triune God. With the argument about the four questions and the low residual uncertainty it would require for example something godlike to create it. You should answer the four questions, if you want to discuss about this part. Something godlike could also be a godlike alien or a natural force or something else. But if a godlike alien creates patterns, then you would not expect it to camouflage it by adding a reference about a triune God. There is also the theory of ID, which actually states that a triune God creates information. You are right that B (God always appears as P.Ya) doesn't proof A (there is a triune God as designer). It was only stated: "if God appears always as P.Ya, then this would strongly indicate the existence of a triune God as the designer of intelligent design."
But I agree that any godlike alien or a godlike goldfish could have also created this reference about a triune God.
NoNukes writes:
As a second point, you have not even reached the point of proving B because only a very few episodes even provide an opportunity to assess B.
You are right that a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is not a proof.
For Example:
5 Sigma What's That? - Scientific American Blog Network
High-energy physics requires even lower p-values to announce evidence or discoveries. The threshold for evidence of a particle, corresponds to p=0.003, and the standard for discovery is p=0.0000003.
A residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 is not a proof, in particle physics it is only called "evidence". There were only a few opportunities to assess B (God always appears as P.Ya), but it happened every time for this few episodes. More opportunities to assess B would be necessary to gather a more accurate result.
NoNukes writes:
Finally, your messages would be less confusing if you addressed Cat Sci elsewhere. I am pretty sure that I have not used any profanity in my sarcastic messages.
I will keep that in mind. I apologise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 3:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by NoNukes, posted 04-25-2015 8:51 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2015 3:55 AM Dubreuil has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 253 of 393 (756731)
04-25-2015 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dubreuil
04-25-2015 5:03 PM


If A then B must be true.
If B (God always appears as P.Ya) is true, then A could be true.
Two points. First, logically speaking, premise A 'could' have been true even without the argument. So concluding that A could be true using a bad argument accomplishes nothing. What's more using data to show B does not even improve the probability that A is true. And as I've said before, you cannot even establish B to anyone's satisfaction other than your own.
Secondly, your argument actually is not even If A then B. Your argument is if A then maybe B could be true. (If there is a Triune god, and if he wanted to be recognized then he could do B is what you actually claimed)
"If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend, therefore the taxes could have been lowered."
At least in the case of the example above, the first premise If A then B is reasonable logical and in accordance with human experience. In contrast, your first premise is true only because you've made it so wishy washy so as to include the possibility that B both does and does not not follow from A.
Again, these are flaws that your experiment simply does not address. No amount of data fixes a bad argument.
And as for your argument that there are no alternatives. That argument is nonsense. Your probability arguments are flawed for reasons well covered by everyone here. And you haven't ruled out supernatural causes completely unrelated to the Christian God or ordinary human agency.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 5:03 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 254 of 393 (756738)
04-26-2015 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dubreuil
04-25-2015 5:03 PM


But if a godlike alien creates patterns, then you would not expect it to camouflage it by adding a reference about a triune God.
Interesting. So your claim is that you know what, for example, Loki or Mephistopheles might or might not do in this regard? No, I don't believe you can describe the thought process of every unspecified alien being of unlimited power.
My claim, yet to be refuted or even addressed by you is that simply by trying to write a good story, and sticking to well accepted, and well worn conventions, human actions is sufficient to explain the relationships you observed regarding P.Ya. (Well that and your flexible rules about what constitutes an appearance). I suspect that stories that violate your observation would not pass the smell test of being acceptable stories for a largely Christian audience.
When I put you to this question, you start calculating random probabilities. But random assembling of elements make an incoherent story. And bad incoherent stories ought to be screened out or modified before being presented on TV. Surely you see the parallel between your argument here and the typical ID arguments regarding evolution.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dubreuil, posted 04-25-2015 5:03 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2015 8:21 AM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 257 by Dubreuil, posted 04-26-2015 11:53 AM NoNukes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 255 of 393 (756739)
04-26-2015 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by NoNukes
04-26-2015 3:55 AM


feedback loop
My claim, yet to be refuted or even addressed by you is that simply by trying to write a good story, and sticking to well accepted, and well worn conventions, human actions is sufficient to explain the relationships you observed regarding P.Ya. (Well that and your flexible rules about what constitutes an appearance). I suspect that stories that violate your observation would not pass the smell test of being acceptable stories for a largely Christian audience.
Indeed, the feedback from the audience on what are good episodes goes into editors trying to repeat those successful episodes, and the more they can do that then the more successful the series will be, leading to more seasons ...
It's a feedback loop, much like evolution: variation followed by selection followed by another round of variation followed by selection etc etc etc
So no one person need design the "pattern" rather it can easily be an emergent property of the whole process, and author, editor, producer, actor, station, audience all function as an ber entity to cause the "pattern" ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2015 3:55 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Dubreuil, posted 04-26-2015 11:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024